Talk:Kamala Harris/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (5)

Kamala Harris is not the Vice President elect! The media does not elect the VP the people do. None of the vote counts have been certified as well. When the vote counts have been certified and presented to Congress for approval, she will then the the Vice President elect. But not until then. 2603:8081:3803:4227:AC5F:7E3B:B39E:C657 (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read similar discussions above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (4)

Change is the current vice president elect to a projected vice president elect, as well as fix the section where it states biden and her have defeated trump in the election, as there have still been 0 states to confirm any electoral votes. 2601:243:F80:5650:2567:391A:281D:5AF9 (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal. Almost all reliable sources say Biden/Harris won. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (2)

The fact that Kamala Harris, and Biden have won the presidency is NOT true. May or may not be later. But to lie and mislead the public is discraceful and shows no regard for Wikipedia and what it stands for. Remove or state true facts. There is a fair share of opinion facts. Look into it. 2602:30A:C0AC:5370:4C41:1ED5:3C8D:B790 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and they almost all state she won. Wikipedia does not necessarily state what is official or legal, or wait for formalities to occur. If you disagree with what the reliable sources say, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (10)

She is not the vice-president elect. Please change it. 2600:8804:8400:2D0:3995:F4D9:832B:61A7 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The overwhelming preponderance of WP:RS report that she is the vice-president elect. NedFausa (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (5)

Change elected Vice President to "running for vice president". She has not been elected. News outlets can predict but cannot select a candidate to be the next VP. 67.233.124.137 (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and almost all of them say Biden/Harris was elected. Wikipedia does not wait for formalities to occur or summarize what is official or legal. If you disagree with what the reliable sources say, you will need to take that up with them. Good luck with that. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

Kamala Harris is Jamaican-American not African American. Check her dad’s page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Harris 2607:FCC8:BAC2:D500:E162:4EBC:177A:1DD7 (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What matters is how Senator Harris identifies herself; please offer sources where she identifies herself as Jamaican-American. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The ignorance of so many Americans continues to astound and depress me. Jamaicans have dark skin for exactly the same reason African Americans have dark skin. They have ancestors from Africa, who were brought there as slaves. It is completely logical for a person with such ancestry who now lives in the USA to be called African American. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

African American in some definitions refers to people whose ancestors were brought from Africa to the colonies that would become the United States. However, other people of African descent who moved or whose ancestors moved to the U.S. are generally referred to as African American as well. In all cases we accept the description provided in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

Remove the statement that she’s an Africa American. She is not. Check other Wiki pages referring to her parents. Both Jamaica and India are not in Africa. 180.216.190.217 (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

See below. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (4)

Kamala Harris is not African American, she is Jamaican-American 67.189.193.13 (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be fixed. See the comment I made just before this one. -- Valjean (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The ignorance of so many Americans continues to astound and depress me. Jamaicans have dark skin for exactly the same reason African Americans have dark skin. They have ancestors from Africa, who who brought there as slaves. It is completely logical for a person with such ancestry who now lives in the USA to be described as African American. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Please use the term "Vicepresident Elected" taking into account time and legal sources. By this current time, the electoral power of the US HAD NOT claimed any elected President/Vicepresident as of Nov 11,2020. This depiction of information is inaccurate and with serious repercussions on people. So, for the time being, this title MUST be removed asap. 190.53.46.154 (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please read the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please reinstate Daniel Larson in Kamala Harris' bio

Daniel Larson was accused of throwing a knife under a car, and because he had a couple of burglary convictions on his record already he got sentenced to 28 years to life. After 10 years in prison (simply for being accused of having a knife!), the Innocence Project found witnesses that say that someone else had the knife, and judges throw out the conviction. But then Kamala Harris blocked his release, arguing that he should still serve 28 years to life because he didn't file his petition in time. So his release is delayed for years while his lawyers wrangle with Harris.

https://californiainnocenceproject.org/read-their-stories/daniel-larsen/

This is extremely relevant to the VP-elect's bio .

Comment, so this will archive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (3)

Any reference to Kamala Harris as "African American" should be changed to "Black." The page states her father is from Jamaica (and he is a native, as indicated on his own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Harris), which makes her Jamaican (Black) and Indian (South Asian American), not African American. Jamaica is not in Africa.

For example, the third paragraph says, "She defeated Loretta Sanchez in the 2016 Senate election to become the second African American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate." The fourth paragraph ends with the sentence: "She will also be the first African American, the first Asian American, and the first female vice president in U.S. history." Both should say Black rather than African American.

In total, there are 10 uses of African American on the page and the majority should be changed to Black. 2600:8805:D100:B75:D96A:264F:7361:AB4D (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources --RegentsPark (comment) 20:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As the anonymous user points out, there are plentiful references to reliable sources on Donald Harris's Jamaican heritage on his Wikipedia article.

Here is a YouTube video of Harris self-identifying as "Black": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh_wQUjeaTk&t=785

Here is the AP deferring the US Census, which says "Black" and "African American" are synonyms and include Jamaicans: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9220904531

Here is Kamala Harris's senate website identifying herself as "African-American" and "South Asian-American": https://web.archive.org/web/20201031100348/https://www.harris.senate.gov/about

--April Arcus (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

So, reliable sources use both Black as well as African American. Since that's pretty much par for the course for African Americans, we don't need to change anything. Note that much of what the IP writes is WP:OR anyway. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

All African Americans are considered "black" in America, but not all blacks are African American. She has identified with African Americans and other blacks in America, but that does not make her an African American. Get it right. She should be described as a black, or even better, a woman of color. In countries like the USA and South Africa (and many European countries), this has always included Jamaicans and people of Indian origin. Just because they have suffered the same indignities and discrimination as African Americans does not make them African Americans, but people of color. Just because some RS are careless with their terminology doesn't mean we should ape them. Also, identifying with African Americans does not make one an African American. -- Valjean (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say and does not draw its own conclusions (which is what you're doing). --RegentsPark (comment) 18:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Rescue of Wanda Kagan

I added a paragraph to Kamala Harris#Early life and education (1964–1990) section based on this interview with Wanda Kagan, who said Kamala was her best friend in high school. She describes trusting Kamala enough to tell her that her step-father had been molesting her, and that Kamala's mother learned this she insisted Kagan move in with them.

Kagan said Kamala told her that this early event had a powerful influence on her - which is why I thought it merited coverage in the article.

There are editing restrictions on this article. So, I am going to ask that anyone who feels that paragraph does not belong where i put it: (1) explain why they think it doesn't belong; (2) consider pasting it into whatever section they think it does belong.

FWIW, there is a discussion, at Talk:Kamala_Harris/Archive_1#Early_life_section about another aspect of Harris's friendship with Kagan. Geo Swan (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (9)

She is currently the vice president of America and the first woman vice president. she is an indian american, who has indian origins in tamil nadu. 116.68.97.47 (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

She is not yet vice president, and the article already mentions her heritage. If you have a specific change to offer, please do so. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (6)

Kamala Harris Attended Berkwood Hedge School in Berkeley before transferring later to Thousand Oaks Elementary School. Berkwood Hedge School was the 1st, founded in 1946, was the first racially integrated school in Berkeley.

https://www.berkwood.org/

https://www.berkwood.org/apps/pages/aboutus/history 2600:1700:9753:8080:BD8E:FD2F:2D40:701E (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any reliable source that says Harris attended Berkwood. She writes in her book about her affection for a first grade teacher at Thousand Oaks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Obviously Harris would not want to say that she went to a private school which now has tuition of $25,000 per year. As we found out in earlier discussions, her recollections of childhood are not entirely reliable. But we'll have to wait for reliable secondary sources before we can state anything with certainty about her school years. TFD (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the Berkwood Hedge School facebook page (6 Oct 2020), Harris attended Kindgergarten at what was then the Berkwood School. ARD Television is going there to interview Harris' friend, Stacey Johnson-Batiste. CNN interviewed Johnson-Batiste, although they didn't mention the school.[1] Anyway, we will have to wait for reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

Please change reference from female to woman 73.206.223.123 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to be confused with James "Kamala" Harris ...

Due to similar names, this article should refer confused readers to the wikipedia page of the wrestler james "kamala" harris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_(wrestler)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

"22 years her senior" should be changed to "30 years her senior"

According to his page, he was born in 1934, she was born in 1964. 74.132.33.250 (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Where in the article is this? ValarianB (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Jpgordon resolved the issues with this edit. I agree it's inappropriate to list the age gap as who cares, consenting adults and all that. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Who cares isn't the policy, it's weight. Reliable sources that mention her relationship with Willie Brown typically mention that he was much older. TFD (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

"she is set to assume office on January 20, 2021" to "she is unofficially set to assume office on January 20,2021" 71.186.193.107 (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source--RegentsPark (comment) 13:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2020 (2)

As of this date and time. 11/13/2020 8:53 am EST Kamala Harris is NOT VP Elect. None of the state's elections have been certified, and the electoral college has NOT voted. You and any other media do NOT declare an election result. This is election fraud! 184.102.192.56 (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal. If you disagree with what the sources state, you will need to take that up with them. Good luck with that. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Reliable sources state that Harris is the vice president-elect. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I am unhappy with the pronunciation of her first name as presented here. The second and the third syllable are not pronounced with the same vowel, are they?

I know that they are both unstressed, but shouldn't the last vowel be near-open (ɐ) or open (ɑ) rather than just a shwa (ə)?

Iago2¹² 14:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's a video from her Twitter feed demonstrating the correct pronunciation. What I hear is a preponderance of reduced [ə] alternating with a variety of vowel qualities:

•  Girl with long brown hair (1st time): ˈkɑ.mə.lə
• Boy with short black hair: ˈkɑ.mʌ.lə
• Girl with blonde hair in braid: ˈkɑ.mɑ.lə
• Girl with medium length red hair: ˈkɑ.mə.lə
• Boy with shaved sides: ˈkɑm.lə
• Boy with short curly hair: ˈkɑ.mɛ.lə
• Girl with long brown hair (2nd time): ˈkɑ.mɑ.lə

This points most strongly to [ə] as the underlying phoneme, since (1) there's no agreement on what the full grade would be (we see [ʌ], [ɑ] and [ɛ]) and (2) it appears permissible to drop the vowel entirely, which would certainly not be the case if it had secondary stress.

--April Arcus (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

In section District Attorney of San Francisco (2004–2011), sub header Public Safety, Law Enforcement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Public_safety_2) . 3rd paragraph last line "Peace Officers" should be corrected to "Police Officers" to prevent ambiguity and confusion. Generally in the article and even within the paragraph "Police Officer" is used. The original source has the exact same line. Both terms refer to the same job of "Law Enforcement Officer" Police Officer (Merriam Webster): a member of a police force Peace Officer (Merriam Webster): a civil officer (such as a police officer) whose duty it is to preserve the public peace Buinton (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

Change Vice-president elect to Vice-president 2600:6C60:5980:1000:5CD3:3AB3:4E9D:D154 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

We will, on January 20. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (4)

Request to add "Kamala Harris was born at Oakland Kaiser hospital. The OBGYN delivering her was the first black OBGYN in Oakland, CA." Reference: https://www.ktvu.com/news/family-of-oakland-doctor-recalls-the-birth-of-kamala-harris Yodasan000 (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Gee-whiz trivia. EEng 22:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove already discussed topics?

Should we automatically remove requests that have already achieved consensus and are commented on in the FAQ? I don't know the exact policy on this entire thing but I do know that it is exhausting looking at the same exact request 50 times. Gsquaredxc (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless they're trolling or vandalism we just archive everything. The phenomenon you point out doesn't happen very often and trying to "weed out duplicates" is just going to lead to tears. EEng 07:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Writers from Oakland, California

I added a category: Writers from Oakland, California to the Kamala Harris article; Kamala Harris has written and published books. I feel the category should be restored to the article; I need ask the editor who took the category why this was taken out. I want to avoid conflict and editorial disputes since the article has sanctions in place. Thank You-RFD (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (8)

Monsieur has a reservation?

I request that you change African-American to African American as the former is reserved for descendants of African slaves brought to the Americas prior to the formation of the United States of America. The latter term can be referenced in association with any American who is black, including those with immigrant parents. 2601:205:4200:E20:89F2:90D1:F616:C502 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Who does this reserving? Where is the formal definition of that hyphen? I hope you realise that Jamaicans have dark skin for exactly the same reason African Americans have dark skin. They have ancestors from Africa, who were brought there as slaves. It is completely logical for a person with such ancestry who now lives in the USA to be called African American OR African-American. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This has been discussed to death already. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (3)

Can the category of "American prosecutors" be added? Not too big of a change, but it's a job that Harris has done in the past and is notable for having done, and I was wondering why it wasn't there previously. Josharaujo1115 (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Change: Category: Writers from Oakland, California

The category: Writers from Oakland, California should be restored to the article to the article; Kamala Harris has written several books. I am not sure why the category was removed with no reasons given. Thank You-RFD (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Significant non-European ancestry"

I removed a claim of this sort from the lede, and now it's back in a slightly different form. Given that we already specify that she is the first Black and South Asian VP, these less specific comments based on OR-ish notions of Europeanness seem both superfluous and contrary to WP:OR. Seeking consensus on this given 1RR restrictions on the article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of snipping it, as being "the third" is not noteworthy. ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Languages

What languages does she speak? English. French? Tamil? Jamaican Patois? --Error (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Harris does not speak French. She admittedly struggled at her francophone school and her mother transferred her to an anglophone school. Neither does she speak Tamil but a few words. And no evidence suggests she speaks any Jamaican Patois either. But you’re right, such available information should be added to the encyclopedia. Trillfendi (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Harris' young adult life

I find it very curious why there is such a huge omission in Harris' young adult life. What was Kamala Harris doing for income from the time she was 18 through 26?! I think it should also be pointed out that Harris found her first job in Alameda county as an assistant DA, and Alameda county was in Willie Brown's district at that time. This is important because it could very well be that Willie Brown was responsible for getting her that job - which would push her known relationship with Willie Brown back to the time she was 26, Brown 56. What did she accomplish there? What are some of her cases she tried? Why have no people come forward to tell everyone what a great job she did, a tireless worker, and what a star she was, a person deserving of higher office? There are obvious blanks in Harris' young adult life that need explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.117.57.158 (talk) 18:54, November 9, 2020 (UTC)

... it could very well be... Please no WP:OR. Find sources for what she was doing from ages 18 to 26, or don't, but don't speculate on a BLP like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are some facts. Willie Brown never represented Alameda County in the California Assembly. He represented various San Francisco districts the entire time he was an assembly member. Harris's parents were a tenured Stanford University professor and a successful research scientist. They had the financial resources to help her with her education at Howard University and UC Hastings law school. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Willie Brown represented the 18th District in CA...cities of Alameda, San Leandro, and most of Oakland in Alameda county. So, yes Brown did represent Alameda county. However, he only represented that District from 1964 to 1974. From 1974 to 1990 (the year Kamala Harris apparently found her first full-time job as an adult?)he represented the 17th District. We need to find out!...what Harris was doing from 18 to 26! Other than this on Political, "While attending law school in San Francisco, Harris lived with her sister, Maya, and helped potty-train Maya’s daughter." https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/11/kamala-harris-vp-background-bio-biden-running-mate-2020-393885

As for Harris' education, her Law school was paid by way of a grant. There is no mention of her taking any form of grant for her Howard University education. However, if she took a grant for her law school, and using her race to get it, I don't think it's much of a stretch of the imagination to assume she also likely received a grant , based on race, for her Howard University education. Why would she use her race for the second part of her educational support and refuse it for the first part? Harris needs to be forthcoming as to what she did for income from 18 through 26. And someone needs to dig a little to find out if Willie Brown got her her first job.

Legislative district lines in the U.S. are redrawn every ten years following each census. The 18th Assembly District is in Alameda County now but back then, it was in San Francisco. Willie Brown never represented any district that was not a core San Francisco district. Howard University is a historically Black college so Harris certainly did not need to "use her race" to gain admission. Why do you doubt that her prosperous academic parents gave her financial support during her college years? And why do you insist that she "needs to be forthcoming" about how she paid her college expenses? That's absurd. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, the answer is pretty easy. We can assume her parents paid her way through Howard, in the absence of other information. Her first job after graduating law school in 1990 was as a deputy DA in Alameda County. She met Willie Brown in 1994. So, basically, piss off with the insinuation; a lot of "digging" has already been done. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

This dead horse requests that you stop beating it. Gsquaredxc (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The media does not decide who is Vice-President Elect. The United States Court does. Thank you! 2601:584:300:95F0:C571:B650:5FF2:B7D7 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC) By this stage of every other election in my longish lifetime, the obvious loser had conceded defeat, making things much easier for everyone. The result is obvious and has been documented by ALL reliable sources. Wikipedia won't change it's approach of reporting what reliable sources say just because the incumbent won't do the right thing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Who, by any stretch if the imagination, thinks it's the judiciary that decides elections? I am lividly baffled incredulous by this repeated lie. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC) EvergreenFir, that Supreme court decision might have confused a few people. :D —valereee (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC) It is a citable fact that the subject is the Vice President Elect. And the courts in the United States have little to no role in the determination of who is the Vice President Elect. Rklahn (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC) The media is not deciding anything- they are reporting on results. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal. If you disagree with what reliable sources state, you will need to take that up with them. Good luck with that. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Harris Dated Montel Williams ...also Adultery

Closing this discussion with the request that Concord19 read WP:OR--RegentsPark (comment) 22:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article on Montel Williams says this about their relationship: In 2001, Williams briefly dated Kamala Harris. Addressing the relationship, Williams said, "Kamala Harris and I briefly dated about 20 years ago when we were both single. So what? I have great respect for Sen. Harris." This fact needs to be added here, and then these two articles will have proper symmetry. --Concord19 (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Briefly dated"? Out to dinner once or twice? Or much more? That phrase tells the reader absolutely nothing. Do you really think that trivial gossip belongs in a biography in an encyclopedia? "Proper symmetry" is not our goal, and if it was, the gossip can be removed from the other article. No, irrelevant gossip does not belong in this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC) No one is recommending that her complete dating history be added to the article. But when she was romantically involved with certain high profile people, then these do become salient facts. Notice how her having dated Willie Brown is already stated in the "Early career" section. These facts may seem like "trivial gossip" to you which "tells the reader absolutely nothing", but there are readers who understand how networking can be a vital aspect to a person's career. Here's what Willie Brown was quoted as saying: “Willie Brown: Sure, I dated Kamala Harris. So what?” https://heavy.com/news/2020/08/kamala-harris-boyfriends-dating-history-dated/ That source explains that Brown was married while they were dating. Kamala Harris having been in this long-term adulterous affair is certainly NOT trivia. It is a crime in many places. This too is a fact which needs to be added to the Personal Life section. These are facts which speak to her character, especially with her being a public official who is entrusted to enforce the laws of the state. Her running mate is Catholic, her husband is Jewish, and her own religious upbringing includes the Baptist faith. Adultery is covered in the Ten Commandments, which pertains to all three. High profile people she dated is not at all "trivial gossip." Also, her greater than 30-year age difference with the married SF Mayor is also a significant fact which needs to be added to the section. Just because you see something to be irrelevant does not mean that it does not belong here. This Personal Life section needs to be greatly improved. --Concord19 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Facts: Brown and his wife separated in 1981. Brown first met Harris in 1994, while he was Assembly Speaker. Their affair ended in 1995, before Brown became Mayor. The only thing even vaguely questionable was Brown's appointments of Harris during their relationship. The relationship itself is a nothingburger; your religious scruples are noted but are not relevant to Harris's biography. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC) This has nothing to do with what you nor I might happen to see as "questionable". This is about presenting verifiable facts which improve the article. This has nothing to do with whatever my own particular religious scruples may or may not be. The fact I highlighted was the law according to Judeo-Christian ethics, and the legal ramifications for committing adultery in the United States. "Facts: Brown and his wife separated in 1981." The relationship started with Brown in his 60s and Harris in her 20s. Legally, separation does not negate the fact of adultery. And what happened is nowhere near as simple as you present. It ended between the time of Brown winning election as Mayor of SF and him being sworn into office. And who did Brown have with him by his side at that inauguration ceremony? His wife. Here is the video of that event: 1996 Willie L. Brown, Jr. Inauguration, takes oath with his wife Blanche at his side (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SMLiRJwjls&t=3m45s) And here is a reference which explains that "Brown... took the oath of office...[next to] his wife, Blanche, who held the family Bible." https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-01-09-mn-22626-story.html So we see in this video that he takes his oath with his hand on this family Bible which his wife is holding, and that is the book which prohibits adultery. Skip back to the 3m8s point and we see Brown speaking with the Potus at this key event. That was Bill Clinton, who himself had been under intense scrutiny for adultery (to eventually take down his presidency three years later). "The only thing even vaguely questionable was Brown's appointments of Harris during their relationship. The relationship itself is a nothingburger" The position of the religion of Harris, Willie Brown, his wife Blanche, Harris's husband, and Harris's running mate ALL disagree with your assessment of the consequences of this adulterous relationship. And Brown's own action in ending it, then having his wife participate in this high profile role likewise point to Brown's awareness of the significance of his Marriage Oath while taking this Mayoral Oath. Again, it is our job to present relevant facts. If none of the people involved belonged to religious organizations which prohibit adultery, and the law in the State of California had no consequence for committing adultery, then I would agree with you. Adultery is irrelevant. But it is NOT. It matters to everyone concerned. To the organizations they belong to. And therefore these are facts which belong in this article. As for those two appointments given by Brown, readers can decide whether Kamala Harris "slept her way to the top" with this man in his 60s. Or perhaps there is a reliable source which more succinctly encapsulates this intertwining she chose regarding her romantic relationship and the launching of her meteoric rise in her professional career. Another important reason for inclusion here is because Willie Brown is also the person who helped launch the political careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dianne Feinstein, likewise from San Francisco.(ref) Harris has worked closely with both, and is expected to continue this in her role as VP. --Concord19 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC) This is some nonsense. Nobody gets charged with the "crime" of adultery in the U.S., Much like you won't get charged if you honk your horn near a sandwich shop after 9pm in Arkansas. Kamala, Montel, and the Browns are consenting adults. Nothing to see here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC) This dating history stuff seems WP:UNDUE. Also, heavy.com is not RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC) "Kamala, Montel, and the Browns are consenting adults." - Muboshgu More specifically... Kamala Harris & Willie Brown are consenting adulterers. This is not sandwich shop honking. There is no commandment from the Bible which states "Thou Shall Not Honk". Here is a quote from our article on her personal life: "Harris is a multiracial American and a Baptist, holding membership of the Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, a congregation of the American Baptist Churches USA. There is no Baptist who maintains that Adultery is perfectly ok. Because that goes against what it means to be Baptist. Likewise, goes against what it means to be Jewish. What it means to be Catholic. "Nothing to see here." - Muboshgu That is not an accurate reflection of the facts which were notable at the time of her running for SF DA. One sample news article: Kamala's Karma: She's smart, she's experienced, and she's running for DA. But she's Willie Brown's ex-girlfriend, and her opponents are trying to crucify her for that. (sfweekly.com, pub 9/24/2003) It may not be important to you. But this issue was so important to people in SF in 2003 that this entire article was dedicated to her "Karma". The position you are advocating amounts to revisionist history. Our duty as editors is to present accurate, pertinet facts. This was a MAJOR thing in SF at the time. And you say we should say nothing here. Quotes from that article: "The charge that she is Brown's puppet..." "If she can just get out from under this damn Willie Brown thing." "She acknowledges that Brown is an “albatross hanging around my neck”..." She herself characterizes the legacy of their relationship with these extremely strong words, and the position taken by several here is that mentioning this would be Undue. This is far more than "dating history stuff". It is an intimate relationship which was key in launching her career. It was major news back then. And these facts were critically highlighted decades later with her in the national spotlight of the current 2020 campaign. That "albatross" never went away. Here is a 2019 article which focuses on the resurgence of these facts: Kamala Harris Is Already Being Called a Prostitute (Jan 29, 2019) Quote: "The people horrified by Kamala Harris’ actions are not, I do not think, largely horrified by extramarital affairs. If they were, they could not tolerate a President who cheated on his pregnant wife. But then, that would mean holding men to the same standards as women." This actually speaks to the standard which is proper to apply here on Wikipedia. If Trump's extramarital affairs are noteworthy, then this one which Harris chose to enter needs to be mentioned here as well. For example, there is an extremely long section which details this adulterous relationship: Karen McDougal#Affair with Donald Trump (That's on top of info presented in the Trump article.) And the position being taken here is that Kamala Harris’s extramarital affair is not worthy of so much as being mentioned a single time here, not even in passing. You all are failing in our clear duty to present salient facts. If people here are uncomfortable with the word "adultery", in spite of it legally being exactly what she did, then as a minimum, this article needs to use the watered down euphemism "extramarital affair". To fail to do either constitutes a WHITEWASHING of this article. Hide key facts. With this particular fact having been one which helped launch her career. --Concord19 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020 (2)

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

---

Mrs. Harris is the daughter of a Jamaican and an Indian, this page incorrectly lists her as African-American. 174.232.9.80 (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Pleas see the FAQs at the top of this page. But to elaborate a little - People from Jamaica with dark skin have it for exactly the same reason as those you would presumably call African American. Their ancestors were brought there as slaves from Africa. She is now American. African-American is perfectly accurate. HiLo48 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 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 11 November 2020 (3)

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.

---

Change: Harris will be also the first Asian-American and the first African-American vice president.

To: Harris will be also the first Asian-American vice president.

Per numerous sources she is not AFRICAN AMERICAN. Her mother is Indian and her father is Jamaican.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-harris-did-not-switch-raci-idUSKBN25H1RC

To misstate this fact is offensive to African Americans. FactsRFun2020 (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

More laziness... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 11 November 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.

• Muboshgu, is there a script for that? It would be so nice to be able to just click a 'read the faq' button and both answer/close a new post lol —valereee (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Valereee, not that I know of. Maybe I should set up a keyboard macro to save myself some keystrokes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's how I reply to those already-asked-and-answered-a-million-times edits :

I understand your point of view, but we are following Reliable Sources and standard Wikipedia practice. See “Frequently asked questions (FAQ)” at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

But Melanie! I want a BUTTON. ;) —valereee (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I hear you. You'll have to talk to someone more tech-savvy than me about that. Copy-paste is about my speed. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I asked at WP:REQUESTSCRIPT. We'll see if they laugh at me or not. :) —valereee (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW nice job explaining more clearly at the FAQ! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The story is that a prominent mathematician, a century or so back (I think it may have been Julian Coolidge) received so many "proofs" of squaring the circle, trisecting the angle, and similar impossibilities that he kept preprinted forms in his desk:

Dear Mr./Miss/Mrs. ____________:

I have reviewed your communication of ____________ regarding ____________. The ___^th line on page ___ contains an error.

