Talk:Kamala Harris

Improvement efforts

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tesr1208 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bookerxv (article contribs).

NYT on Harris and police miscounduct

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

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

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

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

New York Times

Aug. 9, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, I would cut the discussion of "Principled Policing: Procedural Justice and Implicit Bias," because there have been many programs like this, and when they have been studied, they don't affect meaningful outcomes -- specifically unnecessary civilian deaths, civilian complaints, and abuses. The only evaluation they have is subjective evaluations by participants [1] The KQED stories cited are just official statements, with no critics or evaluation. What do WP:RSs say about the program?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amy Goodman, Nermeen Shaikh

Democracy Now!

Aug 13, 2020

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

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

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

"Kamala Harris Was Not a 'Progressive Prosecutor'"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Biden Has Found His Neoliberal Match in Kamala Harris

BY BRANKO MARCETIC

Jacobin

08.12.2020

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

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

Corporate America's New Favorite VP Nom: Kamala Harris

Ariella Thornhill

Aug 17, 2020

Jacobin Magazine

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

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

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

RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead?

Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead? - MrX 🖋 11:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• Yes - Sources routinely describe her as African American or black (which I'm equally fine with as an alternative). Her role as Biden's running mate makes her racial identity a first, and a highly noteworthy aspect. - MrX 🖋 12:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• It looks like NYT goes with black and Britannica goes with African American. I personally prefer black, since African American is most often just a euphemism for black. Nobody's gonna really pretend we'd be having this discussion about...like...an Arab dude from Morocco. But I'm not going to argue over splitting hairs there. Either one effectively communicates the information. GMG^talk 12:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) No IMO, since she is of mixed "Tamil and Afro-Jamaican descent", why not simply say that more specific descriptor and not spend time deciding which geographical/ethnic labels fit best, or if we must, say "black". I give the same answer to the other RfC above.Pincrete (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This may be technically true, it looks like the spread of sources that use this this phrasing is pretty daggum sparse. GMG^talk 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes with tiny caveats, per WP:RS, WP:BLP and the multiply previously agreed talk page consensus.

As to whether to substitute the less American-English-specific "black", I'm not sure it matters much and WP:MoS doesn't address our apropos style usage generally.

However, strictly, in the context of vice-presidential firsts, we should use whichever of the two terms a plurality of the reliable sources on the topic of VP nominees use, or failing that, whichever is more common in written registers of English to describe an American who would self-identify colloquially as 'coloured'/'black'.

Whereas, strictly, per WP:BLP, elsewhere in this and other articles, especially when providing a description of the senator, whichever term more (or a plurality) of reliable sources have reported Harris use to describe herself.

Llew Mawr (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• She's from California. Photos do not look "black", lots of Californians have brown skin in summer, regardless of their ethnic background. This question is only derived from her father's background, as her mother was Tamil Indian. Her father Donald J. Harris was born in Jamaica and is described in that article as British Jamaican not "African American" (or even just African). That article also says he is descended from Hamilton Brown who is described as Northern Irish, so perhaps we should also call her Irish American. As a non-American, I had not really heard of her until she became lead candidate for vice-president, so I'd like to read more about her, and less about the ancestors of her paternal grandparents. Describe her as first/second X to do Y when sources say that, but otherwise, describe her as American or Californian. --Scott Davis ^Talkw 13:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and have good news for you as what you are describing is exactly and wholly the article's status quo (with no ethnic descriptions outside of "first X" and no description of her family's origins outside of a minor factual note in the relevant section). Llew Mawr (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• I believe we should not refer to her race or ethnicity in the lead at all. We can discuss her descent in the section on her early life. If we feel we must categorize her in the lead, we need to use what she calls herself, which is African-American and South Asian-American. —valereee (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We fairly regularly refer to race/ethnicity in the lead when someone is a "first" of some note: Barack Obama, Jackie Robinson, Charles Q. Brown Jr.. GMG^talk 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    GreenMeansGo, yes, I know. In each of those cases, we had pretty clear agreement on what the heck the person was generally to be called. Giving Harris a racial categorization is a lot more nuanced. It's like...isTiger Woods the winningest-ever Cablinasian golfer? Well, no, not according to the lead of our article about him. We deal with that later, in the section about his early life. JMO. —valereee (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    Er...not trying to argue other stuff exists. :) —valereee (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    • I agree that it is more complicated. While she is the first female black VP nominee, she is also the first one of Asian extraction. Also, an academic made an interesting statement in a Vox article where he described how the common portrayal of Harris as Black can be attributed to America’s history of using the “one-drop rule,” which is a racist practice that dates back to slavery. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

      • • I mean, yes. It is an OTHERSTUFF argument. But at some level, OTHERSTUFF arguments are slightly more valid when you're talking about high profile FAs. GMG^talk 15:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

          GreenMeansGo, I meant it as an example of how we've handled similar situations, just as I'm sure you meant Obama, Robinson, Brown as examples, not "reasons why we have to do it here! Because look at this other article!" When in fact sometimes it's the other article that needs correcting. I once pissed off someone at Mark Dice because they were arguing that since it was in Kyle Kulinski, Dice should be treated the same, and I was just showing my/WP's political bias. By the time the complainer had started making a YouTube video exposing Wikipedia's bias, I'd corrected Kyle Kulinski. They accused me of "whitewashing" Kyle Kulinski to hide WP's bias. :D —valereee (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

          • Maybe we're getting a bit off in the weeds. Obviously I agree that OTHERSTUFF is a non-argument when we're comparing just some rando article. But VA/FAs kindof set the standard, and they kindof dispense with the reasons that OTHERSTUFF is normally a non-argument. GMG^talk 16:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the lead, yes, but not in the lead SENTENCE. We already have African-American and South Asian-America in the lead in several places where she was the "first" at something. That's where it belongs. The lead sentence should just say "American". -- MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agree again with Valereee and MelanieN Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, as I have mentioned multiple times on this talk page, it is her most notable identity as reflected in reliable sources. We must defer to reliable sources and not construct our own standards as to who the "African-American" label should apply to. Also emphasizing MelanieN's point that we are not talking about the lead sentence, which should just use "American," as is the norm. RedHotPear (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Because it's significant and how she is described in reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• NO At best - she's Biracial. Her mother is from Tamil, her father's Jamaican. People from Tamil-Nadu aren't African, they're Indian. not everyone from Jamaica is black either. There are Chinese Jamaicans and white or very light completed Jamaicans (Guy Harvey for one!) so unless with have a reliable source that says it, we can't say it either.W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• "unless with have a reliable source that says it, we can't say it" - Are you not aware that a huge number of reliable sources, over a long period of time, describe her as African American, and that other sources make clear that her father is Afro-Jamaican? Guy Harvey is not really relevant here. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality Actually Guy Harvey was used as an example to show that not all Jamaicans are African Americans. Speaking of, in this article, her father is described as "British Jamaican" not "African American", so yes she can be called Bi-racial and rightfully so. By the way, you've made the same argument three times on this RFC, three people have disagreed, I realize because I'm one of the three people, I can't say it's consensus, and I won't, but if three people disagree with you, seperately, there may be something to it, just saying! W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 00:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a picture of her father, which should put to rest the absurd suggestion that her father might not be African American: https://www.nytimes.com/article/kamala-harris-dad-don-harris.html If you hit a paywall, you can go google him yourself. Furthermore, this entire discussion is gross. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - A multitude of reliable sources, over well over a decade, describe her as such, and it is historically significant; she is only the second African-American woman to ever serve in the Senate, so a mention in the lead section (not the first sentence) is warranted. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

See, for example:

• Reuters (2020): "Harris, one of the chamber’s two African-American Democrats..."
• The Times of London (2020): "The leading African-American contender for the vice-presidential slot is Kamala Harris"
• Associated Press (2019): "Harris would be the first woman to hold the presidency and the second African-American"
• Wall Street Journal (2019): "Harris said Monday she will seek the Democratic nomination for president, launching a campaign to become the nation’s first woman and second African-American to win the White House."
• LA Times (2016): "Harris — simultaneously the first woman and African American to be elected to the statewide post"
• The Guardian (2019): "Harris and Cory Booker, two African American senators"
• NBC News (2016): "Harris was elected California's first African American and Asian American Attorney General in 2010."
• San Francisco Chronicle (2010): "Harris made history Wednesday, becoming the first woman, the first African American and first Indian American in California history to be elected state attorney general."
• Los Angeles Times (2008): "Harris was elected district attorney in December 2003, becoming the first woman to win the post and the first African American in California to become a district attorney."

