Jump to content

Talk:Kamala Harris: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 158: Line 158:
:::The article does not state that she is African American. The request makes no sense regardless of sources. – [[user talk:Anne drew Andrew and Drew|<span style="color:#074">Anne&nbsp;drew</span>]] 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
:::The article does not state that she is African American. The request makes no sense regardless of sources. – [[user talk:Anne drew Andrew and Drew|<span style="color:#074">Anne&nbsp;drew</span>]] 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Anne drew Andrew and Drew}} Oh, my bad then for just looking at the silly request and not taking a look at the article. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Anne drew Andrew and Drew}} Oh, my bad then for just looking at the silly request and not taking a look at the article. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
:I think that [[West Indian American]] would be the most accurate description of her ethnicity. Black and Desi mixtures are quite common among West Indians. [[User:Iamcuriousblue|Iamcuriousblue]] ([[User talk:Iamcuriousblue|talk]]) 10:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


== Four paragraphs on VP speculation is excessive ==
== Four paragraphs on VP speculation is excessive ==

Revision as of 10:16, 6 July 2020

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).

WikiProject iconWomen in Red: Black women (2020)
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the Black women edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in February 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.
WikiProject iconWomen in Red: #1day1woman (2020)
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.

One West statement addition, 7/4/20

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

Capital punishment

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

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

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

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

Missing refs

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

That is strange, I also only see refs 1-58. The user Bnguyen1114 made a lot of edits expanding this page in April and May, and I don't know that anyone has vetted the changes. Maybe the page is too long now, like the problems on Trump's page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was going to ask. Why do I only see 1-58 references? I took the time to gather 400+ for all this. Where did they go? If it is because of length, I can start editing for length... Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's exactly the issue that's been brought up at Talk:Donald Trump, and what I suspected was going on here. Thank you Ahecht. Based on my estimation, there are about 480 templates on the page, over 400 of which are {{cite}} templates. So, what can we trim? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know how I can help. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bnguyen1114, one thing to do is to look for any cases of WP:OVERCITE. Like, for instance, in the early life section, I see this: She went on to Howard University in Washington, D.C. where she double-majored in political science and economics, interned as a mailroom clerk for California Senator Alan Cranston, chaired the economics society, was elected to the liberal-arts student council, led the debate team, organized mentor programs for local youth, demonstrated against apartheid, and joined Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority.[31][32][31][8][33] Are all five four (just noticed that ref 31 is invoked twice there) sources required to verify that content? Any time two citations are used where one would do, we lose no content by cutting the extra source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, Muboshgu. I will identify those instances, verify their content, and remove accordingly. Good tip. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bnguyen, I see that you are fairly new and I'm sure that you tried very hard to improve this article. The problem is that in your effort to provide a great deal of information you overdid it. I know that when I tried to go through it I just couldn't take it no matter how hard I tried. And the thing is, by nature I'm one of those that usually reads every word in the articles I look up and I often look at some of the refs as well. So I'm thinking that for the most part people are just not going to read this article. They just want an overview. Hopefully others will give an opinion as well so we can be sure that I'm not alone in my suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is bloated and also pretty much too unstable to edit or review. One editor has made almost 500 edits to this article in barely six weeks. Gandydancer is entirely correct. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem....I can pare it down even more. I'll make another pass at it. Just want to note that when I started, there was granular details about her career. So I followed that format. But I can make it look like "general overview" no problem. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And we are at about 180K. Let me know what you think; feedback is welcome. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that it is far too long. However, majority rules here and it seems that the other editors find it to be appropriate for a political bio. So I will step aside with my objections. Gandydancer (talk)

Intended Reversion: Harris' 1994 Appointments to Two State Commissions by Assembly Speaker During Her Romantic Relationship With Assembly Speaker

I intend to restore the following text to this article, which Bnguyen1114 removed without adequate justification on 10 June 2020:

"In May 1994, California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown appointed Harris to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, a position that paid $52,500 per year. In November 1994, Speaker Brown appointed Harris to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a part-time position that paid $72,000 per year. The Los Angeles Times noted Harris' romantic relationship with Speaker Brown at the time of the appointments in 1994, "Harris, a former deputy district attorney in Alameda County, was described by several people at the Capitol as Brown’s girlfriend. In March, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen called her “the Speaker’s new steady.”"[1]"