Yours most sincerely,
Prof. Julian Coolidge

EEng 20:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice President-elect

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 is not (yet) Vice President-elect. She could more properly be referred to as "presumed Vice President-elect". A president and vice president are elected as such by the Electoral College and confirmed by Congress. At that point, they become President-elect and Vice President-elect pending the formality of inauguration. I accept the article is using the term in the common media and political senses, but this is an encyclopaedia and in the constitutional sense it is not correct and for both this and the Biden article a more careful wording is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.251.35.95 (talk • contribs)

• Many reliable sources call her "vice-president elect". I think we have better things to do than this. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not a reply to the point made! We all have "better things to do" - that's a purely relative point and quite irrelevant. The issue here is that this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and we should be concerned with constitutional precision. The fact is - and this is an absolute fact - she is not vice president-elect, nor is Mr Biden president-elect. I accept they could be referred to as "presumed" in these respective roles, on the basis that it seems politically likely they will be elected. But at this point in time, they have NOT been elected! Precision matters enormously. Once you allow slovenly habits to creep in and let one little detail or nuance slip, it becomes a habit across the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.251.35.95 (talk • contribs)

This is a risk most active editors are clearly willing to take. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"We should be concerned with constitutional precision"--no, we should not. Perhaps you think "we" are all Americans here who think of nothing else but the precious constitution; we are not. We are concerned with what reliable sources say, because that is how we work. And if I didn't reply precisely to your point, it's because your point to me is moot. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong and your reply is, once again, completely off-point and does not address what I have said. My point is not moot. My point is absolute fact. Joe Biden is NOT president-elect and Kamala Harris is NOT vice president-elect - at least, not yet. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a media or political site, therefore precision does matter on this site. Your "reliable sources" are just lazy journalists and academics who are using the terminology loosely. The generic term [X]-elect has a clear ordinary meaning. It refers to somebody who has been elected to a position but not yet taken it up. In this case, the president and vice president are elected by an Electoral College and confirmed by Congress, which certifies the result. None of that has happened yet. The relevant state delegations that make up the College have not yet convened. That means neither Biden nor Harris have been elected. We have had a ballot, that is all. These distinctions matter because the constitutional process involving an Electoral College rather than direct election guards against tyranny, fraud and mob rule. You are ignoring these checks on the process and offering up inaccurate statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.251.35.95 (talk • contribs)

You're not getting any traction here because Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. You are arguing for a violation of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IP, you're the one who is wrong. President-elect of the United States is not a formal title defined by the Constitution nor any law. -elect is simply an informal term of convenience which refers to the winner of an election (any election) who has yet to be formally installed in the office they were elected to. If reliable sources say that Joe Biden is the president-elect (and Harris vice president-elect by extension) then that is what we say too. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a statute, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. A government employee designates the president-elect. In 2016, that happened well before the electoral college made it official. For our purposes though, I agree with @Binksternet:, we go by reliable secondary sources, not our own interpretation of law. Knope7 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to depart from reliable sources here. This feels partisan, and that the OP has lost their neutral point of view and should withdraw from making edits in this area. Rklahn (talk) 17:43, 16 November 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.

99% of sources say first south asian american as VP-elect

This would be the best way to represent as asian is top vast to generalise a south asian descent person as a asian american. Swtadi143 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources to suggest the broader categorization of Asian American (far more than one percent of available sources on the matter). Are you not finding them? Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok I did find it , "Asian americans in politics" wikipedia page Now I agree first south asian american does kinda sound like that someone of other asian heritage got vp first which is not correct so I agree with the first asian american characterization. Thanks for discussion!

I agree with Larry Hockett's comment above. I think it's best for that lead section to broadly mention African American and Asian American since she is the first. Specifics can be discussed in different sections. TJMSmith (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes and the specifics have already been discussed by saying "Indian tamil and afro-Jamican sentence" so Yeah It seems correct now.

Infobox, what to do with the 'succeeding' field

Howdy. At the moment, a discussion is occurring at Mike Pence, concerning removing Harris from the 'successor' field of his infobox, until she takes office. Shall we thus remove Pence from this article's infoboxes 'succeeding' field, until Harris has taken office? GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. She is the Vice President-elect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

President and Vice President are elected by the Electoral College only. In the past, there were instances in which those who won the popular vote were not elected by the electoral college. The States have not certified the popular vote count yet either. An encyclopedia should rely on authenticated sources rather than reliable sources for official positions. I can't understand why there is hurry to give projected results before official results are announced.--UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

In every previous Presidential election in my long lifetime, by this stage, the losing candidate had conceded defeat on the basis of obvious results. The fact that we have a candidate not acting normally this time round must not change what Wikipedia normally does. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

From here (the other side of the Pacific Ocean), it is widely reported that Biden is president-elect of the United States, and Harris seems to have similar status (I don't recall for certain if I have specifically heard "vice president elect" as a phrase, but probably have). I'd say that makes it entirely appropriate for Wikipedia to say she is succeeding Mike Pence as VP, and if she doesn't, either an interim VP gets inserted to replace him, or a large chunk of this article will need to be rewritten. At present, Pence does not have a successor as VP, so it shouldn't be in his infobox while he is incumbent. If the infobox described him as having been VP-elect, then Harris has become his successor in that role only. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if this will be red: WP:AUTHENTICATED... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• There's a very related and much more active discussion on this at Talk:Donald Trump#"Succeeded by" field. It would be reasonable for this article (and Pence's, and Biden's) to follow the consensus there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

who is the vice president-elect of the United States. > this is incorrect as the president elect has not been declared by the judicial system

A member of the Democratic Party, she is set to assume office on January 20, 2021, alongside President-elect Joe Biden, having defeated incumbent President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence in the 2020 presidential election. > again this is incorrect as she has not defeated anyone until the judicial system has officially announced the voting results.

Harris has served as the junior United States senator from California since 2017. Being of both Indian Tamil and Afro-Jamaican ancestry, Harris is a multiracial American.[5] Harris will be the first female U.S. vice president, the first African American, the first Asian American and the first Caribbean American to hold the post in U.S. history. > again this is incorrect as she has not defeated anyone until the judicial system has officially announced the voting results. Runningdogontheplains (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @Runningdogontheplains: this has already been discussed. Just read the talk page. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, the judiciary has nothing to do with announcing election results. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request 8 November

Would you please add the following from the Associated Press today wherever it fits? I also tried the Family of Kamala Harris page but despite one heading it is really not much about her ancestors.

Harris's name is carved in stone as a 2014 donor to a temple in Thulasendrapuram, India, hometown of her maternal grandfather.

References

Too trivial for this article. Maybe for the family article too, but that can be decided at that talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The sources used in this article to state the Kamala Harris is the vice president-elect are media outlets. The media does not declare the official results of a presidential election. Congress counts the electoral votes. If you simply report what reliable sources say, then state that in the sentences. Such as, “Multiple media outlets have projected...””. 12aq11 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What is your purpose for commenting those links? 12aq11 (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

12aq11 Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and they all (or almost all) say that Biden won. Wikipedia does not necessarily state what is official or legal or wait for formalities to occur. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said, if that is so, it should be stated in the sentence. 12aq11 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020 (4)

In the Vice-President elect section...

"She will be the first female vice president, as well as the first person of color to hold the post since Charles Curtis, a Native American, who served under Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933."

Please split this run-on into 2 sentences, it reads very poorly. 205.132.171.177 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done BJackJS talk 21:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Mrs. Harris is a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. 2601:2C5:C100:9E50:4410:C38E:C541:5AC5 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That is covered in the article. Search on Alpha Kappa Alpha. —valereee (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Well! If you want to get PICKY about it! EEng 17:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2020 (3)

This page mentions Kamala's name as Kamala Iyer Harris. It is really misleading and could be an attempt to defame her to attribute to a privileged community when she represent and stand for all under privileged society. Factually, her name is doesn't contain the word iyer. It has to be corrected. Liquidcrystal92 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

She was born Kamala Iyer Harris but it was corrected two weeks later. So I think her birth name field should say Kamala Devi Harris with a note noting the different names. cookie monster (2020) 755 19:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (7)

86.4.111.174 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This should be corrected to Harris will be the first African American, the first South Asian-Jamaican American, and the first female vice president in U.S. history,[5][6][7] and thus, the highest-ranking female elected official in United States history. Harris is a multiracial American.[8]

I reckon it should be corrected to not say anything about the imprecise and unnecessarily divisive concept of race at all, but I know America can't do that yet. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris is not African American. Her father is Jamaican and not African. "African American" is an ethnicity, not a race, and as such is NOT synonymous with either "Jamaican" or "Black." Harris is the first Black American and Asian American (both legal racial categories) woman to be elected as VP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDSociologist (talk • contribs) 23:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

SDSociologist Please review the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct Ethnicity

Currently indicates she is Asian-American and African-American, yet birth parents are Indian (Asian is ok) and Jamaican (not African). Additionally, Wikipedia describes Lorraine Toussaint as Trinidadian-American. Wikipedia needs to be consistent and accurate in descriptions with respect to ethnicity. TNVOL56 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A large majority of Jamaicans, including her father, have African ancestry. Reliable sources describe her as African American, and she does as well. So too shall Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, TNVOL56! There's an FAQ on just this issue at the very top of this page. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

[sigh] We go with what she says, not each editors’ interpretation of it. African-American is a generic term but it can include black Caribbeans too. Trillfendi (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, Lorraine Toussaint was born in Trinidad, whereas Harris was born in the United States, not Jamaica. People of African heritage born in the U.S. are generally referred to as African-American, regardless of where their immediate ancestor lived. Peaceray (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi TNVOL56, as pointed out to me, a lot more detail of both Harris's parents origins are covered in the very First section of the main article in her Early life section. The lead is just a brief introduction that correctly states that she herself was indeed born both Asian-American and African-American. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, and we have discussed this many times on this talk page, race and ethnic identity are two different things. Race is a social construct, how society views you, and it has no place on these pages. Ethnicity is based on how a person identifies, their view of how they share common traits with others. Vice President Elect Harris is African American and South Asian American. Rklahn (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict identified between User:Dyaluk08 and User:Fowler&fowler re: Harris's middle name

There's an edit conflict between User:Dyaluk08 and User:Fowler&fowler over the subject of Harris's middle name that resulted in the deletion of accurate information that was supported by a citation to a reliable source (The Mercury News). I'm referring to this edit by User:Dyaluk08 on 10 November 2020 followed by this edit by User:Fowler&fowler on 11 November 2020.

I concur with User:Fowler&fowler that the lead paragraphs are too long as is, but the correct solution would have been not to delete that information but to transfer it to the "Early life and education" section or restore it to the infobox. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This comment is incorrect: "At birth, it was Kamala Iyer Harris. It was corrected two weeks later." if her middle name at birth was Iyer, then the birth record was changed, not corrected. OTOH, if it was corrected, then her middle name never was Iyer. It's no different than if they had incorrectly recorded the date of birth or the name of her parents. The fact that her original birth was wrongly recorded is not of great significance and does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Iyer is not a given name, it’s the title of a Tamil caste system, so yes, it was corrected as an evident mistake. There are even two birth records to reflect this fact. Trillfendi (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't know why it was changed, you're adding your own reasoning. The mere fact that the certificate was amended a couple of weeks later seems a tad trivial (and WP:INDISCRIMINATE).--RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the change was done so soon after her birth and at such a very early stage in her life, I agree with TFD that it is not really of notable significance and adds very little to the article. After all this article is very likely to grow during the course this politician's career. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The field "WHY IS CHANGE NECESSARY" says "To correct middle name of child."[2] That's the reason the registrar accepted. If that is correct then her middle name was never "Lyer." Nor do we know whose error it was. Maybe someone knew that as she was going into politics it would be an appropriate sounding name. TFD (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like someone has restored the information to the infobox for now. So that resolves my concern. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Harris needs to be main focus of each paragraph

In Harris vs Cow Palace gun sales, there is too little Harris and too much other politicians. I appreciate that this reflects real life. But it should be rewritten to say “Harris, along with other city officials...” or A number of city officials said blah. Harris supported them”. The latter makes her seem more peripheral, but it may be the truth. The point is, as with all politicians, she supported and opposed a lot of policies, some of which succeeded, some of which didn’t. While the article is accurate, she really needs to be the main focus, or re-written as a minor role. “Harris condemned selling guns at the Cow Palace, a measure ultimately implemented by the Management”. Leaving out a dozen other people. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't get why the Cow Palace paragraph is in the article at all. VP Elect Harris' involvement was minor, and its inclusion in this article, trivia. Rklahn (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Paragraphs where Harris herself is not the focus should be looked at with a critical eye to see if they should be included at all. There has long been a practice of adding events from her tenure as DA or AG whether she was involved or not. Some maybe included if relevant and re-written in the manner suggested above, but I suspect some of those paragraphs are just not relevant to Harris' article. Knope7 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2020 (add ref to apnews)

Add a reference for the "Biden was projected by the Associated Press as the winner" statement

Specifically, on line "Biden was projected by the Associated Press, Fox News and others on November 7, 2020 as the winner of the 2020 United States presidential election, with the highest vote share of any candidate in U.S. history."

Add reference https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-north-america-national-elections-elections-7200c2d4901d8e47f1302954685a737f after Associated Press. GeorgeSonOfJohn (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the intention of GeorgeSonOfJohn here, but the article is about Kamala Harris, not Joe Biden. The statement referred to is not backed by a citation, and should be. But this AP link is not it. We need something that discusses the fact that the Biden/Harris ticket was projected as the winner, not just a statement that Biden was. Rklahn (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn: The AP sources I can find all talk about calling the race for Biden; none mention Harris. (For instance, https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-race-calls-0b1988605f9101f4b799fc63b01e0090 doesn't mention Harris winning.) There is an article https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9 which describes Harris as VP-elect on Nov 7; is that better? GeorgeSonOfJohn (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GeorgeSonOfJohn: There is kinda a stunning lack of articles at AP on this. I am now not sure if I favor striking the paragraph, or using this with a slightly reworded paragraph: https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-first-black-woman-vp-asian-12ddda402cab20c5aafbd7737ac619c8 It does say "The 56-year-old California senator, also the first person of South Asian descent elected to the vice presidency [...]" but says nothing about when the election was called. Maybe an editor with more experience than I can provide a suggestion. Rklahn (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• See Synecdoche. EEng 05:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2020: Fox News projection citation

In the paragraph "Biden was projected by the Associated Press, Fox News and others on November 7, 2020 as the winner of the 2020 United States presidential election, with the highest vote share of any candidate in U.S. history. Harris thus became the Vice President-elect of the United States."

Add https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-wins-presidency-trump-fox-news-projects as a reference after Fox News.

So change it to:

Biden was projected by the Associated Press, Fox News and others on November 7, 2020 as the winner of the 2020 United States presidential election, with the highest vote share of any candidate in U.S. history. Harris thus became the Vice President-elect of the United States.
GeorgeSonOfJohn (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done; added to paragraph end. -ink&fables «talk» 16:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Split out Attorney General of California article

Given the length of this article, I'd like to spit out Kamala Harris' tenure as Attorney General of California and perhaps Kamala Harris' tenure as District Attorney of San Francisco into separate articles. I don't think this should be controversial, but given the visibility of this article I want to check first. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Kamala Harris has written three books; a few days ago, I added a category: Writers from Oakland, California; Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California and a category: Politicians from Oakland, California was added to the article. For some reason that was not explained one of the editors removed the Writers from Oakland, California category with no reasons given. I waited a few days and put the category back to the article. And after, the category was initially removed I did express my concerns why the category was removed with no reasons given and no one responded. Thank You-RFD (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

RFD, I presume because it's not a defining characteristic of her. She's not notable as a writer, she is a writer because of her legal and political career. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Thank You for your comment; Categories are needed to help the readers. Kamala Harris did write three books and the category: Writers from Oakland, California was needed. I do read some of the Wikipedia articles without making any edits. Categories are very helpful. Many thanks again-RFD (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Many, perhaps most politicians write books. Donald Trump has written books (or at least his name is on the cover) but he is not categorized as a writer. But Barack Obama is, and Michelle Obama is, and Joe Biden is, and Hillary Clinton is, and Al Gore is. It does appear that such people are often characterized as writers, although I don’t think Kamala Harris’s books are anywhere near as well known as the others. (I bet you can name a book by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Al Gore. I bet you can’t name one by Kamala Harris.) But that's a subjective thing. Her article contains a "publications" section, which I think qualifies her as a writer. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, Thank You-RFD (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential clean up / clarification of truancy efforts

The article only focuses on the fact that Harris supported criminal charges as part of her truancy initiative. In fact, the program she rolled out entailed a lot more. It created a network of information sharing between school districts, for example. It also wasn’t solely aimed at criminalizing truancy, it created a use a step-by-step process of escalating intervention and consequences that involved the school, then the district, then social workers, and then police departments. I wonder if this article should better explain this (briefly). Or perhaps the truancy law itself should be made an article that this one links to. Thoughts? Davey1107 (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Misleading

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for discussing conspiracy theories about the U.S. election.

"she will become vice president on January 20, 2021, alongside President-elect Joe Biden, having defeated incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence in the 2020 election. She will be the United States' first female vice president, the highest-ranking female elected official in U.S. history, and the first African American and first Asian American vice president.[4][5]". Actually, the election is not over because of legal issues that has involved with fraud votes. So, the whole statement is not accurate and mislead the audient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:8F20:612B:1131:303B:A792 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC) This is discussed in the FAQ, and I would refer you to that. Reliable sources have called the election, and for all practical purposes all that is left is the technicalities of the Electoral College. Courts do not decide elections in the United States, and even in the context of the aforementioned legal issues, reliable sources back up the statement as accurate and it should be left in the article, without edit. Rklahn (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC) At this point you should just erase this whole section with edit reason "Reverted, see FAQ". People have been doing that with these types of comments on Joe Biden and President-elect of the United States talk pages. 2600:1012:B053:9C63:0:4E:E20:1301 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) You imply a consensus on this that may not exist. I certainly disagree with it. I made some comments on this on User talk:331dot which you may want to review. And there are those who, like me, think the way to counter speech we disagree with is more speech. Rklahn (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC) A single 'speech' is not the same thing as the same complaint posted 50 times 'ad nauseum', as user 331dot states, that add absolutely nothing to the discussion and ignore the plainly posted FAQ. No wonder people started to take such actions with these comments when it looks like the users only come to drop a single unfounded complaint and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. 2606:6000:60CC:C900:914A:283:9F17:55FE (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC) I'll start from this point on. See FAQ.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

Add the high school F.A.C.E. in between Notre-Dame-des-Neiges and Westmount High School as one of the schools she attended in Montreal in the Early life and education section. 131.196.253.98 (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but since it was only for a short period I wouldn't be surprised if this is removed by someone else trying to make that section more concise. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

"Was" an attorney

What is the basis for saying she "was" past tense an attorney? Does she no longer pay her bar association dues? 331dot (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We should be treating her as an attorney unless we know that she was disbarred or did not renew her license. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think "Prior to her election as a United States senator, Harris was attorney general of California." should go. Both facts are discussed at length in the introduction, and it distracts from the lead. And if it stays, It's "Attorney General". Otherwise, agree. Rklahn (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Bar exam

Why doesn’t it mention that she failed the bar exam? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/18/fact-check-claim-harris-barrett-legal-backgrounds-true/3669109001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rccutler (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because failing a test on the first try is not uncommon. If there is consensus to add it, though, it can be. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think to be attorney general of a state, you have to have a law license, I may be wrong. (I'm not) Teammm ^talk
_email 23:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

They probably do, but that is not a requirement in all jurisdictions. The AG of Ontario for example went to law school but is not licensed to practice in the province. Then again it's a very different office. We mention that someone failed on their first attempt if and only if it receives wide coverage in reliable sources in proportion to overall coverage of the subject. That may happen in the future but so far has not. TFD (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

We have actually discussed this before at length. It boils down to its common and not encyclopedic. My view was that many politicians, and even many Attorney General of California did not pass the bar on the first attempt. Jerry Brown (her predecessor) did not. Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Franklin D. Roosevelt did not. And I could go on. Rklahn (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been mentioned already, but it really has to be emphasized that it's very common to pass the bar only after multiple tries, though I don't know why this is. (Newly minted physicians rarely fail, to my understanding -- though I'm prepared to be corrected on that.) Hey, let's ask Newyorkbrad! EEng 01:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it has to do with how hard the test is. The board can set the test so that almost everyone passes or only 50% pass, which is the case in California. It may be that the difference with physicians is that they have to intern, which is a test of their ability, while lawyers do not. In Commonwealth countries where lawyers have to article, the bar or law society pass rate can be as high as 90%. TFD (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think it has to do with how hard the test is – Yes, I think you need have no fear of contradiction on that particular point.
• Commonwealth countries where lawyers have to article – Maybe we should start a Wikiproject that would list popular legal subjects so their articling can focus on building the content our readers need most.

EEng 02:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

There can be other reasons for low pass rates, such as lower aptitude among people sitting exams. The relevance of my second point is that it is not obvious that an AG would have to be a lawyer. Bear in mind that most English speakers do not live in the U.S. and may have little awareness of such issues as U.S. state bar admissions and state attorneys general. While your local news sources probably covers your state AG, people outside the U.S. don't watch or read them much. TFD (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You understand we're just having a fun conversation, but for the record there's no escaping that the pass rate for an exam is going to be, notionally, (smartness of exam-takers)/(hardness of exam). If you hold smartness constant, then pass rate is a function of hardness; or if you hold harness constant, then pass rate is a function of smartness. It's that simple (unless you suppose, for example, some corruption in the process). Perhaps you missed that I was joking about the "articling" idea. EEng 17:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

There's (at least) a third factor: available prep time. People who are already working full-time while studying for the bar are less likely to pass on their first attempt. Most new grads don't have the luxury of being able to delay employment, and for those going into some positions their work week can be 80 hours. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

For present purposes "smartness" means smartness at the moment the examiner says, "You may begin", and that folds in all your prep up to that moment. In my experience a large proportion of lawyers forgot most of what they knew the moment the exam was over. You can't be dumb and be a doctor, but I've known some stunningly stupid attorneys. EEng 05:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

While we are having fun with this, Ive seen some stunningly ill informed doctors outside of their field of specialty. The law is a classic, nearly universal, example of this. Rklahn (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That's only if you assume that a test is an accurate assessment of smartness. Many tests end up being assessments of prep time, memorization skills, socio-economic background, test-taking skills, how well one deals with high-pressure situations, or even just luck. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just for everyone's information, according to State Bar of California its bar exam is generally considered to be the most difficult in the US. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, as for many professional license exams, it’s not meant to be an academic test, it’s meant to test critical thinking skills. There are questions where multiple answers can be “right”. I know of a successful real estate agent who failed her national exam 10 times. Trillfendi (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of LSATs and so on. Professional exams require a detailed understanding of the laws and regulations of the particular jurisdiction. EEng 17:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur with EEng. My hard copy BarBri (now spelled Barbri) books for the California Bar Exam used huge legal-size pages and when stacked up were over 14 inches high. At the time, BarBri was terrified of students reselling books to next year's students. They charged a deposit fee which was refunded only if the books were returned. I was able to return books in person in SF to save on shipping costs, which is no longer an option after BarBri's new owners closed most of their local offices.

If I recall correctly, half of the material consisted of outlines of composite "bar exam" law for the MBE and the other half consisted of outlines on California-specific areas like water law and community property law. The LSAT was much more of a "critical thinking skills" test. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I am a random wikipedian and went to read up here. I find it interesting that Ms. Harris failed her bar exam. The pass rate, on the first try, seems to be about 40%. Information is most valuable when it is least random. By that I mean if only 5% passed it would be boring to read she failed, and if 95% passed it would be boring to read she passed. But at something like 50/50 I think it is informative to know she was in the 60% that failed. I am starting to think that on wikipedia bios if you really want to learn about a person, check the Talk page first! Just my two cents. --LondonYoung (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the question here is about if Ms. Harris failed her first attempt at the bar exam. The fact does not seem to be in dispute. I think the question goes to one of the fundamental purposes of Wikipedia; Is it encyclopedic? It's supposed to be comprehensive without delving into the irrelevant, or worse, trivia. Rklahn (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree 100% Rklahn ... My point is that Ms. Harris's failure to pass the bar exam on her first attempt is encyclopedic information about her much as would be her failure to obtain a degree from a school she attended. The bar exam is something very important to someone just getting out of law school and the fact that she wasn't among the (roughly) half of people able to pass it the first time is encyclopedic knowledge - not unlike, say, a failed run for office would be. --LondonYoung (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It says Harris would run for CA DA if "Jerry Brown did seek reelection". This is technically correct, but misleading.

The article currently states that Kamala Harris "would only run [for CA DA] if then-Attorney General Jerry Brown did seek re-election". This is misleading - what is meant that is that she would only run if Brown sought re-election for Governor, and did NOT seek re-election for district attorney. So while this sentence is technically true, it's very misleading, especially since this section does not mention that Brown used to be the CA governor before he was CA DA. Additionally, it contradicts the very next sentence, which starts with "Brown instead chose to run for governor...". This is verifiable via the SFGate source already attached to the sentence, particularly the following quote copied directly from the article:

The proposed change here is to simply add the word "not" to the sentence. Apologies if I made a mistake here, hopefully this is cut-and-dry enough to excuse the lack of procedural experience on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HegelianGenius (talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Article about this article

I do not endorse this article, but think it might be useful to readers of this talk page: "Wikipedia Editors Sanitize the Page of Potential Biden VP Kamala Harris" https://www. breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/07/wikipedia-editors-sanitize-the-page-of-potential-biden-vp-kamala-harris/--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

semi-p

I've semi-protected this talk page for a bit due to vandalism. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Padilla

Padilla has not yet succeeded Harris, he has only been designated as the successor, so it should say "designate" by his name, unless there is a policy in this area. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

We won't be adding Padilla to the infobox, until he's sworn in as US Senator. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That works, too. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent trimming

Of the changes in the recent trimming, I object to the removal of the information about conviction rate under Harris. Yes, it could be due to any number of things due to her leadership, but the same can be said about almost any metric within an area under a leadership position (e.g. economy under a president, crime level under a police chief). The article for her successor mentions a rise in property crime, if precedent makes any difference. Otherwise, I thank those involved for their hard work. Typeprint (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I stand by this edit, unless there are sources that credit her in particular for the change in conviction rate. In a top-level biography of a major political figure, we shouldn't be including information that isn't clearly related to the subject herself. Moreover, I don't really see how this is that helpful even if it is linked to Harris herself somehow. Is a 20 percent increase in the conviction rate (which could indicate a change in: (i) the kinds of people charged; (ii) the kinds of people arrested; (iii) the number of guilty pleas; etc; etc) really that meaningful a metric? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

For the backlog of homicide cases at the start of her term, 32 out of 73 involved plea bargain deals while claiming that those cases shouldn't have been charged in the first place due to insufficient evidence, and for 2007-2008 homicides had been at an all-time high. However, the District Attorney's Office used it as one of its standards, and the 2008 Harris campaign website had a page for these statistics as one of eight platform planks. Harris also claimed that "the improvement" could be attributed toward a new focus on violent crime and gun and drug violations as a catalyst for violent crime. If nothing else, the official emphasis on it is worth mentioning. Typeprint (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

When she becomes Vice President, a lot of the minutiae will have to be removed anyway. Trillfendi (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Trillfendi, Or moved to Tenure of Kamala Harris as California Attorney General or similar. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Start with vice-president elect?