--Neutrality^talk 21:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO. As per Wikipedia's own entry on Jamaicans, Jamaica consists of people from various different background, not only African. Those who are saying Kamala's father is African just because he's from Jamaica and is black, frankly, are edging the line into racism similar to assuming that all asians are Chinese... In fact, the editors of the article have provided no concrete evidence to suggest Donald Harris' ancestry is of African heritage at all. In fact, Donald Harris' mother (Beryl Finnegan) was British, and his father has no information publicly available whatsoever. It is therefore important, as an encyclopedia, that Wikipedia only present information which is factually citable. And the idea that Kamala is African-American is wholly unverifiable. It is entirely possible that Donald Harris' father also came from India. There is absolutely no way of knowing without somebody digging up birth certificates or other official records, and providing them. Further, those defending the choice of naming her African-American are only saying "reliable sources". Not everybody agrees on what a reliable source is. Nobody has even mentioned which "reliable sources" are saying this to provide greater context or to achieve a better informed consensus. I have seen the sources which Wikipedia refers to as "reliable", and in many cases, these sources have long histories of posting false information, and of being prosecuted over it. The term "reliable sources" without backing it up, has to be the most ambiguous argument ever, and achieves nothing to resolve a dispute. Grez868 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before commenting. It is disruptive to make outlandish "Birther" style claims ("no way of knowing without somebody digging up birth certificates"). It is disruptive to say that we should disregard reliable sources, or to suggest that there is no such thing as a reliable source. And it is disruptive to claim that well-established reliable sources are "fake news" (I assume you are referring to the variety of sources that have explicitly referred to Harris as African American, including Reuters, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal). Your bizarre claim that these sources have been "prosecuted" over "posting false information" is similarly disruptive. This kind of activities can be sanctionable. Please consider this a clear warning. Neutrality^talk 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• No' Because of her complex heritage. I would accept African-American despite her Jamaican heritage but she is biracial. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Emir of Wikipedia, my understanding of this RfC, given the other RfC, is that they are not mutually exclusive. Endorsing this RfC doesn't rule out endorsing the other one too. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  They don't need to be in the lede. Biracial is used by RSs [2]. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think there already was clear consensus before these RFCs and my !vote is still for the status quo. But, FWIW, whereas American sources like to use "African-American", I notice The Times of London also takes a different, rather concise take: "The daughter of a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, she makes history as the first non-white woman on a presidential ticket."[3] Llew Mawr (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  This comment inaccurately presupposes that one cannot be African-American, of Jamaican heritage, and biracial. Obviously, there are many people who are all three of those things. Neutrality^talk 21:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO - She should be described as a "Women of Color" OR "Black with South Asian (or Indian) ancestry." Kamala's father is Jamaican and her mother is from India. BOTH sides of her family's ancestry should be represented in any description. In academe (and major media outlets), she would be considered a "Woman of Color" and/or described as biracial (see links at end). If she is referred to as "Black" the other side of her ancestry should be acknowledged too, as in "Black AND of Indian (or South Asian) descent. Again, BOTH sides should be recognized. Examples: "A former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, she will be the first woman of color to be nominated for national office by a major political party." on https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-biden.html. "So when Joe Biden named Harris on Tuesday as his running mate — making her the first Black woman on a major party's presidential ticket — Cochran wasn't just struck by the history. It represented a full-circle moment for Black women, who for generations have fought for their voices to be heard and political aspirations recognized...Harris' selection is historic in many senses. It also marks the first time a person of Asian descent is on the presidential ticket. Born to a Jamaican father and Indian mother, she often speaks of her deep bond with her late mother, whom she has called her single biggest influence" on https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-harris-black-voters.html. "Still, I could have ill imagined that one day an African-American man would become the president or that a woman of Jamaican and Indian descent would be a candidate for the vice presidency" and "A woman of color will be on a major-party presidential ticket for the first time: Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden announced Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) as his vice-presidential pick Tuesday" on https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/women-of-color-representation-government/?arc404=true . "Kamala Harris becomes first woman of color to run for vice president on a major party ticket" on CBS News this morning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBjNxAxW79Q).Stoney1976 (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes — per Neutrality's comment above. RS describe Harris as African-American, indeed the focus on that angle, after all Wikipedia didn't invent "Harris is the first African-American vice presidential candidate" - RS did. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That wording was not in the original RS for that statement. The RSs following that statement have changed over time. The RSs for that statement are now her own campaign's website (sort of like a sales website; not typically considered RS) and an article in which she is referred to as "Black" except when quoting others. News outlets appear to be updating their terminology as time goes on to "woman of color," "Black," and/or "biracial" and including a statement about where her parents are from. Check it out yourself. Stoney1976 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

None of what you said erases the fact that she is also "African-American," and in case you hadn't noticed, the wiki article DOES explain where her parents are from in the body. Persistent Corvid (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. Harris is an American. All the ethnic descriptors can go in the body. She is half-Asian, half-Black (Jamaican to be precise), and her current husband is Jewish. All these details of the American melting pot can go in the body. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That's whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • How is that whitewashing (though I prefer woman of color, Black, or biracial in the lead)? It is how she describes herself, and her ancestry is still included. It's all verifiable in RS. Stoney1976 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • No, it is recognizing and highlighting Harris' accomplishments as opposed to her ancestry. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is a Snopes article that says her great-great grandfather may have been an Irish slave owner, Hamilton Brown, and her great grandmother's birth may not have been recorded because her great-great grandmother was a slave. I'm noting this because if this turns out to be verifiable, those arguing that her African American ancestry should be recognized would also have to include her Irish ancestry in principle, which gets kind of ridiculous. Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-ancestor-slaves/ I would still advocate for calling her a "woman of color" capitalized or not, and noting that her father is from Jamaica and her mother from India. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, Stoney, that comment is kind of ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree, this is absurd. For one thing, Snopes says the claim is unproven. More importantly, it proves nothing. Most slave-descended African Americans can count some white slave-owners in their family tree. For a white man to impregnate an enslaved woman he owned was very common. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Of course, because she is. She is also other things, but they are not mutually exclusive. We should not whitewash her; it's obvious that reliable sources discuss her as African-American--besides other things. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to including her ancestral history in the article. I just don't think it should all go in the lead. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• BBC has been referring to her as a "woman of color" (most frequently) or "Black" or "biracial" then noting her parents' homelands rather than calling her "African American" in their more recent news stories except when quoting others. Examples: "With three months left until election day in the US, California Senator Kamala Harris has already made history: her Jamaican and Indian roots make her the first woman of colour appointed to a presidential ticket by either of the two main American political parties." https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53746551 "Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has named Kamala Harris as his running mate - the first black woman and South Asian American in the role." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53739323 "Mr Biden noted that Ms Harris, a US senator from California, was the first woman of colour to serve as a presidential running mate for a major US party." https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53754294 All RS. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• No. She is Jamaican and Indian descent and it has no relations with African-Americans. It would make more sense to call her "biracial" or "mixed". ShadZ01 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

She is not technically "Jamaican" as that is a country of origin and not a racial descriptor. She was born in America. Her father is Afro-Jamaican. Therefore she is partially African-American. Also, when someone is either biracial or mixed that doesn't somehow make the specific races disappear. Persistent Corvid (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"technically "Jamaican" as that is a country of origin and not a racial descriptor" - as opposed to African, which is not a continent but a "racial descriptor"?

• Yes Sources generally refer to her as African-American, and we should follow the sources instead of trying to dissect her racial descent ourselves and apply silly made-up rules (Jamaican immigrants to the US can't be African-American? That's complete and utter nonsense). The current lead [4] mentions her race twice, once when noting that she was the second African-American and first Asian-American woman to serve in the Senate, and then again to note that she is the first African-American and first Asian-American woman to be chosen as a major party running mate. That reflects the way the vast majority of sources have covered her race: she is biracial, both black and Indian-American. Just to be clear, I think the short description in the first sentence should remain "American politician and lawyer", in accordance with manual of style guidelines on nationality. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Biracial appears to be somewhat restrictive. Her mother was Tamil, but her father was Jamaican, presumably of some kind(s) of African descent (has anyone checked for more precise race than "African"?), and also claims to have an Irish ancestor (not proven or disproven at this stage). It seems more accurate to describe her as American of mixed ethnic ancestry and heritage. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You're right, I probably shouldn't refer to her as "biracial" in the future. Anyways, that doesn't change what the sources say. Most of them refer to her as African-American or black, and many also say she's Asian-American, South Asian-American, or Indian-American. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• No Identity is separate from heritage. She is Jamaican-American, doesn’t matter how much she believes otherwise Anon0098 (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Related:

• The Wikipedia War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be --The Atlantic
• Is Kamala Harris Legally African American, Indian, Both, Neither, or Something Else? --Reason Magazine
• Kamala Harris’ Biracial Heritage Has Thrown Conservatives Into A Tailspin --Forbes
• Did U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris’ Ancestor Own Slaves in Jamaica? --Snopes
• Kamala Harris’ Jamaican Heritage --Jamaica Global
• Kamala Harris is Asian and Black. That shouldn't be confusing in 2020 — but it is to some. --NBC News
• Kamala Harris’s Indian Connections Spark Social Media Frenzy --Bloomberg

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO KH should not be called "Afro-American" until reliable sources are found which show that she has one or more African ancestors. While sources I have read say Afro-American, they give no strong evidence for it. While her father is Jamaican, I have never seen strong evidence that he has an African ancestor. I have never seen any African ancestor named or identified. I have never seen any slave in the ancestry mentioned, who was clearly born in Africa, or clearly had an African ancestor. I have seen no DNA test like for Elizabeth Warren. Is there even a reliable source which demonstrates that KH has physical characteristics exclusively typical of African ancestry? (TolerantToleration (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC))

  TolerantToleration, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for how to handle including things like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  TolerantToleration is almost certainly a racist troll account. It was created today and its only contributions appear to be to try to reach the autoconfirmed status and troll here. This is also not encouraging. Acalamari 17:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Why would you think they are racist? They seem to be noting that although some (but not all) RS refer to her as African American, all we really know is that her father is from Jamaica. That much is verifiable. Her heritage beyond that is unknown. The RS calling her African American don't mention tracing her lineage. They may be making assumptions. Stoney1976 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• yes or black would be appropriate since she most often refers to herself that way but there are several RS that report both.