This material, substantiated with the cited contemporary "Los Angeles Times" article, is important to understanding the arc of Kamala Harris' career. Ms. Harris had a romantic relationship with a senior government official with appointing power, who during the course of the romantic relationship appointed Ms. Harris to two lucrative governmental positions. The magnitude of the compensation is important for the reader to know. These positions were not unpaid, but instead had substantial financial compensation. Ms. Harris became a "former deputy district attorney in Alameda County" in order to accept these positions. Jab73 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one that removed that information. It is my understanding that when we include criticisms in our BLPs we need to provide substantial sourcing that demonstrates that the information is not only accurate but that it rises to a level of importance to include in our short overview of the subject's life. Can you provide multiple RS? Gandydancer (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back I removed only the salaries but I left the rest of the info. The date was June 8. I did google this and found that it came up again related to her run for president. Here is what Vox had to say: [1] Gandydancer (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 June 2020, I restored and added to the discussion about the Kamala Harris-Willie Brown romantic relationship, during which then-California Assembly Speaker Brown appointed Harris to two well-paid state commissions. Just 71 minutes after I made this edit, user "Calton" eliminated my edit, in its entirety, with no explanation other than "And I have removed them". See:

"21:31, 13 June 2020‎ Calton talk contribs‎ 170,395 bytes -1,389‎ Reverted to revision 962252172 by Bnguyen1114 (talk): And I have removed them (TW) undothank Tag: Undo" I intend to restore the text that I added on 13 June 2020, which user "Calton" removed just 71 minutes later. I shall wait 24 hours for user "Calton" to offer a reasonable justification for her/his edit on the "Talk" page. Other users may weigh in. The text that I have added is substantiated by contemporaneous newspaper articles in 1994-95. To the best of my knowledge, I have satisfied Wikipedia's requirements for edits to this page. Jab73 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other users may weigh in.
I checked, and as it turns out, Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge of Wikipedia.
I shall wait 24 hours for user "Calton" to offer a reasonable justification
You have it backwards, son: as the one adding disputed material -- ESPECIALLY IN A WP:BLP -- it onus is on YOU to justify it. Not me, YOU. --Calton | Talk 22:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a classic example of truth being used as a smear. I'm surprised it doesn't mention that Brown was married. The language is non-NPOV. Gandydancer should attempt to write this in an NPOV fashion before attempting to re-insert it; it would be an interesting exercise. You can tell by the adjectives, though. "Lucrative position" -- was it? How much did a Deputy DA in Alameda County make in 1994? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you got the idea that I want to reinsert it. If we included every time a politician gave out special favors we'd be at it for a long, long time and many of our political articles would expand. BTW, thanks for the "It's a classic example of truth being used as a smear" line because this is exactly what it is and I'm going to find that line very useful in my future editing. (BTW, I think that the only other time I edited this article was years ago when I deleted some tabloid-like stuff about her affair with Brown, a married man!!! and such...--though he and his wife had not lived together for years.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got lost in the train of who said what; and I'm a bit frustrated trying to do anything or monitor anything on this article, since it keeps changing so dramatically. I do think a mention belongs in the article, just in passing; we can easily say Harris's political career was given an early boost when Brown appointed her to a patronage position; one sentence should suffice. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will defer to the editors on this one, I just took it out because it seems pointless. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jpgordon, that seems reasonable to me. I have worked with the Elizabeth Warren article for years and like it or not we have pretty much had no choice but to include Pocahontas, err... information...because of her political positions and most recently because she was running as the Democratic candidate against Trump. At any rate, if Biden does happen to choose Harris as his running mate we can expect this information to spring into the forefront. Better to include it now than be forced to include it later. Perhaps? (Hope fully no one will wisely accuse me of crystal-balling--because I'm not.) Gandydancer (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i'm cool with adding a sentence or something - its all true so it should be there but maybe not to the level of detail as it previously was. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Calton has yet again reverted my revisions in their entirety (at 14:34, 15 June 2020‎). Calton did this 100% reversion without any discussion on this "Talk" page and a short note "At least three editors hae [sic] told you "no". Perhaps you should listen." Calton did not accurately represent what other editors have stated above on the "Talk" page.