Vice-president elect is the more important title, so it should probably go first. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 05:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This non-American, like most of the rest of the 95% of the world's population outside the USA, would never have heard of her had she not been a Vice-Presidential candidate. Definitely the most important part of her bio. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m sure if the wmflabs showed countries in the page views, the majority would be coming from the United States. At any rate, she’s still a Senator until January 20, 2021. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Trillfendi (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Not concretely until January 20, 2021. She can resign as US Senator anytime, between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Saying "Vice-President Elect" does not require a crystal ball. She is absolutely, definitely that at this very moment. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, that much is true. I’m talking about sentatorship, we have no way of knowing if she will resign before the Inauguration. Trillfendi (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

She has to resign from the Senate, before Noon EST on 20 January 2021, if she wants to become U.S. Vice President. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a Californian and clearly its far more notable that she is Vice President-Elect than a Senator from California. Rklahn (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's only a title, where's a Senator is an actual position. Anyways, order them in any manner yas can agree on. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I prefer using a temporal sequence of past, present, future. She is currently a U.S. senator and will become the vice president. So senator should come first. TFD (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, VP-elect is more noteworthy and should be listed first. – Anne drew 21:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• It seems to be taken as given that the "most important" thing should come first. But that's not obvious. Various approaches may be appropriate: less important to more important (or the reverse), general to specific (or the reverse), earlies to latest (or the reverse). It all depends. EEng 05:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat my point from above. The ONLY reason, not the most important reason, people outside the USA have even heard of Harris is because she was a VP candidate and is now the VP elect. Those people outside the USA are 95% of the world's population. This is a global encyclopaedia. To emphasise anything but being VP elect would be classic US centrism. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Well by that reasoning, the fact that she's the VP-elect is the thing readers least need to be told. But anyway, you're completely ignoring my point by continuing to act like it's a given that the "most important" thing has to come first. That's just not true, regardless of who we think the reader is. And how 'bout if we skip the part where a minor editorial decision gets blown up into a question of global social justice? We're talking about the order of points within a single sentence. EEng 20:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not talking about the most important thing coming first. I am talking about the ONLY important thing (to at least 95% of our readers) coming first. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well since nothing else is important, we'll just end the article there. In fact, since as you say everyone knows the one thing that's important, there's no point in an article at all. EEng 21:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You said there was only one important fact about KM. You also said that everyone already knows that fact. If that's so, then I guess there's nothing the reader needs to learn, and we don't need an article. According to your logic, anyway. EEng 06:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• VP-elect, and in 99.9999999999% likelihood VP in a month, is the most noteworthy position. There are 100 senators, but only one VP, and the VP has the tiebreaker over senators anyway. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has 'reverted' back to having US Senator listed first, so apparently there's no huge objections to the change. The intro will be changing 'slightly' again in four weeks. So no big deal. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection edit -> The OpenJustice initiative

I propose the paragraph about the OpenJustice initiative, stricken in [3] on line 229, be restored.

The source discusses Harris' involvement, which was notable in the context of her career, and her successor kept the project going, implying its usefulness and notoriety. Rklahn (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

That's Special:Diff/996009877. I'm lukewarm about this. On the one hand, NYT describes it as "one of her [Harris's] most lauded initiatives"; the Chicago Defender also devotes some space to it. On the other hand, I can't find any particular indication that she was the one to spearhead it or even really talk about it. (The source referenced in the diff above does not mention Harris except incidentally, which is why I removed it.) OpenJustice is likely notable and important, but I don't know if it belongs in this article. A compromise would be to create OpenJustice (currently redirecting to Open justice) and include one sentence about it in this article, or in California Attorney General. Another would be to create Tenure of Kamala Harris as California Attorney General or another lower-level article to put stuff like this in. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Proposed split: Tenure of Kamala Harris as Attorney General of California

Per WP:SPLIT (for both prose size and content reasons), and my and Rklahn's comments above, I propose splitting off Kamala Harris#Attorney General_of California (2011–2017) into Tenure of Kamala Harris as Attorney General of California (or whatever the correct naming convention is). The prosesize script gives me 55 kB (8714 words) of readable prose, which is enough to justify a split according to WP:SPLIT. And even if there weren't too much prose, I think we still have a coherent topic here that would be worthy of a WP:CONTENTSPLIT. Plus, I don't know about others, but this article is so weighed down with cites, templates, and other bells and whistles that it's difficult for me to load and edit it (I'm on Firefox on a Mac). This article will only balloon more once she takes office as VP, so I think now is the right time to split off and decide about what to summarize and what to put in the new article. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Since the topic came up today, I think the summary should mention any major case that was controversial, including Prop 8, the trans prisoner case, the prison overcrowding and court filing against early release of prisoners, child truancy enforcement, the death penalty case currently on the political positions page. Harris' side in all of these cases except the Prop 8 one and the court filing she said was without her knowledge can be summarized relatively briefly as claiming that she was legally obligated. This can be done after all the other actions that are notable without necessarily being as controversial, such as enforcement on consumer protections and environmental law. Even though I think splitting is inevitable, I think we should wait as long as possible until the content is actually there. Typeprint (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Typeprint, When you say we should wait as long as possible until the content is actually there, what are you proposing, exactly? If there's something you think is missing, feel free to add it. But it's been three years since she left the AG's office, so there's been plenty of time for relevant content to make its way into the article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking until further into her vice presidency, but I don't feel strongly about it, and I'm all right with going ahead and splitting now. Typeprint (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Typeprint, Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I don't imagine much more material about her SF DA or CA AG tenure is forthcoming before late January, so I think splitting once we've arrived at an appropriate target works well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

How about Early political career of Kamala Harris or Kamala Harris' career before the vice presidency? That would be rather more comprehensive. Neutrality^talk 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, Generally works for me, subject to the following caveat. I like the proposal because it would also let us summarize Kamala_Harris#District_Attorney_of_San_Francisco_(2004–2011) as well, which is lengthy. I'm wary of it because it's WP:ORish to establish a line (say, between CA AG and Senate) that would constitute "early" career, and the Senate section isn't that long rn (in fact, I'm surprised it's not longer). Another alternative is just to make Political career of Kamala Harris and use that for everything. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, a near-precedent is {{Barack Obama series}}, which splits up every single office into its own article. Not sure we have enough for that, but it might provide some inspiration. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that plan is best and probably the eventual state for this article at the end of Harris' vice presidency in any case, based on Joe Biden's article before the 2020 election. Having an intermediary stage of splitting is only going to result in twice as much effort if the political career subarticle itself grows too long. Typeprint (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I prefer the treatment of each office separately, as the Barack Obama series does, but could go either way. Rklahn (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, so in that case, we will have the following. I note that the analogous Obama articles use "career", so alternative names on that pattern are also listed.

• Tenure of Kamala Harris as District Attorney of San Francisco / San Francisco District Attorney career of Kamala Harris
• Tenure of Kamala Harris as Attorney General of California / Attorney General of California career of Kamala Harris
• Tenure of Kamala Harris in the United States Senate / United States Senate career of Kamala Harris

We'd also presumably need Vice presidency of Kamala Harris as well. Is there consensus to create these? I note that the Senate career section currently at Kamala Harris#U.S. Senate (2017–present) is really not long enough to justify splitting (although that may be because some of it is already at Political positions of Kamala Harris. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Why bother with the words "Tenure of"? It seems clumsy, artificially formal, and makes the title unnecessarily long. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, So you'd prefer Kamala Harris as District Attorney of San Francisco and the rest like that? The "as" in that phrase reads to me as a perspective on Harris (à la A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man) as opposed to indicating a phase of her career, but I'm not necessarily opposed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the style I would prefer. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like {{Kamala Harris series}} already has the subordinate article themes, mostly as links to sections of the current main article. I prefer the "career" style of article titles, and it seems reasonable to create them for each of the different levels of elected office (city, state, senate, VP) at once. Early life and early career need some expansion to be useful as separate articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection edit -> The Norsworthy sub-section

I propose the entire "Michelle-Lael B. Norsworthy v. Jeffrey Beard et. al." sub-section be stricken. Its in the actions performed as Attorney General of California section.

There are a number of issues with the text, and I will highlight just a few. The case may be notable, but AG Harris' actions in it are not. It boils down to she did her job, acting as the chief counsel in state litigation. The AG does not have the luxury of only acting as chief counsel for positions she agrees with, she must also defend positions she disagrees with.

Im not saying this case does not belong in this encyclopedia. The pages of Transgender rights is probably better suited than here. Rklahn (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

There's considerable controversy about prosecutorial discretion on topics ranging from immigration to the death penalty to enforcement of crimes against marijuana usage and possession, which is commonly discussed for the Attorney General of the United States position and for district attorneys. I don't see why Attorney General of California would be any different. In fact, Harris herself refused to defend Prop 8 on the basis that it was unconstitutional. Seeing as how all of these other issues have constitutionality as a component of the controversy, it's not unreasonable to say that the same reasoning applies to this case on the basis of cruel and unusual punishment. See https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-attorney-general-refusal-defend-state-laws.html which concludes "It may seem problematic to have AGs decide on their own which state laws can stand up to scrutiny, but ultimately someone has to make the call." Typeprint (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually there is a big difference between US AG and a California AG: The US AG is appointed by the President and may be fired by the President. The CA AG is elected and answers to no one but the voters. CA AG decides what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. So "The AG does not have the luxury of only acting as chief counsel for positions she agrees with, she must also defend positions she disagrees with" is . A state AG literally doesn't have to prosecute any case he or she doesn't want to (subject only to the political pressures of not getting re-elected or getting impeached for gross violations of duty). In any biography of an AG, major cases should be discussed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The citation needed here is California Code of Civil Procedure §401 Rklahn (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, if you think that's even remotely connected to what's being discussed here, you have no idea what you're talking about. EEng 18:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you are trolling, and Im not going to give a substantive reply. Rklahn (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything there supporting your position that the California AG is unique compared to all the other AGs in the Governing magazine article. It appears to only discuss the place of a trial, and even if I'm wrong, someone could say that if it's not constitutional, it's not provided by State law, and there's also "shall or may" language, but then again, I'm not a lawyer and interpretation is original research anyway. We could get into the exact nature of prosecutorial discretion in every single article on anyone who's held a position such as Attorney General or DA, or relevant subarticles, with regard to every major case within that person's biography, but I think it'd be easier to have it once in each article on the position itself to the extent it varies. Typeprint (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Harris' successor believes the California AG has prosecutorial discretion, and explicitly used that term, in any case: https://dataprivacy.foxrothschild.com/2020/06/articles/california-consumer-privacy-act/california-ag-wont-delay-ccpa-enforcement-but-may-exercise-prosecutorial-discretion/ Typeprint (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You are right, there is considerable controversy around this discretion. Some would even say that on Prop 8, the AG exercised a veto, a power its not even clear the AG has. If that discretion is unclear on the constitutionality of a state proposition, the discretion probably did not exist in Norsworthy. It's been proposed in another section that Tenure of Kamala Harris as California Attorney General be created and a number of subjects moved there. That seems a reasonable solution in this case. Rklahn (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I was considering cutting this too until I found this article from Washington Blade, which explicitly says Harris took "full responsibility" for Norsworthy's case and analogous cases. That strikes me as the kind of personal involvement that would be reasonable to include in a biography of Harris (which, it bears repeating, is what this article is—a biography). I would not object to trimming the section, but given that she made a whole speech about this and related cases, I think this belongs here in some form. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the subject belongs in the encyclopedia in some form, but disagree that this article is the place. The section would have to be significantly expanded to accurately reflect Harris' views, actions, and obligations in this case, which would result in giving the section undue weight. Tenure of Kamala Harris as California Attorney General or somewhere in Transgender rights is the right place, not Kamala Harris itself. Rklahn (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Field Poll as a reliable source

@AleatoryPonderings: I agree that the https://docplayer.net site seems a little sketchy, but the Field Poll was the gold standard in California Politics and Media until it shutdown. This is mentioned in Mervin Field's Obit in the LA Times. https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-mervin-field-20150608-story.html#page=1 Perhaps https://web.archive.org/web/20161228043107/http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2343.pdf is a better source for the same data? Perhaps you would reconsider with the new source of the report? Rklahn (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn, Yes, that new link seems fine to me. But there are already two secondary sources for the relevant claim, so adding a third seems unnecessary? Feel free to add back if you like, using the archive.org source, though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

If only so easily done. If I get sufficient motivation later, Ill write up an Extended confirmed protection edit section. Rklahn (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended Edit

I would love to contribute to this page but it's got an extended edit on it. I have a past of working on Wikia pages which are extremely similar to this. I was an Administrator for to Wikia TV shows until I had to resign due to medical problems. There are just small things here and there that I would like to contribute to and assist the Senior Editor or Administrator of this page. I would appreciate a more detailed response regarding why you are blocking people from editing, especially when it is very simple and easy for you - the Administrator - to undo edits/contributions.

Thank you so much. Cheers! Eric Spaich — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJSpaich (talk • contribs) 07:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The article has been under Extended confirmed protection for some time. My recollection is that this was done around the time that Sen. Harris was picked by VP Biden as her running mate. There was a lot of Vandalism that the article attracted, and most of it went away. Its unlikely that Extended confirmed protection is going away soon.

The procedure for making an edit to a WP:ECP page, when you are not yourself extended conformed is straight forward, and outlined in the policy. You propose your edit on the talk page, gather a consensus, and add a {{Edit extended-protected}} template when the consensus has been reached. Ive been through it a few times, and if you are looking for some pointers, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. Rklahn (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

In fact, all the articles about candidates were upped to ECP today, until mid January. Apparently that's a standard election precaution. Chances are that Biden and Harris will stay at ECP once they are inaugurated. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

BTW, EJSpaich, there is no "senior editor or administrator" for this page, or any page. Wikipedia works by consensus of editors; there is no boss. One other thing: you should sign your talk page posts, not by typing your name, but by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking on the signature button at the top of the editing page. That automatically produces a signature and a time/date stamp. Here's what happens when I do that: -- MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversion

Fowler&fowler has now reverted my extremely selective trimming of this extremely long article (including a few selective, uncontroversial copyedits, and an addition of content), ignoring the specific rationales I provided for each edit. I don't really know how to respond to this blanket reversion because it ignores the individual rationales I provided for each removal, nor do I know how to seek consensus for each removal (including one by Neutrality) since they've all been removed as a group. Fowler, please explain how my rationales are inadequate. By the way, I specifically chose to do these edits individually, so that they could be reverted individually if someone has a specific objection. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The substantive diffs are:

1. Special:Diff/996009877
2. Special:Diff/996012768
3. Special:Diff/996026331
4. Special:Diff/996051759
5. Special:Diff/996052425
6. Special:Diff/996052540
7. Special:Diff/996052733
8. Special:Diff/996124462
9. Special:Diff/996124531

I leave for the community to decide whether "prior to" -> "before"—the only edit that Fowler specifically objected to—is preferable. For my part, I see no reason to use two words when we could just use one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You had removed one-seventh of the article. And before that another one-fourteenth. That's nearly one-fifth. We play by the same rules. For an article as much edited as KH, we discuss non-trivial edits on the talk page first, garnering consensus here. We don't make impatient hurried divinations of consensus either but allow all editors who have taken part in the previous edits to get a fair chance, and that takes time, several days if not a week. That has been the etiquette and precedent here. Neither do we dump links on this page; we explain the specific points in separate paragraphs so that those who bear the thankless task of maintaining this page are no more inconvenienced than they already are. We especially don't further specialize the content of a source: e.g. we don't change KH's statement about taking responsibility for all legal briefs related to transgender inmates and gender reassignment surgery to one for Michelle Norsworthy, whom KH did not mention by name (as far as I could tell in the source). As for preferring one word to two, I could chop that sentence down even further, turn the lead into a haiku. Why not prefer "Earlier she was the US senator from California," for example? While I'm at it, I think this article has matured enough that editors who add personal POV in their edit summaries such as ("clunky construction" etc.) should not be making them. If you cannot specify the point of grammar, style, or usage, then don't make the edit, at least not in the lead. This will be my only reply. As I've stated, I'm on vacation. Others who watch this page, and have participated actively, MelanieN, Valereee, DrMies, Muboshgu, Rklahn, ... eventually will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, Yes, we "play by the same rules". Those rules are found at WP:BRD, which specify that reverting is a last resort and that you should explain the reasons for your reversion with a view towards achieving consensus. Edits even to high-traffic articles such as this one are not settled on the talk first, because then no substantial changes would ever be made. As for the list of diffs: I clearly explained my reasons for each edit in the edit summary itself; I don't see why I ought to duplicate my explanation again.

As for the substance of your comment: you have provided a valid critique of one of my edits (Special:Diff/996009378), which could have easily been remedied by ordinary editing. With respect to the lede, both "prior to" and "before" are grammatical. Rather, it's a point of style or usage—brevity is generally preferable to verbosity.

Finally, it strikes me as rather disingenuous to revert my edits, citing WP:BRD, without actually engaging in substantive discussion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's point, I think, is well taken. It's a lot of substantive edits over a short period of time, and with this page being BLP and all, we should proceed conservatively. Also, with at least a third of the world going into Christmas and the holiday season more than the usual amount of time should be put into achieving consensus. I have some comments on the actual edits, and if we are going to be doing this, at least one other largish scale edit that has not been proposed, but am holding off for the time being. Rklahn (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn, I would be interested in hearing your proposed edit, as well as any comments you might have on the diffs above. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• For an article as much edited as KH, we discuss non-trivial edits on the talk page first, garnering consensus here. – What a lot of bullshit. WP:BEBOLD applies here just like on any other article; I cut Joe Biden by 25% singlehandedly over six days (and I only got halfway through it). If you object to certain edits, then do what other editors did while I was working on Biden: selectively revert the edits, or correct them, or build on them. Selectively. Mass reversion of others' hard work is asinine, disrespectful, and counter to Wikipedia's ethos.
  In fact, let me quote here excerpts from some excellent advice found in the essay WP:Revert only when necessary:

• Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.
• Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.
• Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad, and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. (To do this, you can use the "undo" button, then type back in what you want to keep). If a supporter of the reverted edit wants to save more of it, that editor can re-edit in smaller pieces and the article can converge on a consensus version that way.
• Do not revert an edit because you need more time to determine whether you agree with the edit.

Unfortunately the above isn't guideline or policy (yet); but BEBOLD is, and don't you forget it, you who think everything has to be done by plodding consensus. EEng 04:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, again, I cant dive into this topic in the depth it deserves, but find that I must say something. AleatoryPonderings made a lot of edits, some of which I would have made myself, some of which I would not, and as I already mentioned, would make additional edits along the same lines. But it's a lot to take in, and it's a major holiday period for much of the world. There is a time and place for everything, and I don't think that anything in be bold contradicts that. On top of that, the article is extended confirmed protected, not all of us can participate by direct editing, which I think a reading of be bold would imply. I think the best way forward here is for everyone to read assume good faith, civility, and especially five pillars, and hold off on major edits. The status quo will stand just fine for 24-48 hours. Rklahn (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the majority of editors watching are extended-confirmed, and no one has to hold off (though taking things at a moderate pace -- whatever that means -- and working in bite-sized, surgical edits is always a good idea). Any edits made will stand just fine for 24-48 hours until you can get around to taking a look; there are plenty of others watching. Even if not every individual edit is desirable, unless you can show that all the edits, taken in sum, make the article worse, then the article will be, during that time, as good or better than it was before. Maybe you should reread what I posted above. EEng 12:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

BEBOLD concludes with: "Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted. ... Instead of getting upset, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. After the reversion of your bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as to not start an edit war; see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more." I have reverted the BOLD deletions. I or others will discuss them here when we find the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, that passage salves the feelings of novice editors whose edits have been reverted. It doesn't magically make every reversion OK. Yours wasn't. EEng 11:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what the real motivations of the passage are, but if anyone is writing to salve the feelings of other editors, that strikes me as a good thing. And, IMHO, User:Fowler&fowler reversion was not only OK, it was nearly obligatory. Rklahn (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I struggle to think of a comment you've made on this page that wasn't completely confused. Seriously. EEng 13:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Now my struggle is how do I now take anything you say going forward with any serious consideration. You seem to have lost all sense of civility. Rklahn (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

There's civility, and there's smiling and nodding in the face of nonsense as if it's sense. That's my struggle.

• if anyone is writing to salve the feelings of other editors, that strikes me as a good thing – Of course it's a good thing; no one said or implied otherwise. I was, obviously, contrasting that – the actual purpose of the passage F&F quoted – with F&F's fallacious interpretation of it (i.e. that anyone is free to revert any thing, any time without giving a substantive reason). Yet you seem to think I was making two random unconnected points.
• it was nearly obligatory – I am (I repeat) sorry, but this is completely absurd. F&F's reversion was not only not "obligatory", it was completely unjustified and inappropriate. Completely. He gave no valid reason whatsoever for reversion. ("I don't have time to review these" isn't valid a reason.)
• Elsewhere on this page, you asserted that The AG does not have the luxury of only acting as chief counsel for positions she agrees with, she must also defend positions she disagrees with". When Levivich challenged you, you cited California Code of Civil Procedure §401, which reads, in its entirety:

  (1) Whenever it is provided by any law of this State that an action or proceeding against the State or a department, institution, board, commission, bureau, officer or other agency thereof shall or may be commenced in, tried in, or removed to the County of Sacramento, the same may be commenced and tried in any city or city and county of this State in which the Attorney General has an office.

  (2) Whenever it is provided by any law of this State that the State or a department, institution, board, commission, bureau, officer or other agency thereof shall or may commence an action or proceeding in the County of Sacramento, the same, on motion of the defendants or some of them, shall be removed for trial to the county or city and county in which the Attorney General has an office nearest to the county in which the defendants or some of them reside or have their principal office in this State.

Except for the fact that it contains the phrase Attorney General, this has no more to do with the AG's discretion than would, say... I dunno... a handout telling jurors where the restrooms are. It's utterly and completely irrelevant. That you offered it shows you have not the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Shall I continue? It pains me to go into such detail, but you force me to it. EEng 23:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You need not continue, and nobody is forcing you into anything. This is shockingly off-topic at this point, and Im not going to add to the noise any further. Rklahn (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Well you've certainly done that enough already. When you repeatedly accuse me of trolling I am, indeed, forced to set the record straight, and I note you've said nothing to explain in what way your posts, after all, make any kind of sense. EEng 03:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

EEng#s I read what you said. I disagree with much of it. I think this article has found a workflow that seems to work for most editors. I think there is something to local convention with edits to articles. One has to take all the pillars, policies and guidelines, and make it fit to a particular situation. Its easy to make a claim that most of the editors here are extended-confirmed when one is extended-confirmed. I guess that as someone who is not, I just have to accept the fact that Im in a minority. Again, my advice, which no-one is under any obligation to follow, is to hold off for a little while, and be civil to each other. Rklahn (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The important thing for everyone to remember here is that I was right. You see, the reason EEng pinged me in his edit summary earlier saying I would find this interesting is because back when EEng made a rather significant copyedit to the Joe Biden article, I said to him that he's one of very, very few editors who could actually perform a significant copyedit of a high-profile article like that, because if any other ordinary, mortal editor tried to do it, someone would come along and revert it all and say that it all had to be discussed first. And voila! Thank you, AleatoryPonderings and Fowler&fowler for proving my case.

It has been thoroughly litigated, and recently, and is a firm principle that has global consensus, that unless an article has a Consensus Required restriction in place, nobody is required to obtain consensus on the talk page first before making an edit. Nobody is required to wait to make edits until other people can review them. Reverting an edit simply because it hasn't been discussed is not a valid grounds for reversion on any article that does not have the Consensus Required restriction. The objection to the edit must be made at the time of the reversion; not "I'll revert now and explain later". There is longstanding global consensus on these matters.

So, Fowler, I think you need to state your objections to these edits, please, or else they should be restored. Those you don't object to should be restored. If anyone thinks this article should have a "discuss first" rule, they need to get the Consensus Required restriction placed on the article (which can be done in various ways, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page).

Merry Christmas, Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

WP:SS has directions for reducing an oversized article; it does not involve deletion, but forms of higher-level precis writing, i.e. more qualitative summations of content using the same or better sources. When portions of the article are spun off, the highest-level summary is needed in the parent article. There was nothing of that sort in the edits I reverted. When new content was introduced, it invariably began with, "In 20--, KH was ..." signifying a simple narration of factual events. I'm sorry I have not read your self-congratulatory Wikilawyering, Levivich. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying the article is too large, and WP:SS has nothing to do with this. While we're on the subject, A.P. didn't cut the article by a fifth, as you say, but rather 8% (in word count). Next time, before you go stomping about upbraiding people take the trouble to get your facts straight. If you need a refresher on working out ratios, adding fractions, and other hard stuff like that, I'll be happy to help. EEng 05:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. Levivich. You are right. But I think the truly important thing that happened here is that there were edits, a reversion was made, and it did not result in an edit war.

That being said. Im against further sanctions on this page. But I must say, this idea of "global consensus" is new to me. Is this codified anywhere? Policies and guidelines I know about, and we seem to still be within the bounds of them. We try and avoid hard and fast rules here, but IMHO, dropping in large scale edits breaks local convention, and I think User:Fowler&fowler was completely in bounds to revert, and the reasoning in the edit summary was enough. In fact, IMHO, more than enough. Rklahn (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rklahn: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and see also WP:Consensus required, which describes that particular restriction. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: If the page were to be consensus required restricted, we would have to follow a process extremely similar to what was followed here. And I don't see how WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was crossed. That being said, Im now trying to find a way to address the substantive comments on the edits. Rklahn (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing substantive at all (well, see exception to follow) having been offered as to why any of AleatoryPonderings's and Neutrality's edits is a detriment, I've restored them, including any made since then except (1) my own removal of is an American politician who is (which is under active discussion), and the change from prior to to before, which F&F complained about in his edit summary [4]. I've reviewed the edits and, while I can't say I would have made all the same edits in the same way, the article appears better off with them than without them, certainly in sum if not for sure in every individual case. And some of the reverted changes are clearly indisputable corrections of errors, so by blindly reverting F&F reintroduced errors into the article – clear proof the he didn't bother to even look at the changes.
  Of course, anyone who can now improve the article even more by selectively reverting, modifying, correcting, or improving any of these changes, giving substantive reasons, should do so. Counterfactual assertions that changes can't be made without prior review, complaints about the rate of changes, and other empty non-justification justifications for rejecting changes which you personally can't be bothered to look at, aren't substantive. EEng 05:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is unfortunate, but understandable, the wait was long. I have proposed edits at this point, and will make them through the Extended confirmed protection edit process. Rklahn (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW: @Fowler&fowler: has gone on a break, 'til mid-February 2021. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

" … is an American politician"

I agree with EEng's now reverted change to the lede. It is definitely unnecessary to say "American politician". GoodDay reverted with an appeal to the lede of Joe Biden—but that may well not make sense either. I would support returning to EEng's version. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Many (if not most) of the intros to the US presidents & vice presidents use American politician. Personally, I don't care if we use it or not, but we shouldn't single out Kamala Harris. We should have some kinda standard intro for all these bios-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Donald Trump doesn't say "American politician" either (although that's maybe a special case). I agree in principle that articles should be consistent, but not at the expense of unnecessary verbiage. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It's being considered though, at the Trump bio article. If American is removed from the intros of all the US president & US vice president bio articles? I'd be ok with it. After all, you have to be a natural-born US citizen to serve in those two offices. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP. Consistency among articles is the weakest of arguments, because without deviation from the norm progress is impossible. Anyway, Biden doesn't say that anymore. (And before your revert finger gets itchy, that's been discussed.) EEng 00:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've already opened up (a few days ago) a discussion about what should be in Biden's intro, when he becomes US president. By all means give your input there. As for the 'two' bios? go ahead & (again) remove American from their intros. Indeed, the exclusion will highlight the general discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for this change? If "American politician" and in specific cases another profession of consequence ("lawyer," "soldier," "philanthropist") is good for FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and other general descriptions (involving nationality and professions) are being used for the giants of the modern era such as Gandhi, Churchill, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, how have you divined an exemption for Kamala Harris? Another example of an arbitrary edit inadequately argued, which I won't revert just yet, but I expect the other discussants here to do so. Worse yet, it privileges Americans to be an anonymous default who are expected to be sufficiently well-known the world over to not require a description of nationality or general profession. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to say exactly what Fowler said. We should say she “is an American attorney and politician" because that's what she is. And follow it with her current position(s), because those are things that change with time - they are not a permanent condition or description of her. Starting with the nationality and the profession is encyclopedic. That’s how we begin almost all biographies. For a random sample, see Dr. Seuss, Joe Namath, Anthony Fauci, Chevy Chase, Dolly Parton, Mr. T. For politician examples see Gavin Newsom, Lindsey Graham, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pete Buttigieg. Chose a dozen random examples of your own and you’ll see. This is how we do it. There is no justification to invent some different approach for her, which I see is a very recent change.[5] I am going to revert to the longstanding standard format while we discuss it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

What about the Joe Biden intro? I took American out of that one. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Christ, the ridiculous things people choose to get exercised about. The change at issue is [6]

Kamala Devi Harris is an American politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California.