NBC News[5]Meet Kamala Harris, the Second Black Woman Elected to the U.S. Senate

NPR[6]

Roll Call[7]State attorney general could be second ever African-American woman in Senate

LA Times[8]and Harris will become only the second black woman in the nation’s history to serve in Congress’ upper chamber.

Vox[9] has an entire story on this and why it's problematic to be dissecting her identity like this

And for the pièce de résistance, her own website [10] where she says: the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history. Kamala was elected as the first African-American and first woman to serve as California's Attorney General. Praxidicae (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment.There is a debate regarding who is "African American" versus "Jamaican American," in part because of proof of ancestry, etc., but also because their colonial histories and cultural identities are different. Many Jamaican Americans do not consider themselves African American. See: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/21/black-history-african-american-definition/1002344001/ In their most recent story, the AP's fact checker says Kamala identifies as "Black and Indian American." They say, "Kamala Harris for years has identified herself as both Black and Indian American. In interviews, she has regularly talked about how her mother, who was from India, raised her as Black." Black is a more overarching term that includes people whose recent ancestors are from different countries. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/breaking-the-news/african-american-or-black-which-term-should-you-use/89-0364644d-3896-4e8b-91b1-7c28c039353f The even more overarching term for a woman with both Black and Indian ancestors would be a "person of color" or a "woman of color." The Washington Post says, "A “person of color” identity is a new entry in the portfolios of nonwhites, who can identify primarily as black, Latino, Asian; Mexican, Jamaican, Chinese; or Catholic, Methodist, Muslim. Under many circumstances, they now choose to identify as POC." See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/02/people-color-are-protesting-heres-what-you-need-know-about-this-new-identity/ Current reporting supports "Black and Indian American" or "Black and South Asian American." If we are going by parents' countries of origin, "Jamaican and Indian American." Stoney1976 (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You're too far down the rabbit hole. Praxidicae (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Neither one of her parents . Both non Americans in America on foreign student visas at the time of her birth were born in America. African American means you are a descendent of a slave from Africa who was forced to come to America as a Slave to serve as a Slave in the United States. Unless Jamaica becomes the 51 state she is not African American. Its highly insulting to real African Americans which i am one of to call someone from Jamacia an African American they are not and Never will be. No Jamacian i have ever talked to claimed to be an African American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes Couple of things here. Im not sure of your fact "Both non Americans in America on foreign student visas at the time of her birth were born in America.", please provide citation. Second of all, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), says exactly the opposite, birthright citizenship extends to children of foreigners. Sen. Harris is American in every sense of the word. Third, the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans are of African origin. It is fair to claim that Sen. Harris is of African origin. Fourth, and most importantly, Sen. Harris refers to herself as "African American" https://www.harris.senate.gov/about "the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history." It's her identity, she has legitimate claim to it, and thats good enough for me. Fifth, I think you protest too much, and have lost your Neutral point of view "Its highly insulting to real African Americans which i am one[...]" and should withdraw from proposed edits on the page. And, for the record, I have moved this comment to the bottom of the section, where it belongs. Rklahn (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• No - Even though she may self-identify as African-American & MSM describes her as such, that doesn't make her so. Her father is from Jamaica & her mother is from India & neither of those countries are located in Africa. PS - Thank goodness she & MSM aren't describing her as Martian-American. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - per Neutrality and Praxidicae's comments. Jr8825 • Talk 04:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Neutrality, as the only thing that matters is how one is described by reliable sources. Still further, Jamaica is in America, so a Jamaican of African descent is an African American. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: Harris describes herself as such, and reliable sources frequently mention it. It's certainly notable, as well, because reliable sources regularly suggest that her race was a factor in her selection, and that she is a "historic" candidate because of her race. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, when relevant: Harris should have this attributed to her if it is directly relevant. If it is discussed that she is the first African-American V.P. nominee, for example, that would be acceptable. However, it should not be placed in a context such as "Kamala Harris is an African-American politician," if the same would not be done for a person of another race. PickleG13 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes There are reliable sources which substantiate this. ~ HAL333 19:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• No Not in the lead atleast. She has mixed ancestry. Too much brouhaha over this by her campaign and MSM. Never heard of any of this shit when she was still in the primaries. - hako9 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, per sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I comment with a reserved yes vote. I hate that this is even worth considered arguing about. For the sake of political correctness, call her African-American. Trillfendi (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  What is the politically incorrect way to call her then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Blasian. Trillfendi (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• No The fact is that sources vary, with no shortage of sources for Indian-American, African-American, Black, or Woman of Color.[11][12][13]. Strong preference to leave ethnicity out of the lead altogether. But if we must mention it, we could say that she is multi-racial. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Per RS and the fact that despite what some may say, it is possible to be African-American even if your father is Afro-Jamaican... and also simultaneously be Asian-American even if your mother is from India. (This should be a piece of cake.) Persistent Corvid (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes So long as RSes do (and they do). She is an American with African descent. This isn't 1892. Dumuzid (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, in line with core Wikipedia policies, including WP:V. The lucky editors who close this RfC will have to contend with "No" contributions such as the following: "Even though she may self-identify as African-American & MSM describes her as such, that doesn't make her so" (from GoodDay (talk · contribs)). This contribution should of course count in favor of inclusion: as this editor says, Harris identifies as African-American, and "MSM" (a.k.a. reliable sources) describe her as such. Job done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank goodness she doesn't identify as a Martian-American, then. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Recycling a dumb pseudo-clever joke doesn't actually make it funny or insightful the second time around. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Cry me a river. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, pointing out that a comment is not funny or insightful doesn't strike me as particularly lachrymose statement. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per my comment above. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• No as her heritage (for those it may concern) is too complex to sum it up neatly in one or two words. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Not for Harris herself it isn't. Why should we then care what you think? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Stepchildren

The current article is mostly silent on Harris' stepchildren. I came to this article specifically to learn about her family. From reading further, it seems like the children are a big part of her life and something she is public about, including naming and sharing pics of them on Twitter, and calling out their names during her VP nominee speech last week. I suggest we expand this aspect of the article.

• Infobox. Currently no mention of stepchildren. Propose we name both. Also, provide birth years or ages, if/when these show up in reliable sources.

• Body. Currently: "Harris, who is childless, became stepmother to Emhoff's two children from his previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff."

Proposed: "Harris, who has no biological children, became stepmother to Emhoff's two children, Ella and Cole, when they were teenagers. The children are from Emhoff's previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff. Harris has written about the importance of her relationship with her stepchildren, who call her 'Mamala'. [14][15]