After 24 hours, I plan to insert the text, as revised below, in response to feedback from other editors:

-- In 1994, California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown appointed Harris to well-paid positions on the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission. The Los Angeles Times noted Harris' romantic relationship with Speaker Brown at the time of the appointments, "Harris, a former deputy district attorney in Alameda County, was described by several people at the Capitol as Brown’s girlfriend. In March, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen called her “the Speaker’s new steady.”"[2] Harris frequently accompanied Brown at events during his successful 1995 campaign for San Francisco mayor. In December 1995, Mayor-elect Brown announced that his romantic relationship with Harris had ended.[3] --

This material is highly relevant to the career of Kamala Harris. Her 1994 appointments to well-paid positions (one with a $97,000 annual salary) on two state commissions during her romantic relationship with the appointing power were controversial and newsworthy at the time. Ms. Harris left her position at the Alameda County District Attorney's office to accept one or both positions. This was the first mention of "Kamala Harris" in many newspapers across California. The Harris-Brown romantic relationship was publicly acknowledged. By most objective measures, this type of material belongs in an encyclopedia article about a person, especially a prominent political figure. In the current "me, too" era, a public, romantic relationship with an appointing power that results in career advancement is relevant, especially when appointments to well-paid public positions are involved. The material that I have suggested for inclusion satisfies Wikipedia's core content policies, including "verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view." For verification, I have cited contemporary articles in the "Los Angeles Times" and "San Francisco Chronicle," two of California's major newspapers. Jab73 (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC) --[reply]

Comment:I agree with User:Bnguyen1114. The material is relevant, and documented, but a sentence or two might suffice. WP:UNDUE. JTRH (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jab73's proposed copy is far too extensive and would be clearly an attempt to suggest that something improper took place. Plus, if our article clearly attempts to smear Harris, as this copy does, we must then write a rebuttal, adding even more copy to an already overly long section. For example read the following from the Vox article I mentioned above:
As Siders notes, suggesting that Brown had any influence over Harris’s professional ascent obscures the fact that he broadly exerted the same influence over numerous politicians in the region, given his wide-ranging position of power.
“It is difficult to find any successful politician in San Francisco who does not have history with Brown,” writes Siders. “Before being elected mayor of San Francisco the same year Harris ran for district attorney, Newsom owed his start in San Francisco politics to an appointment by Brown to the city’s Parking and Traffic Commission, and later, to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.” It also gives Brown outsized credit for successes that Harris worked to achieve herself. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandydancer: If you wrote a rebuttal to this to be placed in the article, then I would hope that it meets the requirements of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. If there are no reliable secondary sources supporting the rebuttal, then it cannot be placed in the article.--Beneficii (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me consensus is pretty clear; if the event is to be included in this article, it should be given due weight without characterizations. "Assembly speaker Willie Brown (with whom Harris had a romantic relationship) appointed Harris to two state commissions early in her career." Details can be in the future article about the Harris' early career. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how their relationship is addressed in Willie Brown's bio:

During the 1990s, Brown dated Kamala Harris, then an Alameda County Deputy District Attorney. There was speculation the two would marry, but Brown broke up with her shortly after being elected Mayor of San Francisco.

I wonder if it's fine to include this info in her personal life section? The lorax (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to have a sentence in the Personal Life section and then another sentence in the career section, given that Mayor Brown did appoint her to two commissions. But the level of detail Jab73 suggests seems excessive. I propose using his copy but cutting down the extraneous details about attending single events and adjectives like "well-paid." That's loaded language in my view. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

I believe that it would be appropriate in the Personal Life section as well. Unless we want to imply that her position was improperly gained the relationship should not be mentioned in the same breath that we report it. Unless, of course, if we then get into explaining that Brown granted other positions, etc., etc., and so on. And we don't. Gandydancer (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgordon: I just looked at the article, and I don't see any mention of the romantic relationship at all, either in her personal life or in the section about her career. Wasn't the consensus that it be mentioned, but without a lot of detail and without characterization?--Beneficii (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back in. I do ask if anyone else wants to remove or change it, to please discuss such changes here first.--Beneficii (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me there was no consensus at all. But whatever, someone will change it or not, with or without discussing it here. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I saw that Bnguyen1114 and Gandydancer both agreed to its inclusion. Gandydancer was the one that objected to the more detailed inclusion, as well as objected to characterization, which I think is fair--Beneficii (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