• I removed American politician because readers not mentally defective, from whatever geography or culture, will know without being told that an American vice-president-to-be is (duh!) an American politician – nothing to do with "privileging Americans to be an anonymous default who are expected to be sufficiently well-known the world over to not require a description of nationality". There's been a recent rash of this kind of knee-jerk scolding not matching the facts, and this American would appreciate a moratorium on it.
• Nor does it have anything to do with [blah blah blah blah bullshit about Americentricism] regarding omission of "general profession", because the prior text didn't give her profession (beyond "politician", which as already noted is painfully obvious, and isn't a profession anyway).
• Monkey see, monkey do -- appeal to what other articles look like -- is the weakest of arguments, because each article's subject has its own subtleties determining what best serves the reader's understanding, and without deviation from the norm there can be no progress.
• I always laugh when someone says something is or is not "encyclopedic", because that's a meaningless codeword for "I do/don't like it".
• I've reverted to the text before the change, not MelanieN's preferred version from twelve days ago.

EEng 04:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Very well, on that last point, I've reverted myself at the Biden article. Will wait to see, what gets settled here. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you could have left Biden so long as others were content to leave it as well. I only made the change I just mentioned, here, because Melanie had inappropriately changed to some version she preferred from weeks ago, and there was no way that was going to stand. EEng 05:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Oddly enough (or maybe not), this bio seems to get more attention then the Biden bio. I just go by this one, though as we get closer to the inauguration, Biden will possibly get the spotlight treatment, again. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: What or who you laugh at, who you consider "mentally defective," whether or not you claim the mantle of an "American," has no meaning in a WP argument. It does matter to a discussion though that your post above is laced with grammatical and semantic errors and you frame the argument incorrectly. The present perfect (has been) implies a connection with the present including the action of the verb taking place recently; there is no need for "There's been a recent rash." People who use it, do so incorrectly or redundantly. The "code word" (a euphemism) "encyclopedic," in your description, has the meaning of "I don't like it." It is therefore not "meaningless."

As for the framing of the argument, the consensus version is KH "is an American attorney and politician. She is etc. etc.)" MelanieN's reversion is the correct one. You can change "attorney" to "lawyer" (the more commonly used word) but you cannot remove it. It is an essential aspect of KH's career; she rose from District Attorney, State Attorney General, to a Senator who has focused on issues of justice (cf RFK). As for, "because each article's subject has its own subtleties determining what best serves the reader's understanding," we are talking about the lead sentence about which MOS:CONTEXTBIO is fairly clear. Further, it is not obvious to a general WP reader that an American office-holder is an American citizen with no other citizenship. This is not the case in several EU countries. George Papandreou, a former Greek PM, was Greek and American. A recent Governor of the Bank of England (their Federal Reserve) was a Canadian with dual British nationality. Going back further, Benjamin Franklin, a founding father, and head of the postal service, had dual British and American citizenship. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Followers of my talk page know that a sure way to humiliate yourself is to exhibit something you think is proof of your superior knowledge of grammar and style but which is really just one more clinker from the second-rate writer's slagheap of tired WP:MISSSNODGRASSisms (see, for example, [7]). My go-to sources in such situations are the justices of the US Supreme Court, so despite your nonsense about the present perfect and so on, I'll take (as a random example) John Paul Stevens over you: "Admittedly, there has been a recent surge in scholarship asserting..." (553 U.S. 35, 79 n.13.) Plus, of course, there's the fact that under your ridiculous theory any formulation along the lines of "Smith has been, in the past, ..." would be impossible. (I'm a graduate of [name of breathtakingly prestigious postsecondary institution liberally supplied with complete assholes redacted], so I've spent plenty of time around supercilious know-it-alls, and while I can see you're doing your best to compete in that department you haven't got the chops. It's painful to watch, so please stop trying.)
• it is not obvious to a general WP reader that an American office-holder is an American citizen – We're not talking about "an office-holder", we're talking about the president. And I didn't say it would be "obvious" the American president is an American, I said readers will naturally assume it unless told otherwise. (If the US president wasn't an "American" -- whatever that means, but that's the wording of the lead -- THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.)
• with no other citizenship – In point of fact there's no legal bar to the president having other citizenship (though there's undoubtedly a practical bar), and anyway the word American doesn't tell the reader anything about that issue either way. So this is a complete irrelevancy you've introduced, and betrays significant confusion on your part.

If you'd like me to make a further fool of you with respect to any other point in your post, just let me know. EEng 05:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. A canon is a rule or principle, while a cannon [8] is a piece of artillery, Mr. Grammatical and Semantic Errors and Framing of the Argument.

@EEng: The late John Paul Stevens, with whom I share an alma mater, is someone I respect; however, he is not a grammar or style reference. A "rash" is "a large number of instances or manifestations in the same period." (Webster's Unabridged, the dictionary of last resort for AmE.) Your error was in placing side by side the adjective "recent" and the noun "rash" after the present perfect "has been." If you want to indicate the time precisely with the present perfect, you can use the adverb "recently," as in" "Quite recently, we have seen a rash of archaeological forgeries ..." (adverb in the front position) or as in "We have quite recently seen a rash of archaeological forgeries ..." (adverb in mid-position) or "We have seen a rash of archaeological forgeries quite recently" (adverb in end-position). But you cannot say, "We have seen a recent rash of archaeological forgeries." It is incorrect for the reasons I have explained above; at the very least it is redundant and confusing. I'm by no means a prescriptive grammarian, but we can't discuss issues of grammar by running harum-scarum for counterexamples that are offered without explanations.

I note that we all make such errors, and we cut others slack for such errors when made during purposeful communication, but when the errors occur in long run-on sentences (as your first post was), with relentless reference to yourself or your activities, not to mention abusive asides or rarely used Latinisms, we are not communicating purposefully. (Type "relevancy" in Webster's Unabridged and watch it take you only to "relevance.") Communication, after all, is the purpose here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

PS As for "cannon" and "canon," typos, which I do admit to making, are not the same as errors of grammar or coherence. Please see, for example, "... and under which the Buddha is recorded in the Pali canon to have sought enlightenment." in the biodiversity section of my FA India) for correct usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I note that you also don't know what a run-on sentence is, though as the author of It is also now commonly worn with an Indian blouse, or choli, which serves as the primary upper-body garment, the sari's end, passing over the shoulder, now primarily serving to break the upper body's contours, and to cover the midriff [9] you might want to avoid the whole subject, Mr. Hare 'Em Scare 'Em Featured Article. EEng 13:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, you are not going to win the argument about a grammatical point ("recent rash" etc) by floundering for examples everywhere. That sentence is not run-on: it has an extra comma, a typo: It should be: "It is also now commonly worn with an Indian blouse, or choli, which serves as the primary upper-body garment, the sari's end, passing over the shoulder, now primarily serving to break the upper body's contours and to cover the midriff." The main clause is followed by a long appositive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my god, it's unbelievable. I didn't say it was a run-on; I said you didn't seem to know what a run-on is, and exhibited a sentence of your own of the kind that you apparently thought constitutes a run-on (though you seem to have since gotten clear on the definition). I'm not trying to "win the argument" – remember, Wikipedia is not about whining – but I'm now really interested to see how long you'll keep digging. EEng 16:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course you did. Moreover, you couldn't hack the discussion on grammar here, so you want cherry-picking elsewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sad. EEng 08:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've even corrected it (see here) and thanked you in the edit summary; but that was not a run-on sentence, just hard to parse with the extra comma. And I thank you again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. EEng 16:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: RE Christ, the ridiculous things people choose to get exercised about. If anyone here is “exercised”, the vehemence of your language suggests that it’s you. Let’s try to remain cordial and collegial, shall we? My position is not “ridiculous”; it is based on Wikipedia’s standard format.

Here is the situation: You wish to change the standard style for the first sentence of this biography. That will require a local consensus. The standard style for a Wikipedia biography is for the first sentence to list the person’s nationality and their profession or what they are notable for. That is explicitly stated at at MOS:OPENPARABIO. It states, very clearly, that a biography’s opening sentence/paragraph should usually include “Context (location or nationality)”. This is further expanded at MOS:CONTEXTBIO, where it specifically says to name “the country of which the person is a citizen”.

That’s per MOS. To determine actual current practice, I and others looked at a random bunch of biography articles and found that all the ones we looked at do use the MOS recommended style; that is, they have as their first sentence, “Joe Blow is a (nationality) (profession)”. That format is followed almost universally, so it presumably has consensus as well as as an MOS guideline. Doing it some other way will require a local consensus for the change. Since you wist to omit the nationality and profession for this article, you need to find a local consensus to do it. This is not impossible; it was done by a local consensus at Donald Trump. But you will need to find better arguments.

I should add that I believe the MOS style is correct, because the first sentence of any article is supposed to define the subject, per MOS:FIRST. We define the subject by saying what they ARE - doctor, writer, attorney, or whatever - because that is a permanent thing about them, whereas the current position they hold will change with time and is not definitive of them. She has held multiple positions during her three decades as a public employee; the most recent three of those positions were notable enough for her to have an article, so she did not suddenly achieve notability by becoming vice president-elect. The actual position does not define her.

I’ll let the “attorney” question pass for now, although I do think it should be there. That’s another discussion for another day. First we need to determine whether there is a consensus here to use a non-standard style for the lead sentence in this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say your position is ridiculous; I said getting exercised about the question (and, especially, seeing in it grave issues of US-centricism) is ridiculous, and it is. EEng 05:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Same as my argument at Joe Biden: The introduction of an encyclopedia article should follow the "#1 thing rule". If there was one thing and only one thing we could tell our readers about Kamala Harris, what would it be? That she is the vice president-elect of the United States. Thus, the article should begin, Kamala Devi Harris (/ˈkɑːmələ/ KAH-mə-lə; born October 20, 1964) is the vice president-elect of the United States... Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a no go on any change from the house style for me. She became an attorney in 1990, a politician (in extended usage) around 2005. The lead sentence should remain: "KH is an American attorney and politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States." "American" is important because some readers might not be aware that a US Vice-President needs to be a native-born US citizen, in contrast, for example, to the governor of a US State (cf Arnold Schwarzenegger). Limiting the lead sentence to the most significant or notable biographical attribute might not be possible because it might not be possible to select such an attribute. What after all is Arnold in one attribute or two? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but re She became an attorney in 1990, a politician (in extended usage) around 2005. Actually, between 2005 and 2017 she was functioning as both an attorney and a politician: she was an elected official and thus a politician, but her elected position was as district attorney or attorney general and thus still a practicing lawyer. For 27 years out of her 30 year career, she functioned primarily as an attorney. So of course "attorney" needs to be part of our primary definition of who she is. But as I said, let's save that argument for a later section, and leave this discussion to be about "American". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"American" doesn't mean native-born US citizen. Every US president, by virtue of being US president, will identify as an American. "US President" = first citizen. "POTUS" is redundant of "American politician". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

And we say it every time anyhow. Even though it's redundant. See Emmanuel Macron: "...is a French politician who has been serving as the president of France since..." See Pierre Trudeau: "...was a Canadian politician who was the 15th prime minister of Canada...". See every recent U.S. president: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan... well, you get the idea. I hope. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We need to stop. (nationality) (occupation) works fine most of the time—even almost all of the time—but not all the time. There are some biographies where something else is better. Biographies of heads of state/government are such examples. We don't say that "Elizabeth II is a British monarch who is Queen of the UK" because that would be dumb. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

That's rarely stopped us before. EEng 05:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It is customary on almost every Wikipedia biography to put the nationality of the subject in the first sentence, even if it seems redundant. I think we should maintain this custom here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why we would compare the biography of a major monarch who has been on her throne for almost 69 years with the biography of an American politician (there I said it) who has been in elected office for 17 years and only achieved widespread fame in recent months. I think we should write the first clauses of the first sentences of our biographies in the most simple and most informative and direct way, for the benefit of young students in Malawi or wherever who just got internet access. I understand the arguments to the contrary and they are worthy of discussion. What I don't understand is the vehemence and scathing tone of the conversation, introduced by my friend EEng, in the editor's comment at 05:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC). Why conduct such simple conversations about a relatively trivial point in such a confrontational way? Let's tone it down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps my friend Cullen didn't review the post by F&F to which I was responding. You know how I despise ignorantly pretentious high-handed grammar lectures (unless coming from me, of course). EEng 06:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You are so extremely intelligent and highly educated that I am compelled to tell you the same thing twice, EEng. Please tone it down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar lecture give Hulk flashbacks! Hulk angry!

Assuming no more lectures from Miss Snodgrass's minions, or bullshit about wording that "privileges Americans", you'll find me good as gold. To your original question (why we would compare the biography of a major monarch who has been on her throne for almost 69 years with the biography of an American politician), the answer is: because the common principle that applies stems from the nature of the office, not the prominence of the office-holder or the length of their incumbancy. An example quite (I think) avoiding your objection is Naruhito, whom we describe as Emperor of Japan, not (say) a Japanese guy who is Emperor of Japan. EEng 07:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Re why we compare Elizabeth II to Kamala Harris: In the case of any head of state, our reader–even young students in Malawi who just got internet access–will discern that a head of state is a member of that state. Thus, the Queen of England is English. The President of the United States is an American. Similarly, a head of government is a politician. Even Malawian students, if they know what the word "politician" means, will know that the President of the United States is a politician. The words "American politician" add no meaning to, and further no one's understanding of the words "President of the United States". Same with Vice-President. Same with Queen, King, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and similar ranks. Everyone knows the President of France is a French politician and the Prime Minister of Canada is a Canadian politician. The Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party? Our readers will understand that he is a communist Chinese politician.

I don't want to keep beating this horse, but put me down for preferring this lead, which says "American attorney and politician", without requiring the use of those words:

Kamala Devi Harris (/ˈkɑːmələ/ KAH-mə-lə; born October 20, 1964) is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California. Prior to her election to the Senate, she was Attorney General of California.

Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Treating this 'one' article different from the rest, is a non-starter for me. Suggest having a use or don't use "American.." RFC, covering all US presidents & vice presidents bios. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line thus far is that there is no temper, mood, or argument here for changing the Wikipedia standard: "KH is an American attorney and politician who is ..." MelanieN notes that she does not want to include "attorney" in this discussion thread, i.e. restrict it only to "politician," and I'm fine with that too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Since it's been mentioned. We treat monarch intros differently in this manner, compared to presidents. Something that I'm content with. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Better watch it before F&F gives you a lecture on sentence fragments. EEng 13:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

:) EEng. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good point @GoodDay:. I haven't read the discussions for those in MOS, but monarchs whether they are absolute monarchs (and thus have all attributes of power) or constitutional ones (and have no real attributes of power) don't really specialize in anything, and for the most part, do not have an occupation (other than being monarch) that is notable. Compare Charles I of England (monarch) for example, with his successor Oliver Cromwell. But kings or emperors who have had an independent career earlier such as Napoleon may have their nationality and occupation mentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Another reason why we don't specify citizenship or profession for monarchs may be that historically many monarchs were NOT actually citizens or natives of the land they were ruling. Think of the kings of England who were actually German or Norman, for example. Think of the children of Queen Victoria; they figure in the family trees of royalty all over Europe. Just a side note to an off-topic but interesting conversation. (And an illustration that I, too, know the value of sentence fragments.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it's RFC time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Then let's have the RfC on some other talk page, and leave this one to follow the standard format until your objection to it is supported by an RfC in some more general venue. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to have one RFC on this page about this article's lead. After all, I don't think anyone has a problem with (nationality) (occupation) as general MOS guidance, and I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea to replace (nationality) (occupation) with some other one-size-fits-all rule to apply to Vice Presidents. We don't need to have an MOS RFC to confirm that we can make exceptions to the MOS, and we don't need to change the MOS to make an exception here. (I think this content dispute is an example of why MOS is a guideline and there's never consensus to promote it to policy.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

We should have an RFC to covering all US presidents & vice presidents. At the very least include Joe Biden, since he & Harris will be serving together. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No. See below. EEng 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I am perfectly OK with settling this right here with a local consensus. My suggestion "take it to a more general forum" was based about the suggestions here (if I understand them correctly) that we should remove "American" from ALL presidential and vice presidential articles. IMO a decision about the Kamala Harris article does not require the launch of a new RFC, since in effect we have been having an RfC for days now. Personally I hate it when a long, thoughtful discussion is overridden by a brand new RfC, so that we all have to either repeat ourselves or get ignored. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if MOS were policy it would change little for present purposes, since every MOS page starts by saying it's best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply – qualifications all too many editors can't seem to keep in mind. EEng 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yabut who are the Wikipedians who write "best treated with common sense" into our PAGs and expect that it will actually mean something to someone??? Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Why? Every article has its own considerations. Holding an RFC elsewhere before we can decide on a particular article, or insisting that we have to come to some global decision about all bios of a certain type, presupposes that articles are supposed to follow a rigid format, like filling in blanks on a form. But hey, if you want to go over to MOS and hold an RFC on changing the CONTEXTBIO wording from its current should usually and most cases to "absolutely must" and "no exceptions", then I'd enjoy seeing people's reactions. EEng 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Remember, you're the one who started this whole thing ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And I'm happy to finish it -- here. I have an idea. Let's cast back two weeks to

Kamala Devi Harris is an American attorney and politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California.

I actually have no objection (subtle reasons -- details on request) to American when adjoined to attorney, but surely, SURELY readers don't need to be told that the US president is a politician. So how about

Kamala Devi Harris is an American attorney who is vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California.

--? Can we live with that? EEng 17:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I for one can live with that. Possible grammar quibble: should we say "...who is the vice president-elect..."? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. If Susan Rice, a strong contender for VP, had been chosen instead of KH, the lead sentence would have read, "SR is a former American diplomat, policy advisor, and public official who is the Vice President-elect of the United States," not because she would a fortiori have become a politician, but because she would not. KH, on the other hand, has been a politician for quite some time. Had she not been anointed VP by Biden, the lead of her WP page would have begun exactly as it did on 10 January 2019, "KH is an American lawyer and politician serving as the junior senator from California since 2017." Being anointed VP has made her not a whit more political, at any rate, not yet. For the record, I prefer "lawyer." "Attorney" is more AmE usage; "lawyer" is universal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ummm... F&F, what does "of course not" refer to? Of course we don't say the before vice-president elect? Or of course we can't live with EEng's proposal? Or something else? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. It means we can't live with EEng's proposal. This is because the term VP or VP-elect does not subsume the term "politician," Susan Rice being a case in point. Had she been chosen by Biden, we would certainly not have used "politician" for her, but only because she has given scant evidence of being one thus far. She would not have magically become a politician by someone else's choice. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and RFK pages have both "politician" and "attorney" (or lawyer) because they had significant independent careers as politicians and lawyers. Jimmy Carter has had one as a politician and philanthropist; Eisenhower had one as a politician and soldier. To give another example, if four years later a President Kamala Harris has chosen Bill Gates as her VP, we won't say "politician" for him either because (very likely) he would have had no history of being one. His page would begin: "BG is a/an (former) American businessman, entrepreneur, and philanthropist who is the Vice President-elect of the United States." But if she were to choose Mayor Bloomberg, the latter's page would begin: Mike Bloomberg is an American politician and (former) businessman who is the Vice President-elect of the United States." (After a VP-elect is sworn in as VP, the last part of the phrasing will change: ... has served as the VP of the US since ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Off topic. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What exact 'word' are you objecting to? GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Dropping "politician." I'm afraid I see dropping either "politician" or "attorney" to be a case of KH being held to a different standard on account of being a woman. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Fowler&fowler, how very dare you assert that we're holding Harris to a different standard because she's a woman? Shows what you know! Personally, I'm holding her to a different standard because she's African American/Asian American! Here, let's take a poll: pinging Levivich, MelanieN to indicate the source of their bias below. And GoodDay, AleatoryPonderings: though I can't tell where you two come down on the attorney question, no doubt wherever it is it's for some biased reason, so please enter your name below to tell which bias it is. Thanks! EEng 02:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Editors holding Harris to a different standard because she's a woman: Editors holding Harris to a different standard because she's African/Asian American: EEng Please, EEng, don't do this. It's wildly inappropriate. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Ive been searching for about the last 5 minutes on how to say this. But Ill make it short. I agree with AleatoryPonderings, wildly inappropriate. Rklahn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC) @EEng:: Please don't overdo the male adolescent high jinks. Please also don't make silly comments about ratios and percentages. You don't know enough to take me on, just as you did not about grammar. Would you like to meet at Sylow theorems or Galois group or Stone-Weierstrass theorem or the Riemann Hypothesis? That's only undergraduate material. If you can't then please don't presume to tell me about percentages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Certainly looks like I hit a nerve there. It goes without saying that you don't know who you're dealing with either, but I repeat that I'll be there for you when you're ready for a refresher on percentages [10]. Listen, the amusement's beginning to wear off so from here on out you'll just have to flail and sputter on without me. EEng 08:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) @EEng: Please also remove that pathetic joke of a caption, "She's had a long career under several distinguished commanders," you have added to the picture File:Khajuraho-erotischerFriess.jpg on your user page. Khajuraho is a UNESCO world heritage site of Hindu and Jain temples with sacred and secular erotic art. If you don't understand it, please don't make fun of it. If you do not remove it, I will report you at WT:INDIA. Enough is enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Oooooh, you're going to report me! At WT:INDIA! I'm frightened! (For those playing along at home, the reference is to the image halfway down the page, center, of [11].) EEng 08:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) We need an admin intervention here. MelanieN and valeree are involved, but what about @RegentsPark, Drmies, and Vanamonde93:: can you stop EEngs abusive behavior? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC) User:Fowler&fowler, as an admin I see no more abuse in EEng's language than in yours, and in neither case does it rise to a blockable level. As a fellow editor, I would have to say that I don't understand why you are so adamant here and so combative over a very minor matter. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC) I'm sure they'll be very interested in your casual and baseless accusation of sexism against multiple other editors [12]. EEng 08:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Can you both please stop fighting over irrelevancies? You're distracting me from writing an article that I suspect will be of great interest to F&F (as it involves Indian mathematics). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC) A pleasant surprise hearing from you @David Eppstein:! It's been a long time since our first interaction on Indian mathematics (or was it elsewhere: Fowler's book? Primitive triples in Plimpton 322?) I haven't really done anything on Indian mathematics in 13 years. Perhaps I should at least update the middle portion (which I have not written) from Kim Plofker's book ... As for all this, I'm happy to disengage, but someone with administrative heft has to tell EEng to hold his horses. He seems to be under the impression that only he has the license to use intemperate language (including the use of expletives) relentlessly in the discussion here and to chalk it to figurative or satirical usage. Please examine upstairs and below how many times he has been warned by different people (Cullen, MelanieN, Rllahn, AleatoryPonderings, ...). I went to his user page only because he invited me to see on his user talk page (to which I thankfully never got) the evidence of his mastery of English grammar and usage. Wikipedia might not be censored but we are not at liberty to bend what rules it does have. Hypermasculine insouciance, allusions bordering on misogyny, or verbal aggression, here or elsewhere, make people uncomfortable; it makes them reluctant to engage in discussions. This has to stop. Examine also the number of times he has interrupted a discussion thread with a later addition which is not especially indented for comprehension. The "interrupted" template I've just added gives an idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC) This post especially indented for comprehension. Sawing a lady in half: an illusion that might be said to border on misogyny. I removed the {interrupted} you inserted; you don't seem to know what it's for. I made no claim of mastery of English grammar and usage; rather, I said that a sure way to humiliate yourself is to exhibit something you think is proof of your superior knowledge of grammar and style but which is really just one more clinker from the second-rate writer's slagheap of tired WP:MISS­SNOD­GRASS­isms. And you've performed beautifully in that respect. Hypermasculine insouciance – Now there's one for the wokescold record books! Tell me what hyperfeminine insouciance looks like and I'll happily employ that instead. I'm really looking forward to your promised report at WT:INDIA. See you there! EEng 18:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, since she's been a US Senator since 2017. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, four years. Thank you for clarifying it @GoodDay:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I support E's suggestion as an improvement over the current lead (but it could be improved further). Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm holding her to a different standard because she's an attorney. —valereee (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Heck do it like this - "...is an American politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States...", which we'll (at Noon EST, January 20, 2021) change to "...is an American politician who is the 49th vice president of the United States...". GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence options

Here are the options that have been presented above for the first sentence of the lede, plus one of my own (option 5). We should settle on one. If there are any I have missed, please add them. I think these cover most, if not all, of the logical possibilities.

• Option 1: Kamala Devi Harris is the vice president-elect of the United States.

• Option 2: Kamala Devi Harris is an American attorney who is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California.

• Option 3: Kamala Devi Harris is an American politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California. (in the article since 14 December 2020)

• Option 4: Kamala Devi Harris is an American attorney and politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California. (In the article with minor reordering or appropriate rephrases from 3 January 2017 until 14 December 2020)

• Option 5: Kamala Devi Harris is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California.

Survey

• I prefer option 5. It's simple, clear, and to the point. "Politician" is obvious in context, and "attorney" is uninformative (she has been an elected law enforcement official for most of her career, which is not what I think of when I think of attorney). After the inauguration, this can be transposed to Kamala Devi Harris is the vice president of the United States. Before her election as vice president, she was the junior United States Senator from California and Attorney General of California. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 was in place in the article for nearly four years. It was changed to the current version on 14 December 2020 on a whim, without the wisp of a consensus, by an editor whose authorship of the article is insignificant. Option 4, therefore, is the precedent, the STATUS QUO, the existing state of affairs. It is also the version found in Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. There is no reason to change it just because KH is now the VP. Also Harris's is a historical candidacy, the first woman in 245 years; every bit of her professional competence—independent of her office—needs to be highlighted in the first sentence. For it went into her attaining the office. The apt comparisons here are to the Mount Rushmore four—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• "politician" before "attorney" is fine too (per GoodDay's version) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, with politician before attorney - per Bill Clinton & Barack Obama intros,
  or Option 3. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 5 — We don't say "Michael Jordan is an American athlete and former professional basketball player", or "Elizabeth II is a British monarch who is Queen of the United Kingdom". "American politician" is already stated in the lead by the words "vice president-elect of the United States", and "attorney" is already stated by the second sentence of the lead, "Prior to her election to the Senate, she was Attorney General of California." Everyone knows the vice president of the US is an American politician, and that the Attorney General of California is an attorney. That we state these redundancies in other articles' leads is no reason to make the same mistake here. So 2-4 are out for me. 5 is better than 1 while she remains a senator. I agree with AP about the update post-inauguration. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Royalty is treated different, in this matter. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation not required. Merely look over the monarch bios for visual proof. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion in the section above about why monarchs are treated differently. (I think Levivich may have been making a joke here, since they used a "fakecn" tag rather than a regular "cn" tag. It's always so hard to detect sarcasm online.)