67.252.46.102 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this editor. For a comparison one might look at the Bernie Sanders article. Bernie has one child born to a girlfriend of that time and several children born to wife Jane, who he states he considers his own. Jane's kids are included in his Personal life section but not in his info box. That surprises me because I've been watching Bernie's article for years and don't remember that ever coming up, but looking at it now I think they should be in the info box...though maybe not as I can see that argument too and am open to discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the Jill Biden info box, she lists Joe's two boys and the girl they had together. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this editor. For a comparison one might look at the Bernie Sanders article. Bernie has one child born to a girlfriend of that time and several children born to wife Jane, who he states he considers his own. Jane's kids are included in his Personal life section but not in his info box. That surprises me because I've been watching Bernie's article for years and don't remember that ever coming up, but looking at it now I think they should be in the info box...though maybe not as I can see that argument too and am open to discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We cannot use a politician's own accounts (whether in authored books or granted interviews) to give the sheen of a nuclear family here. Kamala Harris has stepchildren, but they were mostly raised by their parents Douglas Emhoff and Kerstin Emhoff before their divorce (after 25 years of marriage) and by their mother after the divorce. This is not a blended family of the type in which a widower with children or a man awarded custody of the children, has married for the second time (like Abe Lincoln's dad). We don't mention Ronald Reagans children with Nancy in Jane Wyman's infobox. In other words, we cannot give the children encyclopedic notability in Kamala Harris's page unless there is very reliable independent evidence of her significant relationship with them. I would imagine it would also be a disservice to their mother who mostly raised them (if any raising was left) after the divorce. These children, I note, are not mentioned by name in either of their parents' WP pages. I know Biden was making much of wanting to meet Cole and Ela in his first joint appearance with KH, but that is good old political pandering to a conventional stereotype. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler makes a strong point. We must be looking at how much weight secondary sources are giving this information, and assess the merits of inclusion from that. Currently all im seeing is mentions in primary source interviews, and i'd rather we don't become a parrot for those. Zindor (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with F&F —valereee (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The assertion in the proposed text, that Harris has written about the importance of her relationship with her stepchildren, has been widely covered by reliable sources. Here are additional references: [16] [17] [18], and there are many more. As WP:Notability was the only objection, should we move forward with the change? 67.252.46.102 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not notability, but reliability. Those are Ms Harris's musings. There is no independent verification of a significant relationship between her and Doug Emhoff's children, everything we have has been fed by her. Cole Emhoff, moreover, is 25 and his sister a few years younger. KH and DE have been married for five years. That means CE was 20 and his sister in her late teens at the time of the marriage. The children had already been raised. She might be on friendly terms with them, but that is not noteworthy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If we clarify that the relationships are important to Harris, not important overall, would that address your concern? This is also more true to how the sources report this. Also, removing the statement about her being childless, per other discussion on this talk page. So, how about this: "Harris became stepmother to Emhoff's two children, Ella and Cole, when they were teenagers. The children are from Emhoff's previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff. Harris has written about the importance to her of the relationships with her stepchildren, who call her 'Mamala'. 67.252.46.102 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I.P, that is an admirable weasel and i applaud it, but one could argue again that it has limited weight for inclusion because of a lack of coverage of the relationship in secondary sources. Does Harris explicitly call the relationships 'important', or is that original research? Even if we did make the inclusion based on the framing, the who call her Mamala would have to be dropped as it is Harris herself claiming that. Kind regards, Zindor (talk)

Because this is an IP, I will give the person behind it the benefit of the doubt in not knowing that stepchildren are not to be included in infoboxes except rare occasions, and that names do not go there (if the child is independently notable that’s a different story but time will tell on that one) and especially not (!) birthdays because this is a BLP and we have privacy rules. Trillfendi (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal life information is usually going to be traced back to the subject. Of course when people write about Harris' personal life, they are going to include mostly what she says about it. She's the most high profile person in her family and the one most likely to speak to the press. If you look carefully at the sources of most other biographical articles, you'll see a lot of personal details go back to articles where the subject was interviewed. The "Momala" tidbit is nothing controversial and would be an extraordinarily odd thing to lie about so frequently. It's been repeated by numerous reliable sources that seem to deem it credible enough to publish. If it helps to attribute statements about Harris' relationship with her step children to Harris herself, I wouldn't object to that. Knope7 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is this issue still live, or can I archive it? EEng 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • EEng, her stepchildren were in the video that was shown just now, I believe--with mention of "Mamala". I assume they are mentioned in the article, one way or another, cause they should. Not in the infobox, certainly not with DOB etc., but they should certainly be mentioned. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you see to it that whatever needs doing in the article gets done? I've got my hands full just trying to monitor all these different discussions and keeping them moving forward. EEng 03:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue wasn't just that the stepchildren should be mentioned, but whether we could believe Harris that she has a close relationship with them and that call her Momala. Ella appearing tonight calling her Momala and saying she's the best stepmother should hopefully put the objection to rest. Knope7 (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Knope7, if you can add this, in an appropriate and economical manner with a reference, that would be great. Thx, and thx EEng, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ping Knope7, Drmies. EEng 04:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Firsts, seconds, thirds

Redundancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaky English in lede

It says:

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

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

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

I would therefore suggest to rewrite this as

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

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

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

• First, no we do not need trivia about Sarah Palin in the lead. To whoever is reinserting that, please stop. Second, despite the fact that someone decided to pointily insert three references into the lead to justify this bit in particular, it's still not compliant with WP:LEAD. We do not start with information we want in the lead, copy and paste it in the body for shits and giggles, and justify it with ref bombing in the lead to references that aren't even used in the body at all. GMG^talk 14:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the version ([19]) after GMG's edit. RedHotPear (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The grandfather in India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it might be more accurate to qualify with, "According to Harris, ..." Little puzzling though how deep these beliefs were. Was the mother accompanying them to church? Did they read the Bible at home? The Baptists, after all, are not polytheistic; they don't really allow for alternative forms of worship, even within the fold of Christianity. Did the church know they were going to the Hindu temple? If she truly sang in the choir, which requires regular attendance, don't the pastor or others remember the Harris family? No one has reminisced? There is Regina Shelton, (see also here and here) who according to Harris, took the Harris girls to a church in Oakland now and then. But Shelton has refused all interviews. Perhaps we can go with, "According to Harris, her downstairs neighbor, Regina Shelton, took her and her sister, Maya, to Oakland’s 23rd Avenue Church of God. Harris considers herself a Black Baptist." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, it's dubious because Donald Harris' family were Anglican, as a committed Marxist he probably was not religious, he only was with the family until Kamala was 7, the neighborhood was mixed ethnicity and Kamala's mother was not African American or Christian. Also, the church she said she attended in her autobiography was the 23rd Avenue Church of God, which is not Baptist.[20] TFD (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Come on, folks. We tend to take people's claims about religion at face value here; we don't nit-pick about whether they REALLY accepted that faith. Trump claims to be a Presbyterian so we call him one, even though he is clearly a total heathen with not the slightest understanding of the Christian religion or familiarity with the Bible. IMO we have no business parsing whether she REALLY attended a church in her own neighborhood as well as one in Oakland; during her 12 years in Berkeley it is totally credible that she may have set foot in more than one church, possibly with going wherever her friends go as many children do. And nobody has said she went there because of her father; friends or neighbors can be just as strong an influence on church attendance. I call out this whole parsing of her statements, and deciding whether we believe them based on our own analysis, as nit-picking Original Research. Let's have one sentence "According to Harris" and give her the courtesy of accepting her words at face value. If she has named one church in one source and another church in another church, mention them both and move on. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The source (LA Times) quotes Harris as saying, “I grew up going to a black Baptist Church and a Hindu temple.”[21] It does not assert that she did, so neither should this article. AP refers to the 23rd Ave. Church as baptist,[22] so it is probable Harris doesn't remember what denomination it was. WP:OR by the way refers to what we put into articles not discussions on the talk page. We can certainly examine if the information we report in articles is plausible. Otherwise WP:REDFLAG, which cautions against aquestionable information, would make no sense. For politicians such as Harris, Trump, Biden and Hillary Clinton, we shouldn't automatically report their memories as facts. TFD (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

All in all, upon rethinking this, I agree with MelanieN. The world over notable people tell stories about their upbringing, or their relatives, friends, or followers do. These are reported by the press or by the faithful and become a part of their biography. We don't really know that Churchill wrote nothing at all in the entrance exam at Harrow; that's his story, but it is widely reported. There are stories about Christ, Muhammad and the Buddha. We don't really say, according to the Greek Bible or Aramaic Bible (translated in KJV) .... We don't really say according to Buddhist lore/Pali cannon, the Buddha witnessed ... There is a danger here of holding KH to a different standard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, her mother quite likely sent her and her sister to a Black church because she wanted them to have exposure to that part of Black life in the US. Many non-Black parents of Black children do that kind of thing. Adoptive parents are instructed over and over that it's critical for their children of other races to have deep exposure to the culture they "appear" to come from. And for heaven's sake attending a Black church and a Hindu temple doesn't mean you go to two services every Sunday. Hinduism isn't monotheistic; different deities have different days, and there are festivals and things. —valereee (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Let's consolidate; no more about churches here. If you want to refer to something in the above about churches, please do it in the other thread. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have posted a proposal there under #Proposed text. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Changing archiving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Oh for heaven's sake. The bandwidth consumed in downloading this page is 50K; that's 1/34th (yes, one thirty-fourth) the cost of downloading the article itself, which is 17MB. This talk of people being excluded is complete nonsense. EEng 12:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Harris grew up going to both a Black Baptist church and a Hindu temple

I changed this text to say "According to Harris, she grew up...." Another editor reverted. The source says, "“I grew up going to a black Baptist Church and a Hindu temple,” Harris recalled as she sipped an iced soy latte at a Berkeley coffee house." Calton reverted.[23]

Since the source does not confirm this as fact, we cannot either.

In fact, Harris claims in her autobiography that she attended the Twenty-Third Avenue Church of God, which is not Baptist.

If a fact cannot be reliably confirmed and reliable sources show it is false, we should not state it as a fact.