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

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article does not refer to Harris as African American. – Anne drew 22:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: The proper response would have been the "please cite reliable sources" option, FWIW. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not state that she is African American. The request makes no sense regardless of sources. – Anne drew 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: Oh, my bad then for just looking at the silly request and not taking a look at the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that West Indian American would be the most accurate description of her ethnicity. Black and Desi mixtures are quite common among West Indians. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four paragraphs on VP speculation is excessive

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

Don't think it's the exact same cuts I would have made, but totally Agree with the intent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with the edits, thanks Knope7Bnguyen1114 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harris's record on wrongful convictions

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

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

Indeed The Intercept has reported on this. I wouldn't be surprised if Democratic operatives are editing this page. Kamala is likely to be Biden's VP, and criticism on Wikipedia is a no-no. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wrote all those sections. including the Mnuchin and Orange County prosecutors. I can add them back in if you like. But the editors asked me to trim it down. I'm not a Democratic operative, I do this for free because I'm sick of misinformation about Kamala Harris. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Sick" is an interesting choice of word. It indicates that you are personally invested in defending the reputation of this woman. Despite how you may feel, Wikipedia articles are expected to be written neutrally. This entails the inclusion of criticism, provided it is well-sourced. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Accordingly, I have added the information pertaining to the Mnuchin and Orange County prosecutors to the page. I think you will find they are satisfactorily factual. Let me know if you'd like me to add other criticism she received, such as the Deborah Madden crime lab issue. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly Biased