Michael Jordan is a poor example. He is a retired player who is now an owner. But there is a standard format for all current Chicago Bulls players. Example: "Lauri Elias Markkanen (born 22 May 1997) is a Finnish professional basketball player for the Chicago Bulls of the National Basketball Association (NBA)." or "Ryan Curran Arcidiacono (born March 26, 1994) is an American-born Italian professional basketball player who plays for the Chicago Bulls of the National Basketball Association." or "Devon Dotson (born August 2, 1999) is an American basketball player for the Chicago Bulls of the National Basketball Association (NBA)" Do you see the redundancy in all three examples? They don't say only, "... is a player for the Chicago Bulls of the National Basketball Association," which is equivalent to what you are proposing for KH. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Jordan is a great example. Probably the all time greatest example of a basketball player. But you've missed the analogy. We don't need to say "athlete" in Jordan's lead sentence because we say "basketball player". Similarly, we don't need to say "American politician" in KH's lead sentence because we say "vice president-elect of the United States". We don't need to say "attorney" because we say "Attorney General". Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm also good with option 6, below, which is option 5 with the order reversed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 Strongly preferred. Option 4 with politician before attorney like other prominent pages, OK. Option 2 only if it gets us consensus. Rklahn (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 5 per Levivich's trenchant analysis, though I could live with 2 in a pinch (since the Attorney General fact comes somewhat later, so that mentioning attorney up front doesn't seem too terribly redundant). EEng 08:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - viewed with a global eye, every word conveys information which can otherwise only inferred with great knowledge of American systems. It needs "American", "politician" and "attorney" (or "lawyer"). I'm OK if the rest is made into a second sentence, or kept as part of the first one. Not all (vice-)heads of state are politicians - they aren't even all elected. For example, Elizabeth II has already been mentioned - she was not elected to the role, and it is not clear that she is a citizen of each of the 16 realms of which she is Queen. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4 (with politician before attorney, because that's her current and most notable occupation). Wikipedia's convention (as set out in MOS:BIO) should be followed here, and only options 2, 3 and 4 do that. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 6 I looked back in time to the status of Joe Biden as of Nov 5th 2008, as he was in a similar situation. His simply said "is the senior United States Senator from Delaware and the Vice President elect of the United States", so let's just do that - "is the junior United States Senator from California and the Vice President elect of the United States." ? ValarianB (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

But at 5:13 PM on November 4, 2008, it said only, "... is the senior United States senator from Delawre." On 23 August 2008 it said the same. The local consensus there was different. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Option #6? There's only 5 options. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I created my own. But if it does not catch on, Option 3 is fine. ValarianB (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• First choice: Option 4 with "attorney" and "politician" in either order. Second choice: Option 2. Third choice: Option 3. Strongly oppose Options 1 and 5. Reasoning: There is a very strong recommendation at MOS that we should put a biography "in context" by stating the person's citizenship in the lead sentence. This long-standing guideline recognizes that we are an international encyclopedia, not the Encyclopedia Americana. We have done this with all recent presidents, with the local-consensus exception of Trump, and we do it with all current elected leaders of other countries (see Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkell, Giuseppe Conte, Narendra Modi, Xi Jinping, etc., etc.) We do it even though it is “obvious”; we do it even though it is “redundant”. This format works, it conveys basic information clearly, and it was uncontroversial until the single exception made for Donald Trump. The reasons given for omitting the citizenship in the case of the American president are entirely unconvincing and amount to “of course any idiot knows he is an American and a politician”. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 As she was a politician before being VP (and after being anything else, but am not sure you stop being an atorney).Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Slatersteven: I don't understand your rationale, that she was a politician before she was VP and after she was anything else. In what year did she start and stop being a politician? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    • What I meant was she was (and is still) a professional politician, not a one-election wonder.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 with polictian before attourney as that is higher priority (i.e. if you had to pick on occupation to describe her "polictian" is higher up than attourney as it is far more important to her over arching career) with second choice Option 3. I agree with Fowler&fowler's we cannot expect the general reader to automatically know that a VP is automatically American and only American without informing them. WP is for the general audience around the around the world not just for American readers. With other countries important office holders having dual nationalities and such as pointed by F&F like George Papandreou, a former Greek PM, was Greek and American. It is also standard practice across per MOS:CONTEXTBIO and pretty much all other American presidents and vice presidents and I do not see a compelling reason to make an exeception here. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• First choice (strong support): Option 4 with "polictian" before "attorney", 100%. Second choice (weak support): Option 3. Third choice (neutral): Option 4 with "attorney" before "politician". Fourth choice (weak oppose): Option 2. Oppose Option 1 and Option 5. ...Definitely include "American politician". Reasoning best summed up by User:MelanieN above: "There is a very strong recommendation at MOS that we should put a biography "in context" by stating the person's citizenship in the lead sentence. This long-standing guideline recognizes that we are an international encyclopedia, not the Encyclopedia Americana." etc. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• What about prosecutor instead of attorney for the options where that is relevant? It's more informative and specific, IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd stick with attorney, as she's had a highly questionable performance as a prosecutor, pro-corporate wise. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• A few questions:
  • Shouldn't we promote this to a lvl2 header and add an RFC tag and question?
  • For those editors who favor saying attorney, why "attorney"? Why not law enforcement officer? A district attorney and CA AG are law enforcement officers. "Attorney" is a vaguer term that includes (and I'd suggest usually refers to) lawyers in private practice (the title "Attorney General" notwithstanding). But why describe her as "attorney" and not "law enforcement officer"? KH was never in private practice, or any practice, other than as a prosecutor. Which brings this back to AP's point above, why not prosecutor? That's a much more descriptive term than either "attorney" or "law enforcement officer".
  • Why is nobody talking about sources in this entire conversation? Do RSes describe her as a "politician", "attorney", etc.? Or do they use other words (like "former prosecutor")? Do any sources, even international sources, describe her as "American" (or do they not use that word because it's obvious to their readers)? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

She is an American, is a politician & is/was an attorney. That's likely why nobody is disputing those facts. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not whether these terms are accurate. They all obviously are. It's which one is most appropriate. That would be settled by looking at what reliable sources most often say—do they say "attorney" or "prosecutor" or "law enforcement officer". My quick unscientific survey: a search for "kamala harris" attorney -"attorney general" -wikipedia turns up 9.5 million ghits, the top ones of which are mainly about Doug Emhoff; a search for "kamala harris" prosecutor -wikipedia turns up 11.9 million ghits including [13], [14], [15], [16]; and a search for "kamala harris" "law enforcement officer" -wikipedia turns up 317,000 ghits including [17], [18], [19] (paywalled). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Shouldn't we promote this to a lvl2 header and add an RFC tag and question? No, we shouldn't. RFCs are for issues where local discussion has been tried and has failed to reach consensus. See WP:RFCBEFORE. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Not "law enforcement officer", absolutely not. That generally means police and other agencies that actually ENFORCE the law - stop crimes, investigate crime scenes, arrest suspects, incarcerate convicts. A city attorney or attorney general is an officer in the equivalent of the federal Justice department; their job is entirely legal - analyze the facts of a situation, interpret the law in regard to that situation, decide whether to prosecute, and represent (i.e. be the attorney for) the prosecution in court. All of those are attorney jobs; notice the word "attorney" in the titles. Not "prosecutor"; the elected person rarely prosecutes cases in court; they focus more on administrative responsibilities such as supervising department personnel, assigning cases, approving the decision to bring a case to court, providing legal advice to the government entity they work for, etc. Those are still attorney functions, but not prosecutor functions. As for "was" an attorney, "was" is not used for any of the other presidents who are also attorneys. They can stop practicing law without giving up their identity as an attorney. Just as a physician remains a physician even if s/he retires, or stops seeing patients to go into research or teaching. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In nearly all United States jurisdictions the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of that jurisdiction (though adnittedly that's ). EEng 19:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The citations are in law enforcement officer, including for CA. Also, DAs and AGs are universally referred to by RSes as "prosecutors", even though deputy/assistant DAs and AGs are the ones who act as lead prosecutors ("first chair") on individual court cases. The DA/AG is the one who makes the decision to prosecute and is ultimately responsible for the prosecution, which is why they're called "top prosecutors". "California's top prosecutor" is the AG [20] [21]. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Top prosecutor" is part of their job as Attorney General - but not all of it by any means. Look at our section here describing her activities as AG: a great deal that large section is about her non-prosecutorial activities such as advising the legislature on new legislation, implementing police reform measures, etc. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, AGs have other non-prosecutorial, law enforcement duties, such as advising about new laws, advising judges about ongoing cases, and overseeing police. They also engage in civil enforcement actions, such as suing tobacco companies. Hence "law enforcement officer". But I actually think "prosecutor" is a better choice than "law enforcement officer" because it's much more widely used by sources. She's known as a prosecutor, because of her prosecutions. For example, the BBC (link below) describes her as a prosecutor-turned-politician (but not in the lead) and she's been quoted by multiple RSes as describing herself as a "progressive prosecutor". Whereas, I'm not finding many RSes that refer to her as "attorney" except in the context of the titles "District Attorney" and "Attorney General". Still, I think saying she is a former AG is enough and we needn't say "attorney", "prosecutor", or "law enforcement officer", hence my !vote for options 5/6, but if we are to use additional wording, it seems to me "attorney" is the worst of the three. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are some international sources: BBC, CBC, Toronto Star, Times of India, Al Jazeera, AFP via France24, AP, Reuters. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Those are huge articles - TLDR. What specifically are they cited in support of? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

They're not cited in support of anything. I'm sharing them so editors can see how some int'l sources describe KH, if they'd like to. It might inform their !vote, as it informed mine. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of first civil rights march

In an interview with Elle magazine in October 2020, Harris told an interesting story of marching in a civil rights march in the city of Oakland with her parents. The story is interesting and should be included in the article because it is a first person account and gives insight on to her political being starting at an early age. The following is the text that was immediately removed from the article.

In the late-1960s, when Harris was a toddler, she was taken to a civil rights march in Oakland California. Being so young, she marched with her parents and uncle in a stroller. During the course of the march Kamala fell from the stroller and became separated from the adults. She was not missed for a few minutes because her parents were swept up in the excitement of the march. After a few minutes, her parents noticed she was missing and retrace their steps to find the child. When found Kamala was visibly upset and her mother asked, "Baby, what do you want? What do you need?" And Kamala looked at her mother and said, 'Fweedom.'

I'm looking for consensus rather than an edit war.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this material should be included because: (1) it is a first-person account, and therefore not clearly vetted by secondary sources as an important fact about Harris; and (2) because it seems rather POV-laden—the sort of thing you'd expect to see in an autobiography, and not an encyclopedia article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

... and (3) it's obviously just a charming family legend; (4) it's insufferably treacly and diabetic readers could go into a coma. This is a textbook example of the sort of thing that belongs in the campaign bio, not Wikipedia. Seriously, mom's words of comfort to the bawling four-year-old were, "What do you want? What do you need?"??? Please. EEng 19:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Should not be included for the reasons that AleatoryPonderings states. On top of the sourcing problem, and the point of view problem, even if it did happen, it's at best trivia. Rklahn (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

'Fweedom' is so fawning it's funny. Do not include. Also do not include the one about her chopping down a cherry tree. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, Levivich baby [22]. EEng 20:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It may be worse than a "charming family legend"; it might have borrowed from a charming story once told by Martin Luther King Jr. [23] And she has told a previous version without the civil rights march setting, merely that she was fussing one day and her mother asked what she wanted and she wailed "Fweedom!"[24] That cute childish comment might be the true origin of the family story and the march got added later; no way to tell. In any case, suspicious and unverified. By all means, leave it out. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Taking a break from my vacation for a single comment) The story could be apocryphal, but, more than likely, it is rooted in a childhood incident. Perhaps is a screen memory. In other words, a toddler suffered the trauma of being left briefly alone—without her parents—in an anonymous crowd, not to mention the physical shock from a fall. An innocuous memory from perhaps another time ("fweedom") became overlaid on the trauma as a screen and was the one that survived. As for the "fweedom" story, precocious toddlers do say wondrous things. (I am speaking from memories of old observations). Adults around her very likely repeated some version of either or both anecdotes for some critical time during her early childhood. Later, she might have repeated the same to be positively mirrored by her adult caregivers, but that is not fawning behavior, which is pathological in early childhood.

As for MLKJr., his story has all the makings of an embellished one ("straight in the eye," etc) if not passed-on hearsay. He, despite his great genius, vision, and valor, had a more incriminating past in those matters, having plagiarized passages in his doctoral dissertation at BU. Nothing KH has done rises to the level, ... and we forgave him.

Anyway, this anecdote by itself is not yet worthy of inclusion. (It might be worthy of inclusion if it is corroborated by others—Donald Harris, or say the children of the Oakland-Berkely cohorts of KH's parents, (Cedric Robinson, Mary Agnes Lewis (scroll down to her obituary), Aubrey Labrie at SFSU (the video does not work but scroll down for the blurb) Regina Shelton, KH's neighbor and foster mother of sorts. There could perhaps be WP stubs on these people if interest in KH's biography grows.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

PS Not to belabor this topic, but just in case it turns up again on this talk page, I'm recording KH's early chronology here. She was born in Oakland, CA in October 1964. Her father, Donald Harris (DH), completed his Ph.D. in the summer of 1966, accepted an assistant professorship at UIUC starting Fall 1966, and her mother Shyamala (who had completed her Ph.D. at Cal Berkeley a year earlier) a research position; the family moved to Urbana, Illinois. Her sister Maya was born in Urbana in January 1967. The family moved to Evanston, IL in 1968 (DH teaching at Northwestern) and again to Madison, Wisconsin in 1969 (DH now in a tenure-track position at UW-Madison). Sometime in the fall of 1969 Shyamala left DH and returned to Oakland with her children, and she and DH were divorced in 1971. The anecdote, if real, which mentions no infant sibling, most likely took place in the summer of 1966, shy of her second birthday, but well into the period of a child's early speech (vocabulary 50 words or more). The incident of tumbling out of a stroller, if real, and the trauma therein, would belong to an issue of early attachment which children are typically not able to verbalize themselves. Adults had to have helped in some fashion in the retelling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Best we exclude it, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say, reading this section to date, consensus is not to include. Rklahn (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a cute story, but also just a personal anecdote and a bit of an interesting piece of trivia. No inclusion. ValarianB (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Stacking templates

Template:Kamala Harris series brings nothing to this article, and its existence alone is not a good enough reason to include it. In the lead specifically it is cumbersome, intrusive, and redundant.

• The image in Template:Kamala Harris series already appears in the infobox just above it. For reasons incomprehensible to me, one image appears twice in the lead.
• Out of 26 links in the template, 11 are linked in the text of the lead and 5 more appear in the Contents bar just opposite the template. In other words, more than half of the links from the template already appear in the lead, and so the sidebar navbox is not a genuinely useful navigational tool in this case. It is just clutter.
• There is another navbox in the article, at the bottom, providing the same links as the sidebar in the lead. I do not see the need for two templates with the same content. Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree Additionally, it's premature. When there is a "Kamala Harris series" the time might be right. Today, no. Rklahn (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair point too. Some of the links point to articles that are not primarily about Kamala Harris (e.g. Presidential transition of Joe Biden, Inauguration of Joe Biden, etc). Others point to sections of this article, which is redundant and somewhat misleading as well. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We've a lot of those Templates for recent US presidents (Clinton, Obama, Trump) & vice presidents (Pence). I wouldn't object to their being excluded from said bios. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm still not sure as to why anyone favors removing the template. Almost every other president, vice president, or prominent U.S. politician uses it. Plus, if it isn't going to be used on its own main article, that what's the point of even having it? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, nearly all of the bios of US presidents & vice presidents don't use them. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm not sure what you mean. There are numerous examples of this template being used. The articles on George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln are just some examples of this template's usage, with many more. Even notable non-president politicians, such as Susan Collins, use some form of the template on their bio. I also have noticed that you have removed many of them, such as the ones on Barack Obama. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears we'll have to expand this discussion into an RFC, covering all US presidents & vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I would support removing the template on Harris's page until there are more articles about her, but I oppose removing it on more notable articles such as Barack Obama, where it is a useful guide to articles about him. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What say of you Mike Pence or any other US vice presidents bios? GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I've removed his, for now, as his is filled with links to his own page. But, I oppose removing it from every vice presidents' articles, especially the instances where the template has many links to other pages, and where the subject is more well-known. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I still recommend removal of all those templates at any US prez & vice prez bios. They're best used at campaign articles or other related articles. Still recommend an RFC to cover this matter for all those bios. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Get rid of it for now as useless until we split off the sections of her early career into individual new articles. My recent proposal to do so has apparently now been bot-archived, but presumably we should do it at some point soon. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: You have suggested in a recent edit that we don't have consensus yet. I realize we live in interesting times, and moving forward with caution is prudent, but can we at least put some time boundaries around when we start taking silence from editors for consensus here? 48 hours? Rklahn (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove temporarily - @Surtsicna: I have to agree with you on this one. We should probably remove it temporarily, at least until there are more articles about her, and not just subsections on her main page. However, the template should be used in instances where there are ample articles on the subject, such as Barack Obama. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the sidebar makes more sense in cases such as Barack Obama, though I question the need to have both Template:Barack Obama sidebar and Template:Barack Obama. Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection edit request: Replace inline reference re: name pronunciation

Im skipping straight to the "requesting the edit" phase of the edit. I suspect this is going to be uncontroversial.

There is an inline reference in the lede (In the first sentence, in fact), that reads:

<ref>Harris said her own name while taking the vice-presidential oath of office on January 20, 2021.</ref>

This should be replaced with:

<ref>{{cite web |last1=Woodsome |first1=Kate |title=Opinion &#124; You don't need to like Kamala Harris. But you should say her name properly. |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgIkcxDvAGE |website=YouTube |publisher=Washington Post |access-date=22 January 2021}}</ref>

Which is a reliable source containing audio of the Vice President pronouncing her own name.

Rklahn (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection edit request: Remove incorrect category

Please remove

[[Category:Asian-American members of the United States House of Representatives]]

Kamala Harris has never been in the House of Representatives. Notice to @Fadesga: Rklahn (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the category. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it, and I'm terribly sorry for copying it unnecessarily. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit got made. Added "answered=yes" to the template. Rklahn (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Resignation

Harris has resigned. Can somebody update the article to take this into account? BSMIsEditing (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To avoid startling people, she's resigned, as planned, from the Senate, since a senator can't be VP. EEng 15:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Already taken care of. Somebody just made a slight booboo, when updating it. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason to not put Padilla's name with a (nominated) note or something of the like as successor? Said information is already reflected on his page. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 23:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Padilla, Ossoff, and Warnock are scheduled to be sworn in at 4:30 this afternoon, Jan. 20. JTRH (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Time of Taking Office

Currently we have Harris and Pence both described as current Vice-President. Does the VP change at 11:30 or 12:00? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

12:00 EST Simuliid talk 16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Technically isn't it more like 11.55? The VP takes their oath of office before the President, who takes their oath as close to 12 as possible. 101090ABC (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

They both begin at noon, per the 20th amendment. The oath of office is a formality. TFD (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What a complete waste of time and effort this question was. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden & Harris replaced Trump & Pence at 17:00 UTC, regardless of when they took their respective oaths. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It would indeed be odd if Harris had become VP upon taking the oath, while Trump was still POTUS as Biden hadn't yet taken his. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The oath must be taken before taking office, but the term begins at noon Washington time regardless of when the oath is taken. JTRH (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Oath doesn't have to be taken before a term begins. Many a time US presidents & vice presidents have taken them after their terms began. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't exactly clear everything up, but in the case of the President, Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution states that "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation...", which suggests that taking the oath is required to execute the functions of the office, but, as Section 1 of the 20th Amendment makes clear, both the President and Vice President (usually) assume office at noon on the 20 January anyway, irrespective of the oath. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What it means is they become prez & vice prez at Noon EST, period. They just can't discharge the powers & duties of their offices, until the oaths are taken. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This whole discussion is probably pedantic. It's certainly not a discussion of Vice President Harris' article. Its probably better placed in Vice President of the United States Rklahn (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies if I've done anything wrong. I was just trying to help clear up any confusion. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that anyone did anything wrong here. Pedantic discussions happens on Talk pages all the time. No apology necessary. Rklahn (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I completely understand - no problem and thanks for the clarification! Have a nice evening! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"贺锦丽" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 贺锦丽. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#贺锦丽 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Momala" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Momala. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Momala until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CURRENTLY

Let's please not write serving as the 49th and current vice president when serving as the 49th vice president is two words shorter and means the exact same thing. The "and current" adds nothing, as "serving" is present tense. Let's follow common sense and the spirit of MOS:CURRENTLY. She'll be VP for four years, barring a shocking turn of events, and "currently" adds nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: & @ScottDavis: We kinda sealed this up rather quickly. The intro should align with the intro at Joe Biden's article. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It looks like User:Saved by God's grace inserted the word "currently" into this and two other articles about nine hours after my edit, with the edit description "correction". I don't think either form is incorrect, however I believe that with present-tense verbs, the word "currently" is unnecessary. While it has been included now in the articles for the president, vice president and their spouses, it is not in Nancy Pelosi, It is on Scott Morrison but not Anthony Albanese or David Hurley. I think that shows WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can support either inclusion or exclusion. It's a minor point not worthy of an edit war either way. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Genitive case again

For Christ('s) sake, it's Harris's parents, not Harris' parents. Please, authorized person, edit that occurrence.

Per English possessive:

"In the case of plural nouns ending in -s, the possessive is spelled by only adding an apostrophe and is pronounced the same (for example: Peasants' Revolt). In the case of singular nouns ending in -s (or -z[citation needed]), the possessive was traditionally[3] also spelled by adding only an apostrophe (despite often being pronounced differently):

the possessive of cats is cats', both words being pronounced /kæts/

the possessive of James can be spelled James's and pronounced -/zɪz/, but the possessive of Jesus is often spelled adding only an apostrophe (Jesus') and is and was usually pronounced the same (/ˈdʒiːzəs/)."

101090ABC (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection edit request: If we must, lets revert the citation that is not behind the paywall

If we must revert a citation around the pronunciation of Vice President Harris' name, can it at least be the one not behind a paywall like wsj.com? That being said, I don't understand exactly why two (or even three, if you count the one after the next word) citations is too many. I favor reverting [25], but reasonable editors may disagree. I will let a consensus develop before adding the Extended edit template.

Notice to @Trillfendi: Rklahn (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Sotomayer mispronounced Harris' name, when administering the oath. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Im taking silence as consensus, and adding the header.

Please revert [26] Rklahn (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The links provided are not to diffs, so they can't be reverted. Please either provide a diff or propose reversion to a specific version. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have lost consensus, so Im removing the header for now. If we return, I will provide the diff. Rklahn (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not a fan of the way WSJ does business but in this case, “National Post” is far inferior and according to WP:SOURCEACCESS, a reliable source like WSJ shouldn’t be removed just because of a paywall. Trillfendi (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if I accept that "National Post" is a far inferior source, I do not understand why one source is better than two here. In the mean time, Im going to attempt to access the WSJ article. Rklahn (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ive been able to read the WSJ article, and can accept it as a verified reliable source. I still don't know why multiple sources are not acceptable here, but can accept a consensus with only the WSJ article as the single source. I do, however, think the URL https://web.archive.org/web/20190217143821/https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-biggest-2020-election-question-whose-name-will-get-mangled-worst-11550161230 which is the same article without the paywall is better, but Ill leave the edit to others. I do not want to accept the burden of an extended confirmed protection edit request just to get the URL changed. Rklahn (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you familiar with citation overkill? Trillfendi (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I am, but citation overkill does not trump the verifiability policy here. And I don't think we were ever in the area of citation overkill. Rklahn (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

3 citations for a respell template is a bit ridiculous. Trillfendi (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act

Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act:

Matching bills were introduced to the House of Representatives by Jerry Nadler and to the Senate by Kamala Harris on July 23, 2019. At the time, Harris was a 2020 Democratic Party candidate for U.S. president.

There needs to be something about this in her Wikipedia article here. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

2nd biracial vice president

I added that she was the second biracial president after Charles Curtis which is pretty important. Please comment if you do not think it should be included. Patapsco913 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sullivan, Kevin (February 2, 2019). "'I am who I am': Kamala Harris, daughter of Indian and Jamaican, defines herself simply as 'American"". The Washington Post.

• Oppose adding "biracial," etc. There is a longstanding consensus on this page about two things: (i) race is a social construct, not a biological one, and (ii) KH has identified as African American and South Asian American, and only that.

She grew up in a milieu of African Americans, a pioneering milieu in Oakland and Berkeley that gave shape to the discipline of "Black Studies," promoted the holiday "Kwanza, and participated in the civil rights movement. She grew up also, for the most part, in a family of South Asian Americans who shaped her identity in other ways. Beyond these two identities, there is no separate "biracial" identity. There is not even a significant Jamaican identity, though she did visit Jamaica a few times with her father after her parents' divorce.

As her sister Maya Harris has said a few times, the "African American" identity of the two siblings is not via some convoluted logic connecting the Middle Passage, Slavery, and Jamaica, but the African American milieu in Oakland and Berkley in which they were raised (to which their father, except fleetingly, did not belong).

When we say so-and-so is the first Blank-American to hold an office, it is not DNA we acknowledge; rather, it is a social group we acknowledge that in mysterious ways gave early shape to a person's rise to that office. There is nothing in Charles Curtis's 1/4 to 3/8th Native American ancestry or 5/8th to 3/4ths European American Ancestry, or legacy, that establishes even the remotest continuity to Kamala Harris. As such, including him here, especially in the lead, or mentioning him in the same breath as Kamala Harris as a British Newspaper did, is nothing but a way of diminishing her achievement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Corrected for minor errors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons Fowler&fowler stated. We have been through this many times, and unless someone has something new to bring to the table, let's close this discussion. Rklahn (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Teammm ^talk
  _email 02:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an international encyclopaedia, and as a non-American English speaker, I can't work out what two "races" we would be asserting she is/has. It is better to describe how she identifies herself, and how her parents identified themselves. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Since when is Native American a "race"? Do people know what indigenous means? Trillfendi (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: You should be making your post on Talk:Charles Curtis. The arithmetic of race, its ratio and proportion in his instance, is computed there. I was merely referring to it, sardonically, I thought. Needless to say, most people here have studied enough biology to be disabused by the exceptions to "race." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: It was a rhetorical question. Trillfendi (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per above YallAHallatalk 09:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose She is the first in many categories, which deserves to be recognized. Being the second person to be or do something is less significant. JTRH (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Kamala Iyer Harris" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kamala Iyer Harris. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Kamala Iyer Harris until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zindor (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Harris's ancestry

Kamala Harris mother is from India her father from Jamaica. This need corrected as she is neither African or Asian. Fang747 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Fang747 We refer to her ancestry as reliable sources do. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them, or you may offer reliable sources of your own that claim differently. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Fang747, read the FAQ at the top of the page. (India is in Asia, FYI.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Top image, caption dispute

In relation to an RFC which is taking place at Joe Biden, can we please keep this article's infobox image consistent with the Biden one, concerning usage or non-usage of a caption? These 'back-and-forth' edits at both articles, is rather annoying & could only lead to editors getting dragged to ANI. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The things people worry about .... If the ultimate outcome of the RfC is in keeping with the current majority of !votes, it will be "include caption since 8 years is a long time". Such an outcome would have no implications for this article. An appropriate notion of consistency is "there should be an articulable principle that guides choices" and "old photos should be captions, recent representative photos shouldn't be" is a consistent principle that could result in a caption at Joe Biden and no caption here. And that would be completely fine. --JBL (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, we are really discussing a Manual of Style issue when you start discussing keeping two pages style in sync. Rklahn (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with putting a caption on all pictures SRD625 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as the caption helps readers understand the picture (instead of restating the article title). The caption to the infobox image stating "Official portrait, 2017" helps us understand that the photo was taken while she was a senator, which explains the California flag in the background. A prominent California flag might be unusual for a Vice President portrait. GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support caption for that reason - in fact, recommend something like "Official portrait as Senator from California, 2017". --GRuban (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

2603:6080:7F06:6AB4:A100:30C9:1C43:BED2 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC) 2603:6080:7F06:6AB4:A100:30C9:1C43:BED2 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Give information but lable them like kamala harris childhood and stuff cause im not reading all that just to find one thing.