TFD (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If Harris were to write about her early childhood religious attendance on her own blog or social media, we could use that as a source per WP:ABOUTSELF. It's not controversial or unduly self-serving. Her comments in a newspaper interview shouldn't be seen as less reliable. Also, on what basis do you claim that the Twenty-Third Avenue Church of God isn't Baptist? They're a part of the Church of God Association of Northern California, Northern Nevada, and Hawaii [24], which according to their website is part of Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) [25]. While not a part of any Baptist conference, they follow many of the practices associated with Baptist churches, including full-immersion adult Baptism [26], so her calling it Baptist is not unreasonable or inaccurate. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's self-serving for someone to claim to belong to a church that is popular with African Americans when her appeal is that she is one of them. Thank you for finding the actual sect, it is the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana). While Baptists practice adult baptism, so do Anabaptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals and Mormons. More importantly, they are in the Arminianist rather than Calvinist tradition. TFD (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

" . . . when her appeal is that she's one of them." So by this, I take it that you mean African Americans don't vote based on issues or personal qualities? Because that certainly seems to be the import. Dumuzid (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I said. Harris believes that she can appeal to African Americans through claiming that she belonged to a church that was popular with them. She believes that African Americans don't vote based on issues or personal qualities. Personally I think that the approach will fail, but that's not the subject of this discussion. It's whether we should present false information. What is your opinion on that? TFD (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sort of answered your own question by deciding it was false, I think, but my opinion on that is pretty simple--basically I would echo Red Rock Canyon and WP:ABOUTSELF. It's entirely possible that she attended both the 23rd Avenue Church of God as well as a Baptist Church at different times. For instance, I doubt she went to church in Oakland while living in Montreal. I am also fascinated that you know with such certainty what Harris believes. Good trick, that! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That would not make any sense. In her autobiography she says she attended the 23rd Avenue Church every Sunday. It's not reasonable that she also attended another church regularly. As the AP story says, she was referring to the 23rd Avenue Church, which she described as Baptist. Except it isn't Baptist, although it performs adult baptism. And if she did attend two separate churches every Sunday, why did she not mention it in her autobiography? Normally when people make claims that cannot be substantiated, we attribute the claims to them. I am not saying that we should editorialize on whether or not her claim is valid. TFD (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TFD, as you know, this exact same discussion is going on a few sections up. We are, I believe, getting toward consensus to include something that would be attributed to her: "Harris has said..." or "According to Harris..." If she said two different things, we could say them both, clearly attributed to her. That's the simple, and fair, solution to conflicting information. As for the conflicting information, as I pointed out above, it is entirely possible that in the course of her 12 years as a child in Berkeley she attended more than one church at various times. Now then: I think you are out of line to describe her statement as "false information" rather than "information not confirmed by a neutral secondary source". I think you are way out of line to imply that she made up the claim to have attended a Baptist church as a cynical ploy to get votes. And your statement "She believes that African Americans don't vote based on issues or personal qualities" is totally outrageous - attributing to her a belief that African Americans simply vote on tribal lines, apparently being incapable or unwilling to actually think about how to vote. If that is actually how she feels (and there is no evidence that it is, although you cited it as fact), that would be a blatantly racist attitude on her part. I hope we will not hear any more of that kind of talk. Let's work instead on what we should say in the article. You apparently think we should say nothing about her attending churches and temples as a child, is that correct? OK, you are entitled to your opinion, which I gather is not to report anything she might have said on the subject. I intend to propose some alternate wording that I think will pass muster as adequately sourced to her. I'll work on a proposal tomorrow. I will propose it at the original discussion above, with a referral here pointing to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC) As per a suggestion at that thread I have posted it here instead. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

TFD, I am not proposing she attended two churches every Sunday. I am proposing she attended different churches at different times. Her autobiography, notably, does not say "...and I attended the 23rd Avenue Church of God at all times throughout my childhood even while I lived in Montreal that was quite a commute," which I am fairly sure it would say, were that the case. The claims simply don't strike me as in conflict at all. Where exactly does she say that the 23rd Avenue Church is Baptist? I missed that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, my original point was that her claim about church attendance was questionable and per WP:REDFLAG we need a good source to back it up, which we don't have. I don't mind saying that she says she attended a Baptist Church and Hindu Temple, so long as we don't state it as a fact. I also think that we should avoid Expressions of doubt, since no secondary sources question her account. It's probably better to resolve the issue now.

Dumuzid, She wrote in her autobiography, "On Sundays, our mother would send us off to the 23rd Avenue Church." See my quote above at 23:38, 20 August 2020: The source (LA Times) quotes Harris as saying, “I grew up going to a black Baptist Church and a Hindu temple.”[27] While she doesn't claim it was the 23rd Ave. Church, the connection is made in the AP article. Do you think she is referring to two separate churches?

TFD (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

TFD, You seem smart enough and seasoned enough not to have engaged in the much-decried practice of opening ever new threads on the ever same topics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I for one don't think TFD's as seasoned as you might think. I'd add a touch more salt and maybe some oregano. EEng 13:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

TFD -- I think it is entirely possible she's speaking about two separate churches. In my anecdotal experience, when families move, they often change houses of worship (should they have one), and are not always concerned with the actual denomination. For instance, per our article, her parents divorced when she was seven, and she spent weekends with her father. Did her mother still send her of to the 23rd Avenue Church then? It's possible, but I somewhat doubt it. It just strikes me that you are reading quite a bit into both her supposed motivations and an ambiguous line from her autobiography here. For me, the claims are in no way extraordinary and fall into WP:ABOUTSELF. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is self-serving to claim to have attended church if you are a politician in the United States. As you point out, it is guesswork by you, me and other editors to figure out what really happened. Usually if facts cannot be reliably sourced we present them as assertions, just as the Washington Post did. If I can't get agreement, I will take it to RSN, but since my edit request is merely applying guidelines and policies, I didn't think that would be necessary. TFD (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed text

Our situation is that we have some information about her religious upbringing, but all of it is sourced to the subject herself - no confirmation from neutral secondary sources. We can solve that part of it very simply by saying “According to Harris…” or “Harris has said…” So what should we say? She is talking about when she lived in Berkeley, from birth to age 12. Her father left when she was seven so he is not likely to have been much of an influence. We have at least four places where she said something on the subject; she is making this an important part of her life history so I would argue it deserves a mention from us.

• The Los Angeles Times quotes her as telling a reporter in 2015, ““I grew up going to a black Baptist Church and a Hindu temple.”
• In a 2017 speech in Atlanta she said “And I grew up in Oakland, then, attending the 23rd Avenue Church of God, where we’d learn about caring for the least of these. And I sang in the choir about how faith combined with determination will always see us through difficult times.”[28] (BTW she said "Oakland" here, but that's an easy mistake to make; Berkeley is adjacent to Oakland and the two cities run seamlessly into each other. I say that as a person who grew up in Oakland but was born in a Berkeley hospital and attended a Berkeley church.)
• In her 2019 autobiography she says she went to the “23rd Avenue church” regularly.
• And in her acceptance speech last night, talking about her mother, she described her mother "ferrying me and my sister to church for choir practice".

That’s four places where she talks about going to a variously described “church,” including two references to singing in a choir, and one reference to “a Hindu temple”. Some people have challenged her recollection as contradictory, because she says “a Black Baptist church” but the 23rd Avenue church in Oakland is part of a Church of God convention (there are many and their website doesn’t say which) rather than a Baptist convention (there are also many). So why does she say a Black Baptist church in one place and the 23rd Avenue church in others? Answer: I think it is entirely likely that a child does not understand the difference between one branch of American Protestantism and another similar one. By “Black Baptist church” she probably means a church whose congregation was predominantly Black (very likely, then and now, in West Berkeley or West Oakland) and whose services were similar to those of a Baptist church. Another challenge to her recollection is the claim that her mother, a Hindu, would not be taking her to a Christian church. I think the answer there may be the choir; her mother was an accomplished singer and that may have been her best option for getting singing lessons for the girls. (Don’t laugh; I know many people who attend church primarily because they love singing in the choir.) (One of our sources states, unsourced, that an upstairs neighbor drove them to the church; it's possible that the neighbor was the one who recruited them to the church - and once they were part of the choir, the mother drove them to choir practice and the neighbor drove them to Sunday services. That would account for the mother taking them to a Christian church; she was supporting one of their activities, rather than urging the Christian religion on them. This much is true, if you are in a choir, you really do attend every Sunday as regularly as possible.) The mother would have been the one taking the family to a Hindu temple on occasion, possibly for major festival occasions like Durga Puja.