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

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

It got noticed

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

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

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

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

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed an admin, Drmies, posted a little while back on Bnguyen1114's talk page. I haven't been following this page, but it appears there's been at least some scrutiny and reversions. Drmies, can you help catch us up about what's been going on here? Is this a case of the media trying to pretend there's conflict when it's actually being handled fine, or is there some potential cleanup that needs to be done? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing discussion of conduct rather than content
Look y'all, I'm just a constituent of Kamala Harris who volunteers for Democratic candidates. I've met Jill Biden, Josh Harder, Julian Castro, and Kamala Harris. I'm on lockdown like everyone else and took on this page as a project. There's nothing sinister about me. If you have questions, feel free to ask, I'll be happy to answer. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably recuse yourself from this topic, then. We can't have paid editors going around and changing articles on the subject that they are paid by. Jdcomix (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof Bnguyen1114 is being paid by Kamala Harris? PrimaPrime (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you're admitting to being extensively politically involved in the constituency and party of this politician, and have also admitted to feeling "sick" at reading criticism of this politician, but we're to assume that this "project" you have undertaken in deleting said criticism is not sinister? You re-included the Mnuchin thing, but the way the Mnuchin thing is worded is terrible. It's highly one-sided and favourable to Harris, much more so than reliable sources have been.In general, you seem to lack an ability to write dispassionately. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page should only be used for discussing changes to articles, not the conduct of other editors. If anyone has any concerns, they should discuss it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or file a report at ANI or ARBCOM. TFD (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Neither Bnguyen1114's involvement in local politics nor their preference for editing specific pages are against Wikipedia policy, provided their contributions cite WP:RS and abide by WP:DUE with regard to factual criticism of Harris. I agree some of their initial editing was potentially disruptive, but the last time this was discussed in May, they agreed to reduce their activity on this page, and appear to have done so. I have no reason not to WP:AGF at this point; any issues at this point should be handled through the WP:BRD cycle, not by an Intercept writer looking for a controversy or the casting of vague WP:ASPERSIONS about paid campaign operatives. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is clearly violating WP:DUE and WP:RS. Fair, properly-sourced criticism is being removed. This editing behaviour was so egregious that a reputable news organization reported on it. Moreover, it is also not enough for them to merely cease disruptively editing. Their disruptive edits must also be removed, and the criticisms re-instated. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I added both of the criticisms back to the page, as was previously requested. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did so after the article came out. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say The Intercept has a certain political lean -- we're not talking about the NYT here -- but setting that aside, you're free to edit the article if you have issues with its current state. Be the change you wish to see in the world. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PrimaPrime The NYT also has a political leaning, but BOTH are considered by WP as reliable sources.TJD2 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the NYT, the Intercept did not support the Iraq War or any other, similarly fraudulent international crime based on fake and biased information from politicians. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing potential improvements to the article, not your opinions on the Iraq War. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The willful blindness required to still consider the NYT a reliable source makes me fearful for the future. Torriende (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bnguyen1114 is, as far as I'm concerned, a problematic editor--but I will say that CompactSpacez, with their limited experience and doubtful contributions, has little right to jump on them, just as brand-new User talk:GLIZZY GLADIATOR is highly suspicious. Bnguyen seemed to be a COI editor who's prime interest was the flooding of these articles with every bit of information, whether relevant, reasonable, well-sourced or not--not overly promotional stuff, or I would have blocked them, but just too much stuff. It's the kind of editing that turns articles into swamps. User:Sdkb, I quit looking at these articles and the editor's work a while ago, at a time when it seemed things had settled down a bit. But I will say that I was less concerned with their supposed deletions than I was with their additions (I hate fluff); the article seems a bit overblown to me, and I'm sad they didn't give my username when they cited me, haha. You, Sdkb, seem like an editor with some experience and common sense. Shoot, I see now that the article has 160k, with half the content and over half of the text contributed by Bnguyen. Sometimes drastic times call for drastic measures, and if there are a few editors willing to do the work, then restore the earlier version of the article, go through those walls of text added by Bnguyen, and turn this into a decent article. Or go the slow route and start pruning. Either way--this article needs something. (TFD, article talk pages should allow for this kind of discussion too: the article itself is directly a subject of discussion.) Drmies (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the motion to recuse - Bnguyen1114 needs to recuse himself from editing the Kamala Harris page, any further edits will have to be scrutinized for POV issues. TJD2 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with it. No need for a motion. I'll voluntarily recuse myself until some editors go through it. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created this account to ask the following. TJD2 and others have called for you to recuse yourself from editing this page, yet your reply here implies that you will only temporarily recuse yourself. Is it your intention to resume editing this page, after it has gone through review? Assuming you do return to editing, would you agree to your edits being scrutinized for POV issues? Thank you for your time. - A fellow Californian Democrat (Firepengu) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will abide by the judgment of the group. I genuinely enjoy researching and writing about politicians I admire but if the editors think it inappropriate, I don't have an issue stepping aside. If I am permitted to continue contributing after the whole article has been reviewed for bias subject to further scrutiny for POV issues, I don't have a problem with it. Thanks for your question. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Good practices for talk pages says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." Of course there can be exceptions, but I think we've already reached the point where the discussion should continue elsewhere if at all. TFD (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be lecturing a WP:Administrator on the rules of the website. I'm sure Drmies is well versed in this area.TJD2 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the argument from authority. Being an administrator does not necessarily mean that one is always right. Tell me, if yo disagree with an administrator on content policy, do you always adhere to their judgment? TFD (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but TFD is also well versed--and while I agree, usually, with the sentiment, with COI editing it's a slightly different kettle of fish. We have two issues of concern here, and they're intimately connected: one is the possibly/likely COI editing (paid or not, that's irrelevant), second is the resulting article, which (the Interceptor suggests, albeit not very clearly) is allegedly partial, and is certainly a bloated bag of factoids. So while I'm interested in what editors think of Bnguyen, it's true that such discussions are frequently held at COIN or whatever--TFD, if you want to start this up at COIN, that's fine with me, but I am hoping we don't lose track of what IMO is really at stake here: the neutrality, readability, and quality of the article. It is my belief that Bnguyen withdrawing from the article will likely improve article quality, in case there was any doubt on where I stand. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going over this page is more of a heavy lift than I'm willing to take on currently, but I've tagged it for a {{POV check}} in light of the discussion here so far, and I'd suggest that, given its importance, it might be good to go to some more widely watched noticeboard to find experienced editors willing to do the check. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any discussion that's about Bnguyen1114 should just be closed here. If someone thinks Bnguyen1114 has run afoul of Wikipedia policy, take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. And no, admitting to being a democrat or being a constituent does not run against any policy. It's not appropriate for the article talk page to focus on the user rather than the content. Receiving a bunch of "attention" off-wiki like this sucks, whether or not it's warranted. If there's an issue, the Intercept piece did its job in drawing attention to it. No need to get bogged down in ad hominem irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Close this discussion, bring Bnguyen1114 to a noticeboard if necessary, and focus on content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the discussion about Bnguyen1114 is highly relevant to staying in the talk page, as the talk page is the first place wiki readers like me go to when an article seems like not an article but an AstroTurf attempt. further, if we use rhododendrites logic, the talk page is not the place to tell people not to have nguyen114 discussion in the talk page Flynnwasframed (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am deeply disgusted with the fact that much of this page has been scrubbed. There was more about her not prosecuting Steve Mnuchin and taking campaign donations from him. It was up here as of last month. Her history with the death penalty was also scrubbed, where she defended it before the 9th Circuit. She also opposed parole reform and that was scrubbed. Lastly, the marijuana position is disingenuous. She opposed legalizing marijuana until 2018, but the wording makes it seem her change in position is unknown as to when she changed. Capriaf (talk)