 Not doneThere is a TOC box which prominently displays these sections. CUPIDICAE💕 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

Her nationality is Indian/Jamaican, not American. That isn't even a nationality. 100.34.251.71 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"American" is a nationality (of the United States of America), at least in general common usage. I think it should be left as it is. NateNate60 (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

She is a citizen of the United States of America. In common usage, that makes her American. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I know this is answered, but let me add. According to OED, nationality has two meanings: the status of belonging to a particular nation and an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations. In American English, which the article is in, the first is common usage, elsewhere in the world, it's often the second. Rklahn (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I am from "elsewhere". It means the same here as in the US. I have never seen it have some sort of meaning similar to ethnicity. But I guess our OP has. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I dropped a word that changes the meaning of my statement. I meant "it's often the second" and have edited my statement accordingly. Thanks! Rklahn (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

New photo?

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.

---

File:Kamala Harris 139674503 (cropped).jpg

The new portrait

Harris has officially published a new professional-looking photo. Should this replace the current one in the infobox? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes The current picture is her official portrait as a senator. Even if anyone thinks that another picture should be used, this one is definitely better than the current one.TFD (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• As it’s from Facebook I would err on the side of caution against it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Since this is her official Facebook as Vice President, rather than her personal page, I think it's a fair assumption this is US Federal government work. (I'm betting they would be very careful about mixing personal and official government stuff since the Hillary Clinton email server thing.) --GRuban (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, the copyright here is clearly not an issue. Just curious which people prefer for the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support new image, image is of her as VP, should definitely replace her senate portrait. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support new image, at least until there is an actual official VP photo, which this one from Facebook is not. Rklahn (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2021 (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.

Grammatical fix on the last sentence of the introduction

Current: Biden selected Harris as his running mate in August 2020, they would go on to win the general election and she assumed office as vice president of the United States on January 20, 2021.

This is a comma splice because two independent clauses are joined with a single comma. I suggest it be replaced with a semicolon:

Biden selected Harris as his running mate in August 2020; they would go on to win the general election and she assumed office as vice president of the United States on January 20, 2021.

NateNate60 (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Why the clumsy tense? How about "they went on to win the general election"? HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Better yet: "Biden chose Harris as his running mate in August 2020. They won the November general election, and she assumed office as vice president of the United States on January 20, 2021." Prose is not better because it is longer. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I like your version more..NateNate60 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

So do I. JTRH (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Attorney General - Privacy Rights & Law Enforcement: Harris' Loss in U.S. Supreme Court in "Riley v. California" (2014)

I suggest that material be added to the "Attorney General" section in the "Privacy Rights" or "Law Enforcement" sub-sections about Harris' loss in "Riley v. California," which Wikipedia describes as a "landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California Harris took a strong anti-privacy, pro-police position that even the conservative Supreme Court rejected. CNN in 2014 quoted Harris, “A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to arrest requires no additional justification.” See: https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/25/tech/mobile/scotus-cell-phone-searches/index.html This was a major loss for Attorney General Harris and a major victory for electronic privacy. The omission from this material from the Kamala Harris article likely can be attributed to the fact that this article has been hijacked by a cabal of pro-Harris fanatics who drummed out most criticism of Harris in the months leading up to her selection as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in August 2020. An editor literally went through Harris' Attorney General news releases and integrated them into this article as part of a concerted effort to create a pro-Harris hagiography. Of course, "fan club" editors would avoid discussion of "Riley v. California" and other instances when Harris was anti-privacy, pro-police, and anti-criminal defendant. Other editors have engaged in scorched-earth tactics against longtime editors who are not part of the "Kamala fan club," yet make excuses when users like "SummerMoonGoddess" created an account just to vandalize this article (e.g., by stripping out all discussion of Kamala Harris' quid pro quo romantic relationship with then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.) I've lost faith in Wikipedia. It's time that international society has a strong "antitrust" conversation about Wikipedia's undue "market power" in search results, etc., especially because much of its content is manipulated by cabals of "fan clubs" (many of whom quite likely are paid political operatives). The Kamala Harris article is "Exhibit A" for content manipulation that has run rampant on Wikipedia.Jab73 (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

So are you here just to snipe about bias? Because the Riley case has never been in this biography. It wasn't removed by the "Kamala fan club" because it was never added.

You are free to suggest some neutrally worded text about the Riley case. But your trolling comment about QPQ shows your bad faith stance, so I would rather see another editor bring Riley into the article. A major point of concern is that the Riley case might be WP:UNDUE because it is hardly ever discussed in connection with Harris's career. And lots of the news coverage of the Riley case back in 2014 didn't mention Harris at all, for instance Washington Times, Vox and Ms. magazine. I don't see the media describing it as a significant part of Harris's career. Binksternet (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and make the edit, if you're still interested. I don't really see how whether the attorney arguing a case was mentioned in an article about the case has any bearing on whether it has relevance to that attorney's career. For example, attorneys for defendants making an appeal are only mentioned as so-and-so's attorneys, but if they ever became notable enough to get an article, it would probably be mentioned in retrospect. The only two important factors are the notability of the case and the attorney's or the attorney's office's involvement. Typeprint (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Change from ..and the first African American and first Asian American vice president... to... Kamala's descent is Jamaican and Indian. Kamala's Father was born in Jamaica. Kamala's Mother was born in India. 76.250.208.245 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Kamala Harris 139674503 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Community Tech bot: Yes, it should be deleted! I agree with the proposal of nominating this image to be deleted Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No it should not Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Suggestion: Add in her achievements/career posts before Vice President in the first paragraph, as done with virtually every other politician. Add a short second paragraph saying When Kamala Harris become VP in 2021, she became the first female, African American, Asian American, ect... Prins van Oranje 09:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Bit wordy and overlong, why not just "Non-white"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well that would be factually incorrect. President Herbert Hoover's Vice President, Charles Curtis, was not white (he was native American). Also that is exactly how the current article is written, I'm just proposing to create an extra paragraph since someone's race/gender isn't the most noteworthy thing about them. Prins van Oranje 12:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it not? I think a lot of RS found it notable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Nonwhite" might be British usage, not American. "Person of color," seems to be the current favorite here. But ... see below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

PS Also, African Americans and Asian Americans references groups with longstanding political histories and traditions of action (especially the former). Mentioning them by name is an acknowledgment of the context that made KH's rise possible, and is, therefore notable. "Nonwhites" or "people of color" never quite bandied together as a political force in America. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is for the very first paragraph, that's why I'm suggesting so. So a new version could look like this

• Kamala Devi Harris (/ˈkɑːmələ ˈdeɪvi/ (About this soundlisten) KAH-mə-lə DAY-vee;[3][4] born October 20, 1964) is an American politician and attorney serving as the 49th and current vice president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, she served as a United States senator from California from 2017 to 2021, and as the attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017. Harris became vice president upon inauguration in January 2021 alongside President Joe Biden, having defeated the incumbent president, Donald Trump, and vice president, Mike Pence, in the 2020 election.
  
  When she became Vice President in 2021, she became the United States' first female vice president, the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, and the first African American and first Asian American vice president.Prins van Oranje 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We'll find that as the months go by, her being the 49th vice president will be more important than her being the first female vice president. A compliment, as a woman US veep becomes the norm. Thus increasingly, noting her gender will become less important in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Prins van Oranje 08:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Kamala Harris is the first Jamaican-American or Indian-American to be Vice President. She is not of African descent as stated in the text. 2600:1008:B068:5051:3BE:19CC:5F7D:FA1 (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Right at the top of this page you can read the "Frequently asked questions" (FAQ). Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2021 (2)

64.53.103.250 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not my opinion it is facts!

You need to tell us what is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2021 (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) 17:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

I was hoping to add the citation under subsection Criminal Justice Reform having to do with the pilot program Harris initiated in 2015 Back on Track. Here is citation link: https://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/deathpenalty/2016-May.txt Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

User:DeepfriedOkra Could you weigh in? Wanted your thoughts please! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra Name Misprint * Elvisisalive95 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elvisisalive95: I don't know. It's from a news mailing list? Not sure if the sourcing is sufficient. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra Ok, I’ll keep on searching for a better one! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2021 (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) 22:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Vice President not vice president

I just want to capitalize Vice President but the page is protected. Vice President is a proper noun Filmmaker8306 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It depends on context and usage. JTRH (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Change "African-American" to "Indian-Jamaican-American". 2600:1700:3FC0:FAF0:D436:628:2E48:65DB (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

She is a Jamaican-American, not an African-American! 74.175.211.17 (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done This has already been debated at length for approximately the last 98,000 years. GMG^talk 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Article looks like a Kamala Harris fanpage

So are we not gonna talk about how she imprisoned thousands of people (notably blacks and Hispanics) for petty crime and weed? So are we not going to mention how she and Joe had a rocky relationship? Where is all of this in the lead?

How low can you go Wikipedia? How low?

Very low.

I mean, the entire introduction is furnished with praise and admiration. I mean, just wow, this page looks like an advocacy piece of Kamala Harris. Very convenient how you never discuss her controversies.

Very bad people those Republicans. Very good people those Democrats >:( Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned under Kamala Harris#Sentencing and prison inmate retention. TFD (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ak-eater06 If you have information sourced to independent reliable sources that does not violate WP:BLP, or other specific changes, please offer them. It would appear you did not read past the lead, The article mentions her prosecutorial work enforcing the laws of California, her defense of California's death penalty, her criticism of Biden, and other things like that. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Grow up. Trillfendi (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

331dot yea but why is it not mentioned in the lead? If I were a first-time reader of this article who didn't have any prior knowledge of Kamala Harris, I'd get positive vibes and I would have no criticism of her. Please make sure the introduction is balanced by including her controversies in the lead. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately not everything can be mentioned in the lead. Even if it could, giving undue weight to alleged "controversies" is not what we do here. If you have a specific wording to propose, however, please offer it- but the lead won't be turned into a hit piece either emphasizing the things Republicans and others don't like about her. If you just want to tell the world the things you don't like about the Vice President, that shouldn't be done here. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The lede is a summery of our article, it is not a newspaper-style leader.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Official portrait

Harris' official portrait as VP has been released and can be found here: https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Photo-Gallery/igphoto/2002616038/ Abssch (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Official portrait released on Navy website

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1x7LF_gh-XUJ:https://www.navy.mil/COMMANDER-FLEET-ACTIVITIES-YOKOSUKA/+&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Uploaded thx for alerting link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillypaboy123 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Image Caption

This is the second time that User:Volvlogia has reverted an image caption edit. As discussed on Joe Biden's page, an image caption saying "Official portrait, 2021" is both needed and necessary. MogasTheThird (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

In usual presidental or vice presidental portraits there is usually a caption under the photo. I was going to add Official portrait, 2021 under Harris's official portrait. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"Born" in infobox

Per the footnote in the infobox and in the lead, she was born "Kamala Iyer Harris". I think it's fine to have the lead how it is, with an explanatory footnote, but shouldn't the infobox at least have her "born name" as the name she was born as, rather than what it was changed to? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The infobox has the same explanatory note, so it really isn't a problem for the reader, who will understand that Devi is the longstanding middle name, after an unimportant period of two weeks in which the infant future VP held no interest in the issue. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that it's not majorly important for most readers. My only point was that saying she was "born Kamala Devi Harris" as it does currently is technically incorrect. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree, the infobox should either leave out the birth name param or use what she was actually born as.  Nixinova   T   C   21:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

Kamala Harris is not African American. Her father is Jamaican, which is not African descent. It is correct to refer to her as a Black American, just not African American. 2603:8080:2501:D200:A199:D581:96F:70F5 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

Please change the capitalization of “black” to “Black” in the Early Life and Education section, “West Berkeley, an area often called the ‘flatlands’ with a significant black [this should be changed to “Black”] population.” 2603:7080:F00:88DF:289F:320A:4242:5EEE (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Needs a request for comment to determine local consensus. The lower case version is not wrong according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Peoples and their languages. Upper case can be used if it is consistent throughout the article, but lower case can also be used. So it looks like a local straw poll should be undertaken to determine which style is used here. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

African Perspective.

I'm a UK citizen living in Africa, Kenya to be precise. I haven't heard anyone refer to Kamala Harris as African-American, everyone describes her as Asian-American. Just thought i'd add that to the discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.5.47.223 (talk)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page as to why the article describes her that way. Are you a particular authority on what people in Africa refer to VP Harris as, or do you have independent reliable sources to support what you state? 331dot (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It could be that in Africa, the term African American means something else. TFD (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

In lead, it says: "She is the first female vice president" and "the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history". I think this is a tautology, either say she is x or y, I think the second one is enough. -- Maudslay II (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A person might have preceded her in US history as the first female president without ever being a VP. Besides, many people are not aware of what the order of precedence is in the US. In many countries, the president and vice-president are appointed figureheads; the prime minister is the highest-ranking official. We cater to a wide readership. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Even when the head of state is a figurehead, they still rank higher than the PM. Boris Johnson bows to the Queen, she does not curtsey to him. In relative terms, heads of state receive a 21 gun salute, while PMs and the U.S. VP receive a 19 gun salute. TFD (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't have muddied the waters with the Order of Precedence, but my understanding is that an official is a holder of public office, i.e. someone who is responsible to the public for governing, administering or upholding the law. Yeah, sure Churchill bowed to the 20-something Elizabeth when she stepped off the flight from Kenya, but Churchill was voted out later; she's was not. She might be Head of State, but she is not an official. Neither are Presidents or Governors-General in parliamentary democracies. American presidents and European chancellors are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Before Harris, Nancy Pelosi was the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, so by that fact, being the first female Vice President is not the same thing. Trillfendi (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Laura Italiano Story

I don't think that the debunked article is important enough to be in her VP section. It should be removed. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's getting a lot of coverage,[27] and is relevant to her bio as a demonstration of a right-wing smear attempt. Why do you not think it is important enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Might be better of in an article about her, to the NYpost. As it does not really seem to be about Harris so much as the NYpost.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It is mentioned on Superheroes Are Everywhere and New York Post, and it's important that it be mentioned on those two pages. There's an argument to make that it's not really about her. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Iyer"

Bringing this to the talk pages again on advice from reverting editor – I previously brought this here and was met with support but the discussion was archived. For a period of two weeks, beginning with the moment of her birth, VP Harris' name was "Kamala Iyer Harris". Having anything else for the "birth name" parameter is absurd. I understand it was an insignificant period of time, and therefore the footnote is helpful; but her name at birth was "Iyer", not "Devi". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Um, if an name on a birth cert was corrected (not changed, this is an important distinction), than the erroneous name was never the subject's legal middle name. Zaathras (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a distinction legally between a corrected and changed name. Could you provide a source explaining this? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Common sense, really. But places like US birth certificates, [SD Law Library seem to make a distinction between error correction and the choosing of a different name. Zaathras (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we know what the reasons for the correction were? That would determine what the right language would be. Was it a case where, like Martin Luther King Jr., the doctor made an incorrect assumption based on Dad's name? (He was never called "Michael" by his parents, and his father said it was the doctor's mistake.) Was it a change of mind, a disagreement between the parents? Was it just somehow a typo? I'm sure someone has written about this. And whose concept of "name" wins? The official thing with the county recorder's seal, even if it was a mistake? The intent and use of the parents? When she fills in security forms, does she list "Iyer" as an AKA or formerly used name? I would simply say "the name on her birth certificate was originally Iyer, and was changed by "affidavit of correction" two weeks later." This would avoid the entire "her name was" issue. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A birth certificate is not what gives a person a name but a record of a person's birth. Note that people are given names before their births are recorded. Like any record its details can be wrong and corrected. A correction is not a new record, as a change of name would be, but means that the original information was wrong. Place and time of birth as well as gender can be wrongly recorded too. No one would say in the latter case that someone was born a male but changed their gender days later through a correction. TFD (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Civil Liberties record

What happened to the material about her handling of police and prosecutorial misconduct?

Everything about Harris's handling of cases like this was abysmal. When she was DA of San Francisco, SF police got a confession from a suspect without "reading his rights". She went to court and did her best to keep the conviction from being overturned.

As California AG, she handled two cases of prosecutorial misconduct at the local level, both times arguing that the conviction should stand even though the DA's office had concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense.

I would never vote for someone like Trump -- Her positions in these cases gave me severe qualms about voting for her as VP. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There's still material in the article about her reactionary role as DA. Given how little coverage it receives, it seems proportionate. Maybe you could read through the article and make suggestions. TFD (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

She's not African American, that's FALSE 2603:7000:6E3F:DDF9:458A:5208:E4B4:ED1C (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Stepchildren

Cullen328's edit summary for this edit says No, but her stepchildren are discussed extensively in reliable sources. Is there broad consensus that stepchildren should not be mentioned?

Two things:

1. If there's extensive discussion of the stepchildren, it's nowhere in the article, which has one sentence mentioning them. There's not even a prima-facie case for assuming parental influence as the two kids were 15 and 20 years old, respectively, at the time of the marriage.
2. In articles in general -- and BLPs especially -- it's the responsibility of the editor who wants to include material to convince others, NOT have everyone or anyone else convince said editor to NOT do so.

--Calton | Talk 12:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing the lead. The relationship seems too remote for inclusion. We don't mention for example in-laws. There should be a guideline for this. TFD (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is her stepchildren not listed in the infobox like Jill Biden? cookie monster (2020) 755 17:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiilie Brown section

I lived during this time. She was actually the girlfriend of Willie and she received two important appointments from him (her boyfriend). Why is this fact not simply stated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:206:fe00:e49f:f749:ec0:d4bd (talk) 14:23, July 15, 2021 (UTC)

It is, in Kamala Harris#Early career (1990–2004). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Willie Brown was giving out jobs to lots of his friends. The practice is frowned upon because it often puts the wrong people into the wrong jobs. But Kamala Harris performed admirably at her posts. She rose above the stereotype. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

An edit summary of "oh?" ? Seriously?

@Drmies:, my reversion of an editor's addition of "first Jamaican-American" to the opening was in line with the FAQ of this BLP, specifically When Wikipedia describes Harris as the "first" to do something, we default to the larger category. Therefore, she isn't the first Tamil-, Indian-, or South Asian-American to be elected Vice President of the US (although she is all of those things); instead we note, as reliable sources do, that she's the first Asian-American. Please explain your reversal of my edit. Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• "There is a consensus among editors for this BLP to stick to the larger category; see Q1 of the FAQ on the talk page" is an entirely different thing than "not important", Zaathras. "Not important" means "it's not important in the real world", which is insensitive and untrue. If you are going to revert me based on the FAQ, that's fine, but please note that in your edit summary. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well that's kind of on you for just blindly reverting and not actually looking into the substance of what was being edited. Do you plan on self-reverting, or shall I wait out the 24h and do it?Zaathras (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2021

She is a Jamaican-Asian American. Not African American. Even her father’s profile says he is Jamaican-American. Also, extending it to the fact that while she would be considered Asian, she is Indian. Needs better clarification rather than “churching it up”. Thanks. 2603:6011:3302:2A43:86E:9630:46D9:8AA (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Sir the page shows Kamala Harris as African American and Asian American but she is Indian American. The source of reference too identified her as an Indian American. So, please let me edit this mistake. Please sir🙏. Prince.Hanzra (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The "Asian" census category includes people who indicate their race(s) on the census as "Asian" or reported entries such as "Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Korean, Japanese, Malaysian, and Other Asian. So under "US law" she is Asian American.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

Change African American to Jamaican and Indian 2603:7000:D840:2C40:CDFA:E91F:4236:CDE0 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done: read the FAQ and the sections above. Acroterion (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Kamala Harris' background

Sir in the page it shows Kamala Harris as African American and Asian American, but she is Indian American. The source of reference too identified her as Indian American. So please let me edit this mistake. Please🙏. Prince.Hanzra (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The information is not immaculate as Indians by virtue of continental geography are Asians. India is considered a subcontinent of Asia. Iluien theIlluminator (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

inaccurate* Iluien theIlluminator (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest you contact the US Census Bureau and tell them to change it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Indian Americans are Asian Americans. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Should "gained a national profile" be deleted from the article?

I checked the singular source cited for the "national profile" claim, but could not find that such a claim supported in the source. (FairNPOV (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC))

The relevant passage in the source seems to be "In the Senate she has earned a reputation for sharp questioning and a skeptical approach to Trump administration officials. On the Senate Judiciary Committee, she has been one of the body’s more pointed interrogators, particularly during high-profile moments such as the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh." 331dot (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

Please change Asian American to Indian American please Pritha1654 (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if we should just start summarily removing these requests unless the user returns to engage us in discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

How long do we wait, though?Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that the request should be removed, and if the user comes back to ask where it went, we can then engage them in discussion. Many of these requests are likely drive-bys with no intention of coming back. We treat similar repetitive requests like this on 2020 Delhi riots and Sushant Singh Rajput. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Change: Of Afro-Jamaican descent, Donald Harris met his future wife, Shyamala Gopalan through the civil rights movement.

To: Of Afro-Jamaican and Irish-Jamaican descent, Donald Harris met his future wife, Shyamala Gopalan through the civil rights movement. H2ocello (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please change her father Donald Harris’ heritage from Afro-Jamaican to Afro-Jamaican and Irish-Jamaican. H2ocello (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

H2ocello This has been asked and answered countless times. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2021

Kamala Harris is not an African American. She is a Jamaican American. 47.149.46.220 (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please also see the FAQ above. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

Are we not gonna add her latest criticisms about "office dysfunction" and low approval ratings?? Also, the fact most of her staff has resigned because of these allegations and criticisms?? Lostfan333 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add something, make a specific proposal. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

First woman with presidential power

It should be mentioned in the lead. ref. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/19/politics/kamala-harris-presidential-power/index.html 213.197.75.201 (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

We say she was the first female Vice president, I am not sure what more needs to be said.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, power is being transferred to her on a temporary basis because Biden will be incapacitated, and the sources, like the above from CNN, treat it as a barrier being broken. And, if the stories are to be believed a certain former president did his colonoscopy without anesthesia specifically to not transfer power to his VP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

News-of-the-moment trivia, honestly, not worthy of reprint here. ValarianB (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s a technicality. It’s not like she will have the time to do anything groundbreaking during this doctor’s appointment. Trillfendi (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It's enough, mentioning that she was the third vice president to assume the powers & duties as acting president. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Did Yuri Gagarin "do something groundbreaking" during his 1961 trip to space apart from being the first human being in space? - Tournesol (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I was originally going to make a similar reference about space… but I thought it was sexist. Trillfendi (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Well as this was a specific mission for specific purposes, and in total (form launch to landing) lasted rather more than one hour and 25 minutes (and also ushered in the space race) not really comparable.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, did I jinx it?? Not 24 hours later after my request, we see Kamala become acting President. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: She was acting president for 1 hour & 25 minutes, today. Best kept in the Veep section of the article, like it's done in the George H.W. Bush & Dick Cheney bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Since there have only been approx. 50 VPs, each one has been first in many things. We should only emphasize what is considered most important in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2021

Request to add Acting President 174.247.80.177 (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Request to change "On November 19, 2021, Harris served as acting president from 10:10 to 11:35 am EST, while President Biden underwent a "routine colonoscopy". She was the first female (third person overall) to assume the powers and duties of the U.S. presidency." to "On November 19, 2021, Harris served as acting president from 10:10 am EST to 11:35 am EST while President Biden underwent a "routine colonoscopy". She became the first woman, and the third person overall, to formally assume the powers and duties of the U.S. presidency." The latter is more gramatically correct than the former in terms of its usage of consistent application of time standard as well as in terms of removing any need for unnecessary & frankly unsightly parentheses from the latter sentence pertaining to her being the first woman and third person overall to ascend to the acting presidency. Moreover, the use of the word "formally" is called for because she is only the first woman and third person overall to have done so formally per the constitutional procedures established by the 25th Amendment; there are those who would argue, on the basis of a litany of reliable sources, that she's neither the first woman to assume the powers of the presidency on account of Edith Wilson's existence & actions during her husband's 2nd term (referred to on the Edith Wilson page) nor the third person overall to do so because Nixon did so twice during Eisenhower's presidency in accordance with his pre-25th agreement with Eisenhower (once in 1955, once in 1956, both referred to on the 25th Amendment page). Hence, "formally." Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Note: before seeing that you had started this thread I changed the sentence to read: She became the first female (third person overall) to assume the powers and duties of the U.S. presidency under Section 3 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Does this work for you? Drdpw (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really, as it doesn't address any of the aforementioned grammatical concerns & frankly just makes the sentence read more clunky. The 25th doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned; the word "formally" is more than ample enough. If your suggestion works for a majority of others, then so be it, but I personally am not of the opinion that that is how it should read, hence why I still suggested & provided ample reasoning for what I suggested. Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Best to change it back, the way it was. As for Edith Wilson? please don't, just don't. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no call for the use of "formally" here, the urban legends about Edith Wilson running the government in her bedridden husband's stead are not relevant to the biography of Kamala Harris. ValarianB (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, it is more than an urban legend: she herself admitted that she was in charge, & the executive branch of the federal government itself has since done the same. Again, though, what I'm advocating for here isn't a matter of Edith Wilson so much as a mere matter of seeking minimal writing of maximum clarity: aside from the issue of wanting to make the paragraph more grammatically clear than it currently is, the simple use of the word "formally" as opposed to the current wording or the proposed writing-out of "Section 3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment" would simply make clear - without having to render the paragraph more grammatically clunky than it already is by fully writing-out the "Section 3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment" proposal - that VP Harris' tenure as Acting President was undertaken in the formal, constitutionally-prescribed manner rather than any informal manners that the likes of Wilson & Nixon were forced to deal with & which are clearly well-known to many who may come across this article (after all, if they weren't well-known, then this matter wouldn't even be under discussion here on this talk page to begin with). Neither Wilson nor Nixon need to be explicitly mentioned in this article on Kamala Harris &, crucially, that's not what is even being advocated for here: what I'm simply advocating for is a grammatically clear middle-ground between the vague, grammatically-clunky writing that currently exists in the status quo & the over-specific, grammatically-clunky writing that would exist by virtue of the earlier-proposed writing-out of "Section 3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment." My proposal entailing "formally" would be such a bridging, grammatically-clear middle-ground: minimal writing of maximum clarity. Brucejoel99 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as any aspect of the "formally" nonsense is dropped, I'm fine with the grammatical changes. ValarianB (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. Again, though, there was an arguably legitimate compelling reason - minimal writing of maximum clarity - offered as to why the mere addition of the word "formally" wouldn't constitute "nonsense," & I'd note that the merits of said reason as offered in my last response were rather conspicuously not even responded to by anything other than a reworded repetition of what said reason was itself responding to in the first place. It's possible to just state one's rationale as to why one may still genuinely disagree on the matter of whether or not said offered reason is legitimately compelling - even though it was already made perfectly clear that not only do neither Wilson nor Nixon need to be explicitly mentioned in this article on Kamala Harris, but that that's not what's even being advocated for here to begin with - rather than resort to just being generally disagreeable :) Brucejoel99 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Distinct Use of "Female" or "Woman"