All in all I see no reason to throw out her recollections as long as we attribute them to her. I propose replacing our current sentence - Harris grew up going to both a Black church and a Hindu temple. - with this: According to Harris, she grew up going to a Black church, where she sang in the choir, as well as a Hindu temple. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

For me, it throws unneeded doubt into the equation, as I think the factors of WP:ABOUTSELF are met. But if the weight of consensus is against me, I will somehow find a way to go on. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

So is that a support for the proposed text, or an oppose, or an abstention? Or is there something about this proposed text that you don't agree with? Please clarify. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of clarity! I would personally oppose the "according to Harris" formulation, but as I say, I won't overturn any tables. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't like any formulation involving "according to Harris" in this church matter. That wording unnecessarily inserts uncertainty. We have the facts: that she went to multiple Black churches in Oakland and Berkeley as a child, many of these visits to the COG on 23rd Ave which is deep in Oakland's Fruitvale neighborhood, not near Berkeley. We are adults here; we can dismiss any conflation of strict Baptist doctrine with that church. (The church in question invites a wide diversity of faith.) When Harris says she went to a Baptist church and a Hindu temple we know better than to repeat it verbatim. That statement is more like poetic license, not just because the church was not strictly Baptist, but because it sets up a false balance between the many church visits and the very few Hindu temple visits. My preference is to cite WP:SECONDARY sources who are more interested in accuracy than poetry. The National Catholic Reporter says that Harris "grew up in Oakland and Berkeley attending predominantly Black churches. Her downstairs neighbor, Regina Shelton, often took Kamala and her sister, Maya, to Oakland's 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland. Harris now considers herself a Black Baptist." So we can simplify the matter using NCR's language of "predominantly Black churches", and we can say she is now a Baptist. Let's drop the Baptist stuff from her early upbringing until we have a solid secondary source naming another one of the Black churches. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's much better. TFD (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, can you spell out the actual language you are proposing? Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW it would be inaccurate to say she now considers herself a Black Baptist. “Black Baptist” refers to the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., which was originally the Black Baptist Church. According to our article, “She is a member of Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, a congregation of the American Baptist Churches USA”. IMO her current religious affiliation does not belong in the Early Life section in any case; it's already in the Personal section and that's where it usually belongs. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't see a smooth way to present religion in two different places, because the early life leads to the later. I propose one brief paragraph dedicated to religion, starting from childhood experiences:

• Harris grew up going to Black churches and a Hindu temple. Her mother wanted the girls to know their Indian heritage, and at Shiva Vishnu Temple in Livermore, Harris participated in Hindu rituals and prayers. She has revisited the temple as an adult. Harris's mother also wanted her Black daughters to have a foundation in Christianity, so on Sundays, Shyamala would leave the two girls in the care of their neighbor, Regina Shelton, who drove them to the 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland's diverse Fruitvale district. The girls sang in the children's choir; Harris remembers her favorite hymn was "Fill My Cup, Lord". Harris is a Baptist. In 2014 at her wedding to American Jewish attorney Douglas Emhoff, Harris participated in Jewish customs, including crushing a glass underfoot.

MelanieN, at first I thought I might reduce the emphasis of Hindu temple, which is not so well represented by details in the sources. Harris's book The Truths We Hold: An American Journey mentions going to church but nothing about Hindu temple, and her book Smart on Crime declines to mention either even though we meet neighbor Regina Shelton who cared for the girls. These elisions are probably politically motivated; there is always someone who will take offense at your religion. As an example, far-right author Peter Schweizer wrote in Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite about Harris regularly visiting a Hindu temple in Livermore. He quotes mother Shyamala Harris: "She performs all rituals and says all prayers at the temple." Schweizer writes to shock and horrify, expecting his readers to be very close-minded, but I consider the facts and quotes to be reliable. With Schweizer's facts, and with newsletters from the Hindu temple, I feel confident we can convey a proper balance of Hindu temple and Black churches. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Binksternet, for all the new research, especially finding information about the Hindu temple, and for the new proposal. Would this be a subsection under "Early life" or under "Personal"? You might consider adding that, at her wedding to Emhoff, yes, they crushed the glass (and presumably stood under a canopy), but he also wore a flower garland in tribute to her Indian heritage.[29] I support this proposed wording with one reservation. I strongly object to the sentence "Harris considers herself a Baptist." She does not "consider herself" a Baptist, dammit; she IS a Baptist, a member of a Baptist church. And even if everybody accepts your wording, which I encourage, I will oppose it if it says she "considers herself" a Baptist, which reeks of doubt that she really is one. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Grammar nitpick: Black churches and "a" Hindu temple. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If we put this material in the personal life section, it can more readily expand to fit new church information. I can push and pull on the text there to make a coherent flow. If the religon stuff grows a lot larger for some reason, we can put a level 3 header of "Religion" under "Personal life". Yes she IS Baptist. Grammar fix okay now. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see this, hidden as it was below the references, but I completely disagree with this far-fetched formulation. The sources are extraordinarily unreliable. Binksternet is looking for truth in the unowned wasteland between the conspiracy theories of a right-wing nut and the happy ramblings of a Hindu temple newsletter, and that too in America. If you think I don't know about Hinduism, please read my Raksha Bandhan. I am agreeable to nothing except what was already there, and that was short and sweet: that she went to a Black church and a Hindu temple. That was the consensus. End of story. There are dozens of impeccable sources, but we are scraping the bottom of the barrel for meandering histories. No "according to," no "Regina Shelton." She is already there. She cared for Kamala when Shyamala was working late in her lab, a much more formative intervention than taking her to church now and then. We cannot keep rehashing old consensus because someone is too lazy to read the threads. I am astounded that Binksternet is repeating my post of more than a day ago, in near-verbatim fashion, but cited to a third-rate source, and considering it to be a new find. It is beginning to look like old-fashioned sexism, a case of holding KH to a different standard because she is a woman. Can the admins @Valereee, Drmies, Vanamonde93, and RegentsPark: please look into this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler, please mellow out. This is a discussion about the wording of a Wikipedia paragraph; it’s not a call for a declaration of war. Accusations like “lazy” and “sexism” are way out of line here. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You make several statements here that have no supporting facts. If you think a Hindu temple's humble little in-house newsletter is going to fabricate two visits from Harris, with a photo to prove one of them, you are woefully off the mark. You imply that I am lazy but I was the one going out to locate sources that had not yet been discussed. You assume I had not read your post but that, too, is wrong. I read it and rejected its argument for "according to Harris". I don't know how you think our two positions are so much the same that I am using your wording verbatim. And from where did you pull the sexism card? Amazing. I get the feeling you have me confused with someone else. But then you double down and call for admins, like I am trying to ruin the page. What I am trying to do is give a tiny glimpse into Harris's very interesting upbringing, describing the religion aspects which are important to many voters. Did Trump or Pence sing "Fill My Cup, Lord" in the children's choir? No, they did not, and it differentiates Harris the candidate. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not fair @Fowler&fowler:, dragging me into American politics! What's next? Black Death! I'm generally ok with Binksternet's formulation but have a few suggestions. Start with "Harris is a baptist" because that's the most pertinent piece of information. Perhaps "Harris is a baptist; her husband xyz is Jewish and Harris did the glass breaking thing at the wedding" should be up front because they represent the current state of (religious) affairs. Then move on to the current first sentence about her mother, the temple, and so on. I also suggest drop the "revisited the temple" sentence. Politicians visit religious places all the time and the current formulation gives the impression that she is also a Hindu. Since the visit was likely purely political, it shouldn't be in a section on her religion. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Sorry about dragging you here.  :( My thoughts exactly. What does a visit by an attorney general to Hindu temple recorded on the last page of a newsletter in a small one-paragraph blurb mean? Nothing. It doesn't mean that KH is Hindu, or even that she is a lapsed or occasional Hindu and went there to renew or refurbish her shaky foundations. She visited as a politician and posed for pictures. They presented her with a shawl and a souvenir (the newsletter says). She didn't pretend to be praying as Justin Trudeau did at a Hindu temple in Delhi or a Sikh temple in Ottawa. Politicians visit houses of worship. ( Off-topic but relevant aside: She is posing uncomfortably, it is obvious in the body language. That Hindu temple, by the way, is run (and mostly attended) by first-generation Indian immigrants from the states of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka not Tamil Nadu to which KH traces her roots. Why does it matter? Because Harris is nothing like them in her life history. They are socially conservative, have all had arranged marriages, for one. What are the chances that you will find a woman there among the regular worshipers who has married a Black man, let alone a woman who is the offspring of a failed marriage between an Indian woman and a black man? Zero. Such are some of the racist prohibitions and taboos among conservative Hindus.) The second newsletter says:

"The Grant-in-Aid program was conducted on Sunday, June 20, 2004. Ms. Kamala Harris, DA of San Francisco was the Chief Guest and Vice Mayor of San Ramon, Mr. David Hudson was the guest of Honor."