So I just had the previously-agreed-to grammatical edit reverted because "'female' not 'woman' is used elsewhere in the article, and EST needs only to be stated once to be applicable to both in the same phrase." I concede the EST point, which makes perfectly valid sense, but elsewhere in the article, "female" is only used twice: in the context of "She is the [United States'] first female vice president[,/and] the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history," specifically in the article introduction as well as the first paragraph of the "Vice presidency (2021-present)" section. In contrast, "woman" is used numerous more times in more relevant contexts: specifically, in the second paragraph of the article introduction to denote that she "bec[a]me the second African American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate," in the second paragraph of the 2010 section to denote that "she is the first woman, the first African American, and the first South Asian American to hold the office of Attorney General in the state's history," in the third paragraph of "Vice presidential campaign" to denote that "she was the only African American woman with the political experience typical of vice presidents," in the fourth paragraph of that same section to denote that she was "the third woman after Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin to be picked as the vice-presidential nominee for a major party ticket," and in the first paragraph of "Awards and honors" to denote that she was identified "as a woman with potential to become president of the United States." Given the applied wording of the relevant sentence at hand - "She became the first [female/woman], and the third person overall, to assume the powers and duties of the U.S. presidency under Section 3 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment," it would appear to me that consistency with the rest of the article - in particular, consistency with the rest of the article's grammatical application as applied to sentences that involve a denotation of Harris "becom[ing]" something, most specifically how she "bec[a]me the second African American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate" and, to a lesser extent, how she was identified as "a woman with potential to become president of the United States" - would require use of the word woman in this sentence so that it reads (emphasis added in italics) "She became the first woman, and the third person overall, to assume the powers and duties of the U.S. presidency under Section 3 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment." Yes? Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that it’s used more often, I will reverse the change and reinsert 'woman'. Drdpw (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Five or Seven

I am seeing conflicting numbers from different sources:
Sept 2015 Her parents, Shyamala Gopalan and Donald J. Harris, met as graduate students at UC Berkeley. They divorced when Harris was 5.
Jan 2019 When Harris' father, Donald Harris, who teaches economics at Stanford, and her mother separated, Harris was 7 years old..
The only way I could see BOTH being correct is if they "divorced", but remained together another two years before "separating" ? How do we decide which number is correct? Kamala (born October 1964) turned five Oct'69, six Oct'70, seven Oct'71, eight Oct'72. I had previously seen listed on the Shyamala Gopalan article that she divorced in 1971 but no source was listed. I just changed it to 1970 based on the 2015 article from LA Times before learning of this News18 source saying 7 instead of 5. LA Times said the divorce happened in the "early 70s" in a later October 2019 article : https://archive.md/https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-25/how-kamala-harris-indian-family-shaped-her-political-career which is why I asserted it was 1970 and not 1969 (as she was five in Oct/Nov/Dec) Can we find any other news sources giving Kamala's age at the divorce (or maybe calling out the divorce year explicitly) to break this tie? WakandaQT (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There are discrepancies in Harris' early life story, which we discussed some time ago. It's not up to us to figure it out. I would just attribute the information in text. TFD (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Valid critique missing

Of course, we all respect vice-presidents of America, but we should really allow criticisms to be posted here. In recent times, Harris has received critical evaluations from a number of publications, from the left and right, let me please allow to post that criticism, according to wikipedia protocol. Thank you. Osterluzei (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of criticisms mentioned throughout the article already. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Osterluzei, I appreciate you coming to the talk page. What criticisms need to be added? I don't really see how one opinion poll is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If there is WP:SIGCOV, then its fair game. As long as it doesn't breach any WP:BLP. Critiques are allowed. Doesn't matter of who. EliteArcher88 (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV is about creating articles, not what goes into them. TFD (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is some missing information. Without speaking for Osterluzei, I would suggest that the months-long drumbeat of reports of dysfunction and dissention in the Vice President's office merits a mention in the article. See [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. I would suggest adding something along the lines of the following: "During the second half of 2021, a series of reports depicted Harris's office as a toxic, chaotic, and ill-managed environment. In November 2021, CNN reported: "Harris' staff has repeatedly failed her and left her exposed, and family members have often had an informal say within her office. Even some who have been asked for advice lament Harris' overly cautious tendencies and staff problems, which have been a feature of every office she's held, from San Francisco district attorney to US Senate".[38] 74.67.6.88 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

That would be better in the VP article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no VP article, and even if there were (even if someday there might be one), inclusion of such details should not be ignored in this article. Drdpw (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is about her office, not her.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please take another look at the sources I referenced. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"There is dysfunction inside the VP’s office" " dysfunction and infighting in her office.", yes this seem to be about her office.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I beg to differ. If you look at the quote above, it addresses "Harris' overly cautious tendencies and staff problems." It's not just about her office--it's about her. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Both the above quotes talk about here office, as "as a toxic, chaotic, and ill-managed environment" or dysfunctional. It seems this is a problem with the office, not her as such.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

English School Eligibility in Quebec

There is note stating the following: Harris has said she struggled with understanding her French immersion, so her mother sent her to an English-speaking school for high school. This would no longer have been possible the next year, when Quebec passed a law requiring all immigrants who did not previously have English schooling in Quebec to enroll their children in French-speaking schools.

This is incorrect as Bill 101 allows children of temporary foreign residents to attend English schools. As her family never applied to become Canadian citizens, Harris and her sister would have been exempt from the language laws even if they entered school after 1978. The current provincial government is trying to change this rule to limit English schooling to only three years but this was not the case when Harris lived in Montreal. Please see source: https://globalnews.ca/news/8216578/english-school-board-officials-quebec-french-language-minister-bill-96-hearings/ 173.176.1.133 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this information should be omitted because it is irrelevant to the topic. You have provided no evidence btw that Harris' mother was in Canada on a temporary work permit. TFD (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The article I provided cites the foreign resident exemption as the reason why Kamala Harris was allowed to go to Westmount High School. FYI a “temporary foreign resident” simply means they are on a non-immigrant visa. I will find other sources to justify my belief why the note “b” should be removed as it contains incorrect information.173.176.1.133 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

From https://www.thesuburban.com/townnews/politics/bill-96-would-hurt-english-school-enrolment-qesba/article_68e40ee9-5655-5cd7-9a05-b12b10194221.html “ Copeman also expressed concern about the length of time in which foreign nationals could attend English schools. He brought up the example of Vice-President Kamala Harris, who came to Canada from the United States and was able to attend Westmount High School even as Bill 101 generally requires all those from outside Canada who intended to stay in Quebec to attend French schools. Her mother was a temporary foreign worker, and Harris was thus eligible to attend English school.” 173.176.1.133 (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is this significant?Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not significant. I am not asking for this info to be added to the article. I am simply requesting that “note b” inserted after Westmount High School be removed as it is inaccurate.173.176.1.133 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your source does not seem to say that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree the note should be removed. The source is very weak, and the source is speculating, while the sentence in Wikipedia is asserting the same information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The note currently inserted in the wiki article states that she would not be allowed to attend English schools had she started high school a year later. My sources show that is not the case as current rules that applied when she was in Montreal allow foreign residents to attend English schools.173.176.1.133 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

See wp:v and wp:or, the source must discuss her case. The claim is that as an immigrant (not a resident) she would not be elligbalbe.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Both my sources here specifically cite Kamala Harris and this was brought up at the National Assembly hearings as both news articles state.173.176.1.133 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as an example of someone this law WOULD effect, you need a source saying she would not have been affected by it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read the entirety of the article, it talks about how the current rules under Bill 101 allowed Harris to attend English schools but the changes introduced in Bill 96 would close that exemption. Bill 101 was in effect when Harris was attending school. Bill 96 has not been passed yet. “ One of his worries is the bill’s plan to limit how long foreign nationals can have their children study at English schools, possibly hurting already declining enrolment.

“Any measure that reduces that number is going to have a negative effect on the quality of education that we can provide,” he said, explaining that the parents of U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris were able to enrol her at Westmount High School under the current rules.” -From my first source 173.176.1.133 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I missed that. I agree we shouols remove the foot note.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't have any reliable sources for Harris' mother's immigration status in Canada. Bear in mind that she worked in Canada for sixteen years. Furthermore, to be recognized as a temporary worker, she would have required to be accepted under the provincial temporary worker program as well as the federal. The temporary worker program at the time was mostly for domestic workers and did not allow them to bring in their dependents. It seems unlikely too that Harris' mother would give up premanent residence in the U.S. for temporary residence in Canada, particularly when she would have qualified for permanent residence. TFD (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

To be a “temporary foreign resident” in Quebec in regards to Bill 101 simply means you are not on a path to citizenship. This includes expat employees at multinational companies and McGill professors on work permits. However, as soon as you apply for PR, you are no longer considered to be temporary. To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen any source suggesting that the family applied for permanent residency in Canada. When you apply to go to English schools in Quebec, you have to submit a certificate of eligibility to the school board which states the reason why you qualify. If there is anyone who knows the reason why she would be able to attend English schools, it would most likely be the English school officials who specifically stated in my source that her mother was a temporary foreign worker. What the provincial government is doing with Bill 96 is closing a perceived loophole in Bill 101 which allows foreign residents to remain “temporary” indefinitely. The new proposed law which will likely come into effect this year will limit the duration of English education to three years max. Regardless, this new law has nothing to do with Harris as she already benefited from the old law. Also, as the note has been removed, this discussion is no longer needed. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.1.133 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I found an article from 2018 about a boy who had attended English schools since 2010 but was facing a forced switch to French school because his family had been accepted as permanent residents. Based on this article, Harris would only have to switch to French school if she had become a permanent resident. https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/teen-in-grade-11-at-royal-west-academy-ensnared-by-bill-101173.176.1.133 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that Harris' mother worked in Canada (for 16 years) on a temporary work permit rather than as a permanent resident. TFD (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I have, in my source, English school officials mentioned that her mother was a temporary foreign worker. Anyways, it’s pointless to argue over this because I was not asking for this info to be added to the article, only for the footnote to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.1.133 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

While they may have said that, they have no way of knowing, so it isn't reliable. "Pathway to citizenship" incidentally is a U.S. term. They believe that every foreigner yearns to be an American. TFD (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That is incorrect. English school boards would be the best source on how someone was able to attend their schools as eligibility documentation is required for attendance. I have provided sources stating she was a temporary foreign worker but I have yet to see any source claiming she was a Canadian permanent resident other than your assumption that she must have not given up permanent residency in the US without attaining permanent residency in Canada. We will just have to agree to disagree here.173.176.1.133 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It could be a hypothetical. it's not clear from the source that Copeman said Harris' parents were or might have been temporary residents. In any case, we know that her father never worked in Canada.

Copeland doesn't work for an English school board, he works for the QESBA. It's very unlikely that the records still exist, or that Copeland got Harris' permission to look for her's or that he would have searched through mountains of paperwork to find them. He was probably just assuming that her mother was a temporary worker.

TFD (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The QESBA represents all nine English school boards in Quebec. They would know best which exemptions apply to their students. At this point, this discussion is diverting away from the original intent of the topic, which is how Harris was able to attend English schools. The previous footnote relied on a journalist who made a speculation without any inside knowledge. The footnote has since been deleted rather than replaced it as there does not seem to be any consensus on what allowed Harris to obtain the required certificate of eligibility to attend English schools.173.176.1.133 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Certainly they would know the law, but it does not mean they would have access to the records of individual students or would have looked at them, if they still exist. The fact that Copeman spoke about Harris' parents show he was unfamiliar with the case. Furthermore, the act only allowed a three year exemption. BTW don't you think that 16 years is a long time for a temporary position?

Here is a link to Shamyamala's "Abandonment by Alien of Status as Lawful Permanent Resident," which she says she abandoned Feb. 13, 1976: "I am currently engaged in a research project at the Jewish General Hospital in MOntreal and I am required to have a landed immigrant status to work in the hospital." (p. 69) It's on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, so is rs. Landed immigrant was the previous term for permanent resident.

I know it is moot, but I think we should be careful about highly dubious information from people who are unlikely to have first hand information.

TFD (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The three year limit is what is being proposed in the new Bill 96. The current law Bill 101 which was in effect when Harris was in Montreal allowed unlimited extensions for foreign residents. That’s why the English school boards are against the new proposed law.

Also, you bring up the sixteen years that her mother spent in Canada as evidence that she must have been a permanent resident. However, by the time Harris graduated from Westmount High, they had only been living in Canada for six years. Whether her mother later applied for PR after that is completely irrelevant to Harris’ education.

Unless you are arguing that we reinstate the old footnote at the top, which was based on a journalist’s speculation, there is no need to discuss this topic further as there was never any argument to add her mother’s immigration status to Harris’ article.173.176.1.133 (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I just provided a link to a statement by Shaymala Harris that she became a permanent resident of Canada when she went to work there. She was not a temporary resident. TFD (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Her statement to the US government has no bearing on her status in Canada. I highly doubt she would have qualified for PR after only two years of living in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.1.133 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Highly qualified immigrants routinely receive permanent residency before immigrating. You are perhaps thinking about people who come to Canada as nannies and personal care workers who must earn points through Canadian experience to qualfy for permanent residency. If there is a permant research position that no Canadian can fill and a candidate with a PhD and an impressive work record, it is treated differently. I do not know the specific scoring used then, but she would certainly have qualified under current criteria. And I doubt she would have given up her U.S. right to residency by falsely claiming she had permanent residency in Canada. If it had been a temporary position, she could have kept her green card. And if she lied to the U.S. government, she might not have received a new green card if she wanted to return. TFD (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The source for this claim is not great either, this is why I am happy for it to be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's understandable some editors are humiliated by what she said

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.

---

It's understandable that some editors were humiliated by what the vice president said on January 6, 2022 but this does not make her comments any less relevant or historically accurate. Just because you support a politician does not mean you can pick and choose what history is included and what history isn't. Politicians do this all the time, but historians aren't supposed to, even if one of your favorite politicians said something humiliating. This is a relevant and factual edit, and there is absolutely no valid argument I can think of for not including it. And "shitty references" or "it doesn't have point" as reasons for undoing it is kind of like saying well I don't want this to be published so I'm erasing it, without posting a valid justifiable reason. The grammar was fine, the content was factual and the sources were reliable as USA Today and The Daily Mail are as liberal as it gets, The Hill is also a source that was accepted by Wikipedia. So, what is the actual problem, it was a verifiable comment by a sitting Vice President that has historical relevance does it not? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Read wp:soap and sp:npa. And the Daily Mail is not an RS for a reason.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Raleigh80Z90Faema69, also read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. And WP:NPOV wouldn't hurt either. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hat repetition. The original post was fully answered within minutes. Please resist the temptation to continue such discusssions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok I will address that, wikipedia seemed to accept Daily Mail as a source, I thought the New York Post was the one being rejected. I found several other sources, but I didn't want to include 7 or 8 sources for clutter reasons. I will rewrite this edit, remove the Daily Mail and add additional sources Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC) The DM is a deprecated source, no it is not allowed. Also just because some can be sourced doe not mean it should be (see wp:v). I suggest you do not re-add it as it has been objected to, get wp:consensus first. I would want to see a better reason than the one you gave here, or in your last edit summary.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC) See WP:DAILYMAIL for the summary and link to discussions where the Daily Mail was deprecated. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC) I notice the rebuttal - that more people died at Pearl Harbor and on 9/11 - isn't included in the USA Today article. Once you take that away, her conmments are no different from the spin the rest of the rest of the party leadership. TFD (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Well that still seems a bit opinionated, to accuse the USA Today, The Hill and Daily Mail of being "shitty sources" and therefore not acceptable.... On the Daily Mail ok fine, I didn't realize that it was not acceptable to wikipedia, so it should be removed.... But what of Fox news, Newsmax, CNN and MSNBC? Fox is the propaganda wing of the Republican party and exist solely to advance the cause of Republicans while attacking Democrats just as MSNBC and CNN are the propaganda arms of the Democratic party and only exist to subvert and hide bad news about democrats while exaggerating any dirt they can find of republicans It really is too bad that 'journalism' is kind of a dead field, but this is why wikipedia is important..... But again, I'll remove that Daily Mail source if it isn't acceptable to wikipedia and search for other sources. And as far as Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 terrorist attacks, that is just relevant and factual information taken directly from the links provided on wikipedia. As I was making this edit, I took the causality numbers that wikipedia has listed for all three events and provided links to each...... What makes it different and relevant is that she was asking the American people and the people of the world, to look at the events of January 6 in exactly the same manner as the events of December 7 and September 11.... She wants those dates to be grouped together, which is incredibly reckless and irresponsible in the minds of many people and few are coming to her defense on this, for very obvious reasons I felt it was important to include the casualties because Pearl Harbor was a long time ago, and even 9/11 was 20 years ago so not everyone will necessarily be familiar with the scale of those killed and wounded. If she stated that January 6, 2021 should be thought of the same as December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001, which she did, then this is a very relevant quote and something that should be included, but ok, I understand the importance of sources to Wikipedia and will seek other sources and reword the edit before posting again, thanks Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC) It would help you case to stop putting words into peoples mouths, and read policies like wp:v and wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC) I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. You obviously are not aware of rs, POV or SYN and this is not the place to argue whether Harris' comments are humiliating to editors. TFD (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC) No one cares. Not everything a politician says is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. This isn't a blog. Zaathras (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "But what of Fox news, Newsmax, CNN and MSNBC? " See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for previous assessments.: Fox News. "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science." ... "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions." ... "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (politics and science)." Newsmax. "Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda." CNN. "There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability." MSNBC. "There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces." Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC) This is interesting and worth noting, that the only news sources who are considered reliable are sources that are 100% supportive of the Democratic party and liberal issues..... Whereas any news source that is pro conservative or pro republican is considered an unreliable source for political information. Do you realize how dangerous, irresponsible and downright negligent this sounds. How wrong it is, how discriminatory and bigoted it is. Or is this just with mainstream sources that have access to a national audience. This is what it seems like is being said here, only the view of the Democratic supporting media will be accepted, any Republican news sources will be considered false information and discredited as sources. So, in short, there is a concentrated effort, by editors who have Liberal and Democratic political views to silence and undermine anyone who disagrees with them and to warp, twist, lie and manipulate historical facts in such a manner that only one political party is considered good and right and any enemies of this one right and good political party will be silenced, suspended, discredited and removed as being misinformation. So in what way, is wikipedia any different than Twitter? Why not change it's name to Wikitwitter Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Yes of course not every quote from every politician belongs on wikipedia.... Politicians make quotes every single day and it would be senseless and pointless to include every one of them. But when you have a sitting Vice President make a statement that the entire country and world, needs to look at the events of January 6th in the same light as December 7th and the 9/11 terrorist attacks it is worth holding them accountable. When Donald Trump said things that were very bigoted, divisive, ignorant or stupid wasn't he held accountable? I don't know, I've never read Trump's wikipedia page, I'll have to check it out and see for myself. But I'm just making the argument that this comment by a sitting Vice President is worth being noted. Does it have to be noted? No, I guess not, is it just another one of many many quotes that any politician says, yes kind of, but this was a statement that seems to show how this administration is trying to force the American people to view an incident a certain way. Maybe it can wait to make this edit, maybe come next September when the 9/11 ceremony is being held and Harris and Biden are asked to stay away from New York, it can be added to wikipedia to explain why the 9/11 victims and survivors have asked that Kamala Harris does not attend. And after offending the final few World War 2 survivors it is highly likely they will be asked to stay away from Pearl Harbor next December as well. Time will tell, if next September and December comes around and she does not attend the 9/11 or 12/7 remembrance ceremonies, then this comment can be added to the wikipedia page to help explain why Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No (see wp:crystal), and read wp:forum and wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Will do, that's fine, I will study that when I get the chance, I don't generally edit anything to do with politics, so it's probably necessary...

And yes, when it makes the news in September of 2022 and December of 2022 that Harris is asked to stay away from any of these memorials and remembrances, then this quote will become even more relevant than it already is right now and can be added at that time. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2022 (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.

Position on Filibuster

Kamala Harris' position on the Filibuster in the United States Senate is currently not included in the article. She used to support keeping the filibuster for legislation specifically, back in 2017, and is currently not indicating whether she supports any changes - unlike president Biden. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

So, you wish to report on something she is not saying? Zaathras (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is enough WP:RS discussing Harris not having a position, then technically its notable enough to record into the article, but I'd consider WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT before adding it in. EliteArcher88 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Elite. Nordostsüdwest, try to propose some text to add and we can see if there's a consensus to add it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

The article states that Harris is African-American. She is not. She is Jamaican and Indian. 2603:8080:CD03:79EC:80E7:2BF4:B0B5:CD6F (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Not according to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

See "Q1" at the top of this page. Almost all Jamaicans are of African descent, including Kamala's paternal grandparents. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

VP Kamala Harris is the first Black female VP, but not African-American. She is of Indian (Asian) and Jamaican decent. 50.104.66.239 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Good point. -- Valjean (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Where do you think the ancestors of dark skinned Jamaicans came from? HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Kamala

Kamala is actually half Indian and half Jamaican which is not African American and she would not be the first Asian American as she is not Asian at all. However if this is a fact based site please be factual. Kamala would be the first Jamaican American First Vice President and the First Indian American Vice President. 65.110.37.86 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This question/comment has been posed hundreds of times before you. Read the FAQ. KidAd • SPEAK 18:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

FYI: Google search results snippet served me “Kamala Harris served as the junior Senator…” ( and said nothing else)

Remove the word junior from her Wiki entry, please. 24.11.130.127 (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done Wikipedia is not concerned with what search engine results say. She was the junior senator so I see no reason to remove it. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  The problem that I see is that it says "junior" in the lead, but not in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Laughter

Kamala Harris's habit of laughing a lot is getting more and more comments in more and more respectable sources. How do we add something about her habitual laughter without taking sides? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Show us some of those respectable sources please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And why would this be relevant anyway, lost of people laugh a lot. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ha, you wrote "lost" of people! Seriously though, it's funny because it's unintentional and I'm laughing with you, not at you. Now here's a vice president whom the esteemed foreign press thought laughed meaningfully. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Fact Check-Kamala Harris did not laugh at question about Ukraine and refugees I believe this is what the "habit of laughing a lot" comment refers to. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That, or this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Or the fly. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

At present, few if any reliable sources say that Harris laughs inappropriately. Of course it is common for people to laugh inappropriately, it's just uncommon for them to do that every time they speak. But until comments on this become common, we should not mention it. We had a similar discussion about Trump and narcissism. While Trump might be considered narcissistic in layman's terms, there is no academic consensus or even strong belief that he is in expert terms, so it is left out. TFD (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've never heard a human politician laugh more inappropriately for the role than Hillary Clinton, and even her own campaign managers seemed a bit unsure about it (see exhibit marked "this" above). But all her article says about laughter is that nobody makes her do it like the one they call Bill commands, and I don't care how that sounds, I'm paraphrasing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This is this kind of rambling, off-topic diatribe one would expect from an IP user or a red-linked new one. Be better. Zaathras (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It's three lines about how Wikipedia deals with another American politician, almost contemporary, whose weird laugh also got a lot of RS commentary. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy, maybe, but no sidetrack or rant. No sexist or anti-Democrat intent, if that's what you're sensing; George "heheheh" Bush, same basic precedent. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The only thing we're "sensing here" is the plain misogyny of the attacks on VP Harris over "laughter". If you'd actually read the sources provided, you would see that this angle (that female politicians are held to a different standard by critics, PoC even moreso) is amply addressed. Zaathras (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course I read the sources. I provided half of them, and referred back to the same LA Times one you did. If your main takeaway is the part about sexism, cool, but I was talking about Clinton's laugh itself. I think this bio has enough about Harris' colour and gender, but won't object if you want to bring it up again in this context. I don't dispute that the American media has a clear preference for old white men in high office and it's not funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I ignored the Clinton part because it is off-topic and irrelevant, something you seem to have a habit of. I also removed the wrestling line. Stop being disruptive, please. 13:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It was more in line with a person of colour's performance being critically acclaimed as better than the men's matches, on its own merits, than wrestling per se. I thought that's where you wanted to take this discussion of laughter in political theatre. I guess we're just terrible at understanding each other and should stop trying. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If this were to be included, it would be, as the LA Times and others note, about the double-standard applied to male and female (and more so a female person of color). Not about "the laugh" itself, but using it as an example. Zaathras (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s not encyclopedic. Maybe if a pop culture tv show like SNL did a skit about it, I’d see why. Otherwise, everybody has “weird” traits. Trillfendi (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Kamala Harris's political affiliation

Kamala Harris's political affiliation is stated as democratic. It should be Democrat.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac038 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You mean as in Democrat Party? You are new, so I assume you are unfamiliar with policy. This page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to push partisan terminology. TFD (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

We've had endless discussions about this. We use democratic, not democrat to describe party affiliations. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

As a non American it reads a bit odd to me. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If you search in WP space, there are dozens of discussions about this. She is a member of the Democratic party, not the democrat party. That is what it's describing. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The maybe we should capitalise Democratic at least. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Proper usage is either "She is a member of the Democratic Party." or "She is a Democrat." The problem is that the infobox is designed to show the party name without including "Party", to avoid redundancy with the label. But filling this in with "Democrat" makes the erroneous implication that the full name of the party is "Democrat Party" while leaving it off just reads as ungrammatical. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It is capitalized. TFD (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Robert adequately explains why it would be grammatically incorrect to say "Democrat party" and thus democrat. See also this, this. I'm trying to find the big discussion from 2 years ago. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Addition of her work on the Northern Triangle

Should there be inclusion of her leading the US Government's efforts to address the root causes of migration? It’s one of the three programs she was asked to lead as Vice President. The text could be something like this if you agree:

In March 2021, Vice President Harris was tasked to lead efforts to address the root causes of migration from Central America by President Biden

On May 27, 2021, Harris launched the Partnership for Central America in a White House Call-to-Action . In its first six months, the Partnership mobilized $1.2 billion in investments and programs supporting 20 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deerepublic (talk • contribs) 21:06, April 7, 2022 (UTC)

This seems like it could belong in her VP section. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Harris has tested positive for COVID-19

Please include this in the article.[39]2601:447:4000:220:CC79:1800:C1A7:A630 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, why? The CNN article says that Senate Democrats will have to delay a couple of confirmations. So what? "Person gets COVID" isn't all that significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. It was confirmed by the White House too.[40]] This is not about a decision to "delay a couple of confirmations." This about the fact that Harris has been confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19.2601:447:4000:220:0:0:0:D914 (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

And what's the greater significance for her biography? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about maybe adding that fact, but I wasn't sure. Cwater1 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Almost everyone has got COVID by now, it's no big deal. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

Harris is well known for her distinctive wearing of pearl necklaces. Although speculation during the 2020 presidential campaign emerged that she began wearing them as an homage to her Howard University sorority, or even to Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, known for wearing a distinctive collar when issuing a dissent in the court, in her 2019 biography The Truths We Hold Harris explained that she began doing so after being given a pearl necklace as a gift by her mother's mentor Howard.