I rest my case. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I was also going to suggest putting her current situation first; "Harris is a Baptist" looks out of place suddenly thrown in after all that childhood stuff. In fact we might start the paragraph with the item already in the personal section: She is a member of Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, a congregation of the American Baptist Churches USA. I think we often do mention the actual congregation a person belongs to if we know it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The current situation is fine, but in the propose text I agree only to: Harris grew up going to Black churches and a Hindu temple. Her mother wanted the girls to know their Indian heritage, and at Shiva Vishnu Temple in Livermore, Harris participated in Hindu rituals and prayers. She has revisited the temple as an adult. Harris's mother also wanted her Black daughters to have a foundation in Christianity, so on Sundays, Shyamala would leave the two girls in the care of their neighbor, Regina Shelton, who drove them to the 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland's diverse Fruitvale district. The girls sang in the children's choir; Harris remembers her favorite hymn was "Fill My Cup, Lord". Harris is a Baptist. In 2014 at her wedding to American Jewish attorney Douglas Emhoff, Harris participated in Jewish customs, including crushing a glass underfoot. Examine the quality of the sources; abysmally poor. If this were all true, wouldn't the NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, SF Chronicle, or the New Yorker, have told these stories. And we already have a consensus not to use Harris's memoir, The Truths We Hold. If it is being cited by a reliable newspaper (of the kind I have mentioned above) it could be paraphrased with proper attribution, but not otherwise. This is what I am pointing out: a consensus evolves after a long and nuanced discussion. People who don't like the consensus or people who are new and have not read the threads, start a new topic and repeat the same formulations. I am pretty certain the proposed text is nonsense, original research of the worst kind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)\

Sources

The Monitor, of course, is a respected newspaper, but that article is more about first-generation naturalized Indians. The women, presumably feminist, have taken their American husbands' last name, in the common form of anonymizing. But KH is not like them; even her mother was not quite like them (See her publications list). Besides, there are very few first-generation Indian women who have married Black men, especially in their youth. Madhur Jaffrey did but later in life. Everyone in India, or the Indian diaspora, is looking to identify with Kamala Harris. But she is nothing like them. She is polite to them, but the links are superficial. The decisive formative influence on her life after her mother, Shyamala, was Shyamala's circle of acquaintance, especially the Bay Area African American intellectuals and rights activists, among which were Regina Shelton and Mary Lewis, and that is already in the article. We cannot distort a biography by exaggerating the role of religion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If your aim is to highlight progressive, intellectual and political themes, why is there nothing in the biography about the Rainbow Sign in Berkeley, a community center of Black activism? Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler, you claimed And we already have a consensus not to use Harris's memoir, The Truths We Hold. That is dead wrong. We did NOT have a consensus not to use her memoir; quite the contrary:

• Some wanted to not use any information from her memoir or other statements by her, namely The Four Deuces in the earlier discussion, and you now.
• Some of us wanted to include the information with the qualification “According to Harris…”, namely me, you in the earlier discussion, Calton, and The Four Deuces in the later discussion.
• Some of us wanted to use the information WITHOUT the qualification “According to Harris”, namely Dumuzid and Binksternet.
• Some of us wanted to include the information and did not specify whether to say “According to”, namely valereee, Red Rock Canyon, and RegentsPark.

You have recently been very vehement in your opposition to this proposed content, but you do not have consensus on your side. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN: I haven't been vehement. I was pointing to the discussion in the Stepchildren section following my comments of 15 August 15:35 Zindor and Valereee supported not using a politician's own account, whether in direct quotes or paraphrase, which is a primary source. The account has to appear in secondary sources, with proper attribution. I have done so in the article Kamala Harris in the early life section with "Kamala Harris has written, "...." and cited it to the New Yorker article. Granted that mine is a direct quote, but there is no reason, we can't write, "Kamala Harris has written in XYZ ..." here too. We don't have to use, "According to Kamala Harris," which is more formal, without a context, more hands-off, sounding like a claim, that is, the thesis of an argument that can be doubted. But we do need some attribution. There is no reason that we can't state a suitably reduced/paraphrased version of:

Kamala Harris has written in a reminiscence: 'On Sundays, we’d pile into the back of Mrs. Shelton’s station wagon along with other kids, on the way to the 23rd Avenue Church of God. When we got restless sitting in the pews, Mrs. Shelton would dig into her purse for hard candies to calm us down. Mrs. Shelton would bring her Bible to church every Sunday. Sitting alongside her, I was introduced to the teachings of that Bible. My earliest memories were of a loving God, a God who asked us to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves” and to “defend the rights of the poor and needy.” This is where I learned that “faith” is a verb, something we must live and demonstrate through our actions. Even as we grew older and moved away, Mrs. Shelton remained an enduring and encouraging presence in my life. ... when I took the oath of office to be attorney general of California, and later, a United States senator, it was on Mrs. Shelton’s Bible that I laid my hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'

There is a major point here. She grew up Black. A Washington Post article sums it up accurately:

She (Shyamala Gopalan) brought her daughters home to India for visits, she cooked Indian food for them, and the girls often wore Indian jewelry. But Harris worshiped at an African American church, went to a preschool with posters of Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman on the wall, attended civil rights marches in a stroller, and was bused with other black kids to an elementary school in a wealthier white neighborhood. When it was time for college, she moved across the country to Washington to attend the historically black Howard University. 'Her Indian culture, she held on to that,' said Sharon McGaffie, 67, an African American woman who has known Harris and her sister, Maya, since they were toddlers living in Berkeley, Calif. 'But I think they grew up as black children who are now black women. There’s no question about it.' "

We cannot on our own give equal time to Christianity and Hinduism. We can't make a political appearance at the Shiva-Vishnu temple at Livermore along with Vice-Mayor of Wherever to be a sign of her faith. (If you think it is, write a letter to her and ask her about the Bhagawad Gita and its message, or the Vedas, the Upanishads.) I've been watching with dismay a discussion deteriorating: we had regulars here @RedHotPear, Naddruf, HiLo48, Rklahn, Muboshgu, Zindor, MelanieN, Valereee, MrX, The Four Deuces, and Dumuzid:, many of whom had appeared before KH's VP choice, some a year earlier; we had long nuanced discussions. One of them, TFD, was not happy with the evolving consensus around KH's religious life. So what did he do? He opened yet another thread. And what did you do, MelanieN? You vigorously protested. Then you made a modest proposal for a change in the text. That was fine. What else happened? Some other editors started archiving the threads? Pronouncers of etiquette in archiving appeared out of the blue and pronounced. So all the old consensus is in the archives (out of sight out of mind). Then Binksternet appeared on the 21st, with no history on this page, and without joining the discussion in the usual manner new editors do, proceeded to offer his proposed text, which is nothing but original research. Has the Shiva-Vishnu temple at Livermore been cited anywhere? By any responsible newspapers: NYTimes, LA Times, SF Chronicle, WaPo, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Times London, Guardian, Independent? It hasn't. So why is WP championing equal opportunity of religion in the biography of a politician in which it was very definitely not? Hinduism and Indian culture were the parts of a matriarchal family culture (cooking Indian meals, wearing Indian jewelery, visiting the maternal grandparents on occasion, holding hand with the grandfather on the Madras beach and listening (wide-eyed) to his stories and ideas), but her predominant identity is Black and her religion Black Christianity (it doesn't matter which denomination). There is a real danger here that by turning religion into an equal-opportunity list, we are doing a major disservice to Kamala Harris and her background. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

PS And Doug Emhoff smashed the glass and the guests shouted "Mazel Tov." What is that about? She married five years ago, aged 49. That is an aspect of her religious life, or of a modern wedding ritual? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I note the Washington Post article omits the six years between going to an integrated school and going to Howard, when she lived in Westmount. TFD (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And Wikipedia has taken it upon itself to fill that in? There is the forest; there are the trees. This is about the forest. Do you seriously think that a seasoned journalist such as Dana Goodyear, in the highly nuanced article on KH in the New Yorker will miss something that obvious, if it were important? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

PS @The Four Deuces: Hello: upon rethinking, if you mean the Canadian years at Westmount High School, that is fine. Examining the Canadian sources, the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and whatever is the name of the English newspaper (if any) in Montreal (plus others in Ottawa, Vancouver). There is no problem there. Find the best source and make a direct edit. I think the discussion on religion here is too focused on inessential details. Until tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you two are talking about. We already have in the article, in the early life section, information about her move to Montreal and the schools she attended there. Are we missing something? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I thought he was looking for more detailed info on the Canadian years, and in my sleepy state, I referred him to Canadian sources. I think now he might have been (rhetorically) referring to the sentence, "When it was time for college, she moved across the country to Washington to attend the historically black Howard University," implying (rightly so) that reliable newspapers make mistakes. The move was southward. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Fowler&fowler for drawing my attention to this subject. I have not expressed an opinion or suggested edit on the topic of Sen. Harris' religion, but it strikes me that it has parallels to our discussions around her ethnic identity, we should be strongly drawn by what Sen. Harris' thinks her religion is. Like identity, this has many layers in the modern world, and contains aspects that only the subject can define. Rklahn (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