Harris has tested positive for COVID-19. Please include this in the article.

Harris is well known for her distinctive wearing of pearl necklaces. Although speculation during the 2020 presidential campaign emerged that she began wearing them as an homage to her Howard University sorority, or even to Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, known for wearing a distinctive collar when issuing a dissent in the court, in her 2019 biography The Truths We Hold Harris explained that she began doing so after being given a pearl necklace as a gift by her mother's mentor Howard.

On April 26, 2022, it was announced that Harris had tested positive for COVID-19, though did not appear to experiencing any symptoms. 2601:447:4000:220:CC79:1800:C1A7:A630 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

At this point, testing positive for covid, especially when someone is asymptomatic, is not noteworthy unless there are specific circumstances that make it so. TFD (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, what do we think about the pearl necklace bit? Should we include that somewhere? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that that is an encyclopedic topic? Really? Should we also write about whether Biden wears boxers or briefs? This is beyond trivial. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Did I suggest that? I think I just asked a non-leading question. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic. ValarianB (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The other Kamala Harris' bio notes his dress, makeup and (lack of) shoes in the lead. Also notes his positive test result at the bottom. As these are two very different cases of public figure, though, applying similar standards to their articles could come across as "problematic". Even worse, Trump's article speaks of infection (including 25 "COVID-19" s) and superficial beauty! "False equivalence", some might say, others "whataboutism"; not worth it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC) I honestly cannot make heads nor tails of this, what does The other Kamala Harris' bio, followed by the male pronoun "his", refer to? ValarianB (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Who? Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Sorry, Kamala (wrestler). Jim or Sugar Bear Harris, more precisely. Pronounced differently, too, stress on ma. Maybe that's stupid. But keeping her article dissimilar to Donald Trump's is probably understandable. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Mr. Hulk, I feel like I'm the straight-man Terry Jones in the Nudge Nudge sketch, having to tease out the meaning of your weirdly off-putting colloquial manner of communication. As near as I can tell, what you're on about is that the article on Kamala the wrestler mentions Covid, and the article on VP Kamala Harris does not. And the reason for your juxtaposition is the coincidence of the differently-pronounced name. If that's what this is, the IMO the difference is that the wrestler died of it. ValarianB (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Not even close. I think clarifying any further is just going to give you more to misinterpret. As long as you understand that I'm against making the requested edits, that's good enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Not even close. Then kindly refrain from participating in political topics, as you're clearly more interested in playing games and being disruptive rather than contributing to a meaningful discourse. ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC) We were talking about whether to include two bits about her health and fashion, hardly a meaningful discourse on political topics. Then you showed up to say you were confused, insult me when I tried to explain and not respond to the edit request at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Kamala Harris is not African American.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Despite the media’s plan to use, abuse, and erase the delineation of one of the longest living minority groups in the United States: African Americans. Kamala Harris is not African American. Her parents Donald Harris and Shyamala Gopalan Harris were not born in the United States of America. They are both immigrants who migrates to the States. Donald Harris is Jamaican and Shyamala is from India. Neither of these nationalities make up African America, but because of the race extremism that is devastating the United States and the relations of all races, the media and liberal leaning government officials have promoted her ancestry as African American, due to the obsessive study and appropriation of African Americans and their culture in the States. Kamala has not been vocal about the many Americans calling to light about her true history. African American is a term that was given to Black people who originated from what is now The United States of America. This term is also used for Black peoples who is born in the United States and whose ancestry has originated there. Kamala does not meet any of these standards. It is also important to know the United States received the least amount of slaves during chattel slavery, and Black people existed on the land before it was discovered by the Europeans. African American is a term that is being used less and less, as many African Americans strive to obtain the proper status and delineation that is true and authentic to their history. Many African Americans now call themselves ADOS, standing for African Descendent of Slaves, or FBA, standing for Foundational Black Americans. These terms are inclusive for the Black Americans who were born in the United States along with their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. Almost the entirety of ADOS people who may have ancestry in Africa or the Caribbean cannot trace their lineage back to any country in either area due to chattel slavery. Kamala Harris is not African American 71.222.27.140 (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. You aren't the first person to request this. In short, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and they use the term "African American" to describe her. Until that changes and they call her something else, that's what we use. You are free to lead a nationwide campaign to eliminate the term "African American" from society. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Donald Harris is a Jamaican of African ancestry, thus Kamala Harris is an American with African ancestry by way of Jamaica. Or, in short, African American. She is also Caribbean American through her father and Indian American through her mother. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Many (suppose to be) reliable sources, describe Vice President Harris as being African American. If you still contest this? you'd have to find another place on Wikipedia, to either have the term's usage discontinued or re-defined. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC) See etymological fallacy: "an argument makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on that word's etymology." In fact, as you acknowledge, the term has a wider meaning. FYI, this issue came up in the Obama article, beginning with Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 1, sixteen years ago. TFD (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC) I am puzzled by the view seemingly held by some that being Jamaican somehow means not being of African ancestry. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC) I think the question is whether someone whose ancestors were not taken to the U.S. from African should be called African Americans. OTOH, why does the term American Indian include people who have no connection with the U.S. while the term African American does? And why do they call them Indians when they didn't come from India? And what's with West Indians? It's because those are the definitions assigned to those terms. TFD (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC) I will once again admit to being very confused by the racial labels Americans insist on giving to people. Perhaps it's easier if you grow up surrounded by this stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"49th and current"

@Novem Linguae:, would you also close the same RFC at Joe Biden's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay. Done. Sorry I wasn't able to keep them in sync. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2022 (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.

---

Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

'Note': Same RFC being held at the Joe Biden bio. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Neutral - Doesn't matter to me, as long as we have the intros of the Biden & Harris bios, in sync. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove It is redundant and against MOS. MOS:REALTIME gives the example: The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". . – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove. Relative temporal language should be avoided, since it will become inaccurate in the future (and even though the article about Harris is likely to be updated as soon as "current" is no longer true, there will still be permalinks, printed and other offline versions, and so on). Language which will always be accurate, even in a thousand years, is always preferable to language which will become outdated and incorrect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove per jpgordon below, it is redundant. Redundant language bloats articles and takes longer to read. TFD (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove As I said below. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• I support whatever the parallel Joe Biden RfC resolves as. The questions are the same (and I see no reason why one article should be worded differently than the other), but the Joe Biden article is more heavily watched so his RfC should attract more attention. Endwise (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: I considered combining the two RFCs at Biden's page, covering both Biden & Harris. But, didn't know how to do it. If someone knew how? I wouldn't object to it. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Remove As it is unnecessary to have current in the intro MraClean (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove Redundant and not in line with WP MOS as per MOS:REALTIMEWritethisway (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per my analysis at Talk:Joe Biden. I think it's concerning see a differing of consensus for here than at the Biden article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC This should probably be shut down. This is the exact question posed at Talk:Joe Biden. We should just use the consensus at the Biden page and apply it to pages like this. @GoodDay: maybe you should consider withdrawing this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'd rather combine the two, under the Biden RFC. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - Just saying she's the 49th president doesn't tell you if that is the one who is in office now or not. Someone might say it's too obvious, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be matter of fact, even for "obvious" stuff. Also, this needs to be consistent with every current officeholder whose page says "current". Useitorloseit (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove - what else could "is" mean here than is? When she leaves, there'll be was, right? Why not just "... is an American politician and attorney and the 49th vice president of the United ..."--SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC) ? The wordiness looks ridiculous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The numbers are meaningless (who cares whether she is the 49th or 490th Vice President). What is meaningful is that she is the current Vice President of the United States and we should clearly state that. Drop the number if you think it redundant, but keep the "current". --RegentsPark (comment) 16:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. The relevant part is "current". Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove -pointless redundancy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - not sure why we're having a separate discussion here - whatever is decided at Joe Biden should automatically apply here too. But since we're here, I support retention of "and current", for the same reasons stated at Talk:Joe Biden.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Do as the outcome of the Biden RfC dictates, for consistency and because the logic for choice of lead sentence is the same. My proposal at the Biden RfC involved rewording the sentence to mention the year she became VP, like we do at Jair Bolsonaro: [Kamala Harris] is an American politician who has served as the 49th vice president of the United States since 2021.. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I suggested we keep the "current" wording at Joe Biden's article and I feel the same way for this article, though I won't copy it over here this is my comment there. Like Endwise and LaundryPizza03, however, I will say that whatever the outcome of the Joe Biden RfC is, this article should reflect that one because the logic behind them is the same, and I think the consensus conclusion of that discussion should reflect Wikipedia-as-a-whole's consensus and not be article specific, and that it should reflect the way all similar articles should be addressed. - Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Remove Redundant. ~ HAL333 02:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep (or rephrase) - (Copied from my !vote on Biden) In my opinion, the best policy to cite in this particular case is actually WP:IAR. I will fully acknowledge the manual of style guidelines to avoid the word "current" and other temporal language... the trouble is that with regards to Presidents of the United States (and 1st Ladies), the past tense is NEVER used. Once you are the 6th, 26th, or 46th President of the United States (or 1st Lady), you are ALWAYS, in the present tense, the nth President of the United States (or 1st Lady). As such, the current one needs some other language to distinguish it from past ones. Again, I think WP:IAR is an acceptable approach here, as the argument in the MOS is that the text should stand no matter when it is read, as who knows the next time an article will be updated... but we all know that there is a 0% chance of THIS text not being updated the INSTANT the next president is sworn in (if not sooner-- people jump the gun sometimes). Like Iamreallygoodatcheckers above (on the Biden RfC), I would accept an alternate rephrasing that distinguishes the current president from past presidents, but I oppose having the current president having the exact same descriptive text as all previous presidents... even if relevant distinguishing information is in the infobox. The lead itself needs to be clear. Fieari (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Whatever we do, it should be consistent with Joe Biden's article. I don't know why it was necessary to start two separate RFCs on the topic. -- Vaulter 16:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know how to combine the two. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Remove, as stated at the Biden RfC, "Superfluous, serves no purpose." ValarianB (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Remove Is it not the case she will always hold the rank of Vice President for life, same as the president does. If that isthe case, then remove it, would be the normal course., she will always be vice president. scope_creep^Talk 09:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

"is the 49th and current" -- "and current" is redundant, since "is" means "right now". If "and current" was not there, would it be ambiguous or vague? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree completely. "And current" is redundant with the present tense of the sentence. Why use two extra words that aren't needed? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It should remain with "...and current", until this is settled over at the Joe Biden article. Best not to 'force' changes, without getting a consensus & best to keep the Biden & Harris bios intros in sync. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, you just violated the discretionary standards here; perhaps you should revert yourself and back off a bit. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I violated nothing. Would be better if you cooled off & let the RFC run its course & respect the 'current' status quo. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

There was no RFC on this page, and you did two identical reverts in 24 hours. I only became aware of the discussion there when you mentioned it here. What do you mean "cool off"? You're the one aggressively reverting, not me. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It's past 24 hrs now. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

If it's removed. Would "49th vice president of the United States, since 2021", be an acceptable alternative? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems like excessive information. If she's the current VP, obviously she she hasn't served as long in her office as Elizabeth II. TFD (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That sounds redundant, unless we have some other VP's with different th-numbers also serving since 2021. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pauloroboto:, @Khajidha:, @LaundryPizza03:, @Fieari:, @ValarianB:, @Dronebogus:, @RegentsPark:, @331dot:, @Some1:, @Amakuru:, @Aoidh:, @HAL333:. Would you 'please' give you position at this RFC survey, seeing as you already have done so over at the Biden RFC survey. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I have pings disabled. ValarianB (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2022 (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.

Recommend we follow the results of the Biden RFC, as Biden & Harris are the incumbents. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

visited their father in Palo Alto on weekends, other children in the neighborhood were not allowed to play with them because they were black.

This line should be removed. It is simply the assertion by the subject of alleged behaviour by others. If it happened, I don't believe Harris ever heard the parents say it. This may be true, but it may be Harris imaging or politicking. Palo Alto is the most liberal place in the world and the chance of such racism is slim to none. Rustygecko (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim " is the most liberal place in the world", and had zero racism? Do you have any source that questions this story? Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The source is "How race helped shape the politics of Senate candidate Kamala Harris" (Michael Finnegan, LA Times Sept 30, 2015).

On weekends, the girls would visit their father in Palo Alto, where he was an economics professor at Stanford University.

“The neighbors’ kids were not allowed to play with us because we were black,” Harris said. “We’d say, ‘Why can’t we play together?’ ‘My parents — we can’t play with you.’ In Palo Alto. The home of Google.”

People's childhood memories don't transform ito facts just because they are related to a news reporter 35 years later. AFAIK, this was the only time Harris mentioned the story. It should be removed per weight or if kept needs to be attributed to her.

TFD (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Race of kamal Harris

She is Indian and Jamaican. Not African American. 2601:CC:4381:3730:4D01:8CB8:CA97:ECA7 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Read Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Referring someone to an argument somewhere else does not answer the question

She is Jamaican-American

Yes, Jamaicans have an African heritage but that’s like saying someone like British comedian Lenny Henry (who’s parentage is from the West Indies) if he had a daughter in the US she’d be African-American because of a discussant from Africa albeit Africa-West Indies- Great Britain-America

By that token you have no standard other than somewhere along the journey they had a trace back to Africa.

And the fact that ‘reliable sources’ make this same stretch doesn’t make it right.

Montalban (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I am reminded of a book I bought on great Scottish people and they included EVERYONE who had Scottish descent, even if they were born in Ireland, the US, etc.

That tentative claim is what's being played out here by Wiki for political reasons

Montalban (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does, if they have added nothing to what has already been said (or in the case of a FAQ, actually answers their question, its why we have it). Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This adds nothing that has not been said before. That's why you were referred to the FAQ. This isn't political. Unless you have some sort of new argument to make, there is nothing more to say here. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Our standard is how she is described in reliable sources. Also, beware of the etymological fallacy. Her father for example has been described as West Indian, even though we now know that Jamaica isn't anywhere near India. TFD (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2022

Original sentence-She is the first female vice president and the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, as well as the first African American and first Asian American vice president.

Kamala Harris is of Indian and Jamaican decent. She is certainly of Asian descent but she is not African American. Saying she is African American is patently false and the article even lists her parents and where they are from, therefore it would be appropriate to make the edit to-

She is the first female vice president and the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, as well as the first Asian American vice president. 2601:245:C781:4D10:ED53:CE66:B8A:1856 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2022 (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. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• (ec) Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Should the pronunciation also include how to pronounce Harris, or should a new file be provided (the ogg currently mentions Harris)? 2A02:C7C:60E0:1100:630B:5EE:BA31:77C7 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Harris - Seems very easy to pronounce. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, easy to pronounce, in many different ways. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe - but there are for instance 4 different ways at https://www.howtopronounce.com/harris and over 6000 different clips at https://youglish.com/pronounce/harris/english/us? (not to mention the different dialects and idiolects in other Englishes) 2A02:C7C:60E0:1100:630B:5EE:BA31:77C7 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Hello, I am new to the "editing" facet of Wikipedia and so if I am taking the wrong approach in asking or rather suggesting an edit be made then forgive me. If indeed that is the case please inform me as to what I need to do to receive consideration for an edit. That said...

I read that an edit into the pronunciation of Harris' last name; which I find a bit absurd especially when you consider that in the Notes section of the page is literally reads "lyer" or it reads "Lyer" or it reads "iyer!" Now while this seems silly in it's argument I find this gives a tremendous amount of heckle power that is just irresponsible to give to a group of individuals who in todays day and age just do not need more material. A simple in parenthesis edit to the right of lyer to (iyer) showing it to be a capitalized "i" and not lower case "l" would be a responsible edit that in no way lowers the integrity of the page but rather protects a minority woman, whom has had great personal success from being subject to hate, ignorance and a myriad of other rhetoric as brought upon by an oppositional entity such as it is.

Such rhetoric could convince say a Christian or strong spiritual person of Karmaic for Destiny driven forces at work and being that she changed her name her trying to hide it from people. All the while removing if even .05% - 2.0% of a vote based off of nonsense that really could have been avoided had a page made an effort to take any creedence to such claims away at the onset. Or take the information down. It's absurd honestly. But given it's historical context in reference to the individual the "former" seems like the honest avenue.

Further... When tasked with an opportunity to use forsight for the greater good and to create an honest atmosphere I believe it is the moral man and womans responsibility to act. Especially when it hurts noone and further when it protects the otherwise "believe everything you hear/easily influenced" people of the world.

Hindsight is 20/20. Forsight without precedent is not often readily as easy to obtain.

Obviously, most people understand the difference between a noun and a Proper Noun. 8 billion people on earth. Not all of us speak English. Less than those than can-can use it in writing effectively.

Respectfully,

Christopher Dewey SouthernValuesWork (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're very concerned about the note concerning her initial middle name? I would think that malign forces might have decided to make a thing about the very obscure sans-serif appearance of the I before now if they were going to, so I really don't see an issue here. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Subliminal Condescension is fun. Very nice word play. You are an educated individual which is great and this is the point I am making. "Malignant" forces are the reason I came to the realization that it is an issue. I will spare the people any direct attacks on character and say first of all while you see no issue; here are two that I do see.

1. You make no mention to the fact that Lyar is the correct way of spelling the word which would have been a defense to not adding context. The fact that it wasn't in your argument goes to show the very issue I am referencing.

2. Websters Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary use lower case in there pronunciation descriptions. As a side note; you may find it of no use but it could actually give creedance to offering pronunciation to the name "Harris" as was opined upon in the above section as well. (Which I mentioned I found absurd much like you seem to with my suggestion)

It stands to reason that with this many different opinions it might be a worthwhile endeavor. Some people are not so good with the English language and that is okay. Some people are. My argument remains the same. You didn't even make mention as to the fact that lyer is really being mistaken and weaponized as if it were the word Lyar when in reality it's the name Iyer (iyer); Thus proving my point. With respect. SouthernValuesWork (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernValuesWork: First of all, to make this much eisear, please provide reliable sources to support you claims. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 07:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No "wordplay" intended, I'm puzzled as to why you think the sans-serif presentation is an issue. As FlightTime asks, has this come up anywhere before? If not, I see no actionable concern. Please be brief, it was hard to figure out what you were talking about in your initial post among all the words. Acroterion (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Attention to disregarding racism

To aid with keeping racism out of subject and any dialect towards racism, to describe her as the first Female Vice President is sufficient. Description using also first African Female, and first Asian American is irrelevant. It provokes manner to Americans to see division of race, counteracting leaderships desire to stop racism, and all are equal. Yes she is first Female to hold the appointment of Vice President, to which she is an American. To hold title of Vice president, citizen must be natural-born US citizen. Born in America, means you are an American. 2605:B100:93C:5E89:B5AD:C987:EB3C:2A75 (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. We describe her as independent reliable sources describe her. What is irrelevant to you is very significant to others. This isn't the forum to right the great wrong of racism. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You might think that wp:rs think sits notable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

NOT African American

She is not "African American" for crying out loud. No wonder Wikipedia is widely regarded as garbage. She is half Indian and half something else, but does not have a drop of African blood which is widely known. 🙄 2601:249:800:C060:444:40AC:C594:5279 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Where do you think the dark skinned people in Jamaica came from originally? HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe her as African-American as well as Asian American. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Jamaicans are included in African-American demographics. This has already been discussed at length. Trillfendi (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

Apalpableelysium (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Add a space between birthdate and age in parentheses.

Please add space between the birthdate and age in parentheses. For aesthetics. Apalpableelysium (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Question: can you be more specific? If you're referring to the date and age in the infobox (the box of summary information to the right of the article), it currently reads "October 20, 1964 (age 58)", with a space between the date and the opening parenthesis, and which is a standard style for all birthdate-and-age combinations across all Wikipedia biographies. Do you see it differently, or somewhere else in the article? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

request to change Kamala Harris as being labeled 'Asian American' to 'of Asian American descent' as, while she is of Indian American ancestry, she appears to identify more as an African American woman as she has stated in her Autobiography that her mother "My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters. 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." alongside herself highlighting her greater comfort in identifying as a black woman with her time at HBCU's like Howard University; https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/kamala-harris-asian-americans/2021/03/27/46efd156-8e3a-11eb-a6bd-0eb91c03305a_story.html https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/8/14/21366307/kamala-harris-black-south-asian-indian-identity .She still obviously has respect for her Indian American heritage but based upon how she talks about her own identity, does appear to identify more as a Black woman. NPR even states that "That's how she self-identifies as well. She is a Black woman. She was born and raised in Oakland, California, and she grew up in the '60s. She knew people who founded Black studies departments. And she was around the civil rights and Black nationalist movements in the Bay Area. She went to a historically Black university." https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933631207/claim-us-if-youre-famous LosPajaros (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done See the FAQ at the top of this page; you aren't the first to propose this. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

She is 50% of primarily African ancestry through her father who was born in Jamaica and 50% South Asian ancestry through her mother who was born in India. Both ancestries should be mentioned as they currently are. Her ethnic and cultural self identification is a different matter. Some people object to calling Harris and Barack Obama "African-Americans" because their Black ancestors were 20th century voluntary immigrants rather than descendents of US slaves. We go by what reliable sources say, though. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Harris' black ancestors weren't voluntary immigrants to Jamaica. I have never understood why the place where they were slaves makes a difference. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, it's just that the FAQ says "Ethnicity is grouping based on how people see themselves in common with others. Ms. Harris's race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount. Using this criteria, Ms. Harris is clearly African-American and South Asian-American." Wouldn't this stipulate that how she identifies trumps the racial category of her being labeled 'Black' or 'Indian'? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong but it seems to insinuate that the article should acknowledge her racial ancestry as that is important in her as an individual, however, how *she* personally identifies is what is the more dominant piece of info. If that is the case, the sources I listed above show that she does personally identify and live her life as a Black woman and not as an Indian or even mixed-race woman. LosPajaros (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I broadly agree, but precisely how does one live one's life as a black woman? That seems a rather strange concept to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not something that people who aren't black women (ahem) would understand... to say the least. But it can't be distilled into a Wikipedia article either. If people want to litigate ^what it really means^ to be a black woman while being mixed or biracial there are other venues out there for it. Trillfendi (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The desperate desire by some to label others is the problem here. We should describe Harris' ancestry. That's not subjective. And we should describe how she identifies herself. Everything else is unnecessary, and seems to upset some people. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

We go by the reliable sources, IP. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Petition to upload an Audio Voice File of Kamala Harris

Given all current and prior U.S. Presidents and all current U.S. Senators have an audio voice file on their page I think it would be suitible for Kamala Harris to as well. I have uploaded a short, concise, and neutral Audio file to Wikimedia Commons of Kamala Harris speaking at the commemoration of the Americans with Disibilities Act that I believe would fit here. I do not have high enough editing access to do this myself so if someone were to assist me in uploading this the audio file. If you want to search for it yourself it should now be under the Audio file section for Kamala Harris in Wikimedia Commons. That being said, I have also provided it here with the date of the event being from July 26, 2021 and audio file itself is as follows: Kamala Harris speaks on the Americans with Disabilities Act.ogg LosPajaros (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

There is inconsistency within the article on the capitalization of "black". Please change the two instances where black is capitalized when it's not used to describe an organization/group. (1. "... became 40 percent Black. .." 2. "...opportunities to Black women...") Cable10291 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"賀錦麗" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 賀錦麗 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 9 § 賀錦麗 until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Tie breaking votes

Harris (days ago) just tied John C. Calhoun for the most tie-breaking votes cast, in the US Senate. Should we mention this, or wait until she sets the new record. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not even sure why this is relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thus my question. Is it relevant, to add. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

As a non-American observer of US politics, it seems of some interest to me, but it would need to be packaged in a little bit of explanation for readers not immediately familiar with the term. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

remove the text "(AG)" in the first paragraph as "attorney general" is already spelled out:

Change: ....she previously served as the attorney general (AG) of California from 2011.... To: ....she previously served as the attorney general of California from 2011.... Jeffs1225 (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done @Jeffs1225: Please see MOS:ACRO1STUSE, which states an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article. The acronym AG is used throughout the article. Peaceray (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Should the Kamala Harris migrant book story still be mentioned in her Vice Presidency Section?

Currently there's mention of a very brief media moment regarding her Vice Presidency as follows:

"In a debunked story by the New York Post in April 2021, it was claimed that Harris' children's book Superheroes Are Everywhere was being distributed en masse through "welcome kits" given to migrant children at a shelter in Long Beach, California. In reality, only a single copy of the book had been donated by a member of the public. The writer of the original story, Laura Italiano, claimed that she was forced to write the story against her will and she resigned from the New York Post as a result."

Given that the claim was debunked and that she was not involved with the situation as vice president nor even on a personal basis should there still be mention of it? I understand the importance of referencing political scandals or things such as impeachments for governmental officials, however, in hindsight this seems to have been a bit of a 'recency' event when added to her page as it appears to have been a bit of a media creation early on during her term and didn't have any actual input from her. LosPajaros (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful in this article. Might fit well in the NY Post article, as another indication of their duplicity. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not relevant to Harris so much as it is to the New York Post and their "journalistic ethos", such as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Kamala Harris is not of African American descent

Kamala Harris is not of African American descent. She is Jamaican and Asian. Change this listing. 24.140.210.189 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Read the FAQ at the top of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Her Dad is not African 162.33.194.55 (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence "Kamala Harris's Jamaican American father, Donald J. Harris, is of African and Irish ancestry." ? (I found nothing else you could be referring to). "of African ancestry" is not the same thing as "African".

I suppose it could be changed to "Kamala Harris's Jamaican American father, Donald J. Harris, is of Afro-Jamaican and Irish-Jamaican ancestry", instead of piping the generic terms to more specific articles. That way it's immediately clear what is meant. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(added three days later) I now think it would make sense to make that change, since it is

a) clearer and less confusing (see perhaps original post) and

b) actually far more specific in terms of more recent heritage. If we wish to include these heritages/ethnicities/nationalities (and I'm not stating that we should not) then we might as well be reasonably specific. Being of African-Jamaican and Irish-Jamaican heritage is relevant enough for the article to be spelled out.

This is an article about a very high-profile politician (and in fields contentious enough to probably be under some arbitration ruling, not to mention WP:BLP), so I will wait one week before making this change (provided there is no opposition in the mean time). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

Height 5'4" and a quarter.

Source: Interview with Katie Couric's Podcast: Next Question from January 24, 2024.

“That is absolutely incorrect. I am 5’4″ and a quarter,” Harris said as Couric laughed.

“And with heels, which I always wear, I am 5’7″, thank you very much,” Harris added. Shesepuede96 (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where are you proposing we add this? More importantly, why would we add this? IMO seems like trivia and as Harris is not extremely short or extremely tall, should not be included without lots of secondary sources commenting on her height. Cannolis (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shesepuede96: I think you are asking to have Harris's height added to the infobox. We do not do this for Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Why then would we do it for Harris? Peaceray (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, but I have to ask: Was her height ever in this WP-article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that it ever was. We can consult WikiBlame. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

And who knows, perhaps we can add that data to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States one day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As said above, who cares why is this relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Media coverage, what else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

So? I am unsure what this adds to what is an overview of her life (after all I am sure at some point she was shorter, and may get shorter as she ages). It is trivial. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a reliable source anyway. Everyone lies about their height :) RegentsPark (comment) 18:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Objection, like with religion, this is something only the individual them-self can judge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Height is not a self-judged thing, we use standardized measurements for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It was in the media today, so it must be on Wikipedia today. That is the LAW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Really? What law is that? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an essay around, somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, essay ≠ Law - FlightTime (open channel) 18:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)