A brief PS. Ive seen a lot of reference to Sen. Harris attending this church or that temple in this section. That is only indicative of what she has done in the past, and how, perhaps, she was raised. Her current religion is what is relevant, and it's quite possible that is none of our business, and is between her and her higher power. Rklahn (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Both her current religious identification and her past can be relevant IMO, but we would need to adhere strictly to reliable sources and conform to due weight. RedHotPear (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Let’s see if we can agree upon some basics. We do know what her current religion is, and what church she belongs to, and what her husband’s religion is; that is already in the Personal section as it is in most biographies. The question is how much to include about her religious upbringing. Considering the intense interest in her multi-cultural background, I think we need to provide something. After all we have a large paragraph about her childhood experience with Black culture and the civil rights movement. On religion: almost all sources on the subject cite, verbatim, the report that she went to “a Black Baptist church and a Hindu temple.” Since Reliable Sources are repeating this I think we should include it. I wouldn’t go into any more detail about the Hindu temple, about which we have little information, but there is more we can say about the church. Many sources mention her attendance at 23rd Avenue and singing in the choir. (She says, and sources repeat, she went to “a Black Baptist church”; 23rd Avenue is not Baptist, but she may have been mistaken about the denomination - that’s not something she would have paid attention to as a child.) Rather than a “religion” section somewhere trying to lump all this together, I would propose that we have a slimmed-down version of Binksternet’s proposal in the Early Life section, describing her religious upbringing just as we are describing her cultural upbringing - and leave the information about her current faith in the Personal section. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. We definitely don't want to string together content from disparate sources to construct our own narrative and this, "just the facts ma'am", approach is probably the best. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yonat Shimron of Religion News Service (who is already cited in the biography) has written more about Harris and religion, saying that Harris may bring an advantage to the Democratic presidential ticket, attracting voters who are increasingly part of "religious pluralism" and decreasingly Christian.[30] Shimron quotes John C. Green, a scholar of religion and politics, who says "I don’t think her religious biography will be a negative in the campaign. There may be people who complain. But I don’t see those complaints having much resonance because she represents a trend that’s an increasingly common pattern." Shimron quoted Public Religion Research Institute CEO Robert Jones who said that the religious backgrounds of the 2020 candidates make the Biden–Harris ticket look "a lot more like America's future" in terms of religious trends. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

After looking closely at Binksternet’s suggested paragraph and evaluating the sources, I have trimmed it of superfluous detail like her favorite hymn and her mother’s motivation, to come up with this:

Harris grew up going to Black churches as well as a Hindu temple. She and her sister regularly attended the 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland's diverse Fruitvale district, where the girls sang in the children's choir. Her mother also took her to the Shiva Vishnu temple in Livermore.

References

I propose this as a compromise summary of the commentary here; what do people think? This could be a short standalone paragraph, or it could be the first few sentences of the paragraph that goes on to describe her visits to India. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I like it. It accurately summarizes the known facts. If readers want to know more about Harris' childhood, they can go to the relevant article. Considering her lengthy career, we have to be concise wherever possible. Anyway it fixes the problem of relying directly on her personal recollections. TFD (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

[sigh] I’m not religious but I grew up with this mess so let me explain it in layman’s terms. Church of God means the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) denomination. They are not Baptists, they are Penecostal. There are thousands of what society would call “Black Baptist” churches out there but a Church of God in Christ is not one of them. It’s a lazy conflation. Trillfendi (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And that's precisely why my proposal does not say she went to Black Baptist churches. It says Black churches. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but Binsternet proposal is problematic. In all these situations, the first thing to do is to start with the most reliable sources and to look for a textured account by a third-party, i.e. not by KH, and not by the source itself without attribution. Textured means an account whose interwoven elements include both a broad statement and an illustrative vignette. The reliable sources in this instant, i.e.', of recent news, are the best-known newspapers, to which I've added Mercury News, a California news site). These are 11 in number. When you search for the string: "Kamala Harris" AND "Church" AND "23rd Avenue Church of God" OR "Twenty Third Avenue Church of God" AND "Regina Shelton" AND "Oakland" among these 11, you get only one return, which is the Washington Post article, "I am who I am," published in February 2019, i.e. before the feeding frenzy began, and written by the Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, Kevin Sullivan. Although it has two or three errors, which we've already discussed, it has the advantage, that there is a third-party source, Regina Shelton's daughter, who corroborates it.

Sharon McGaffie’s mother, Regina Shelton, ran the preschool that Harris and her sister attended. Because Harris’s mother traveled often for her work as a cancer scientist, the girls would regularly stay over at McGaffie’s house, two doors down on a quiet street in Berkeley. Shelton became like a mother to Harris’s mother, and grandmother to Harris. McGaffie said the Harris girls would regularly accompany her family to the Twenty Third Avenue Church of God in Oakland, Calif., an African American protestant congregation. Their mother eagerly encouraged them to go but did not attend herself, McGaffie said."

I think that some paraphrase of that is adequate, making the point that the mother did not attend. There is nothing there about singing in the choir. We should avoid adding that. The Shiva-Vishnu temple is not a secondary source, only primary. There is no texture there either, only descriptive prose about a politician's (or two politicians') visit. The Indian culture, ritual, and mythology (not necessary religion) was a feature of growing up in the family. I will propose something for a religious culture paragraph later today. Btw, what Trillfendi says about the church being pentecostal is true. A number of sources say that but the beauty of Kevin Sullivan's phrasing, "African American protestant congregation," is that it keeps it general. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The other problem with Shiva-Vishnu is that the source, Profiles in Corruption, a book written by Peter Schweizer, a right-wing POV pusher, associated with Breitbart News, is a non-starter. Look at the cover of the book. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And that's why I didn't use the temple newsletters as a source, or say anything about her visiting there as an adult. And I didn't say anything about whether the mother went to church or about who took them, just that they went. Regina Shelton is already mentioned elsewhere in the section, as a close friend and child care helper; there is no need to bring her up again. I agree that the Schweizer book is polemical and biased, so I only used the part where he was directly quoting the mother, and only as a source that they went there. (I do wish people would respond to what I ACTUALLY proposed, instead of arguing against things I didn't say.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I added a better source for singing in the choir: the Christian Science Monitor. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Also [sigh]. At least in Europe, before 1517, this was so much easier. Rklahn (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Omit altogether: this is a minor detail and not critical to the subject's career. Her current religious affiliation is already mentioned and this is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid, it does not matter that Peter Schweizer was directly quoting the mother, it is still WP:UNDUE. If 11 of the best-known newspapers of the English-speaking world makes no mention of Shiva-Vishnu, how does a right-wing account become DUE? What is footnote 13? Where is he getting his information? Again, the Monitor reference is also not reliable for someone as high-profile as KH, because the account does not tell us where the author is getting that information. After all, it is a journalist. He got it from somewhere. The advantage in Kevin Sullivan's phrasing is that it is coming from a third-party, which we do not have to name, simply paraphrase: "The Harris girls regularly accompanied Shelton's family to the Twenty Third Avenue Church of God in Oakland, Calif., an African American protestant congregation. Their mother eagerly encouraged them to go but did not attend herself" I believe the choir business is nonsense. If the Shelton family who took the Harris children make no mention then how are we divining that information from others? Why would we not mention Shelton again, just because she was mentioned in the previous paragraph? She was an important figure in her life, a "second mother." No one else took the Harris girls to church. Highly impersonal formulations, or unevenly impersonal formulations (i.e. we are not telling a reader who took them but do tell the precise denomination was of the church to which young children still in kindergarten or elementary school were taken), ultimately distort. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

PS And Kamala Harris's own account, Without this woman, I would not be the Senator I am today, written for Bustle for Black History Month, 2019, and is all about Regina Shelton, makes no mention of singing in the choir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your opinion. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think along K.e.coffman's lines: we only need the first sentence. The others I think are better left out. But thanks to everyone for their efforts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

diverse vs adverse

Brogo13, you seem to be trying to make a point. The website specifically says adverse backgrounds. —valereee (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"She went, curtsy of a program, to school." (Your solution is also technically right.) Watch this space. --Brogo13 (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to believe that "adverse" is a typo. It's not. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Adverse is unquestioningly correct. EEng 02:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

KH's years in the midwest

The early life section says, "Harris lived in Berkeley, California, until she was twelve years old." But of course, that is not true. She was born in 1964. Her father Donald J. Harris received his PhD in 1966. The family moved to Urbana, Illinois for one year. Maya Harris, KH's younger sister was born there. In 1967, they moved again: DJH received an assistant professor's offer from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, which he accepted. The following year, 1968, they moved to Madison, Wisconsin after DJH was appointed an associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Finally, in 1969 they separated and Shyamala Gopalan moved back to the Bay area. They divorced in 1971. So, between the ages of two (1966) and five (1969), KH did not live in the Bay area. Could someone please find the sources and fix this? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say that? We can then adjust the text to reflect that information. TFD (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is one for Urbana; here's another for Madison. Here is indirect evidence at a UIUC website. I can't find a source for Evanston. But the first one indirectly refers to it. It is possible that KH's mother did not move to Northwestern and stayed on at UIUC until 1968. Not sure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be fixed to follow sources, the until 12 is inaccurate. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to have a source that mentions all her homes. Are we still sure that she lived in Berkeley before moving to the Midwest? TFD (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)