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

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

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

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

Harris' views on sex work

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

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

@Iamcuriousblue: A really large section might be undue, but I agree that Harris's views on sex work should be included. Maybe start small? There's currently not even a mention of SESTA, which she co-sponsored and was criticized for making sex work more dangerous.[2] In her February 2019 interview with The Root she said that she supported the decriminalization of consensual sex work when no one is being harmed or exploited.[3] gobonobo + c 07:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there might be a section on that in her "Political Positions" page, which I separated as to cover her work in the Senate more comprehensively. I did less work on that section (I prepared the table and some foreign policy work mostly), but if it's not there, I encourage you to add it. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of SESTA or sex workers or Backpage on the Political positions of Kamala Harris article. gobonobo + c 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did the Backpage article on the main one. Feel free to add the SESTA entry to her political positions page; be sure to include her history of protecting sex workers as DA (she was first to establish a safe house for former teenage sex workers with an anti-human trafficking advocates, declined to prosecute workers while aggressively going after johns, and very aggressively moved against human traffickers and sex traffickers as attorney general. I have some articles if you're interested. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire framing here is *exremely* biased! The claim that not prosecuting sex workers while at the same time aggressively going after "johns" (POV language, by the way) "protects" sex workers is the basis for the "End Demand" or "Nordic model", which is an extremely controversial approach to prostitution law and does not have the level of support you seem to think it does. It's an approach that's supported by some European governments, and in the US by some feminists, prosecutors, and parts of the law enforcement community. It has near-universal opposition among sex workers themselves and is increasingly rejected by the human rights, civil liberties, and public health community - Amnesty International has takin a position opposing the "Nordic model" and supporting full decriminalization.
I am interested in the articles you have in mind, as I want this section to be properly sourced. However, I think it absolutely needs to be properly balanced and adhere to WP:NPOV, so support for her End Demand policies should be noted along with criticism of them. What is not is OK is to make a claim that Harris "protected" sex workers by aggressively going after "johns" and then present this full stop as evidence of her support for sex workers. That's POV pushing, in my estimation. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Root interview was very ambiguous and many sex worker rights activists have questioned what she meant by "decriminalizaation". (I can provide references.) I don't think her statement there is the last word on the topic. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bnguyen114

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


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

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

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

The accusation of doxxing is baseless. This individual is not being doxed. Any personal information about him, he revealed himself on his own accord. As for "incivility", well, is it really "incivility" to criticize someone's obviously disruptive editing? The chief goal of editors here should be contributing in good faith to the encyclopedia. If this is not done, they should be criticized. CompactSpacez (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, before I took on this quarantine project, this page was devoid of sourced content. Please do not cast aspersions about my motivations for editing the page - I am stuck at home, with a wealth of knowledge that I wanted to contribute to the page. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, as far as I can tell the user in question has not done so. I suggest you re-read the page I linked more closely, particularly this sentence: "The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of 'opposition research'." PrimaPrime (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly erasing well-sourced content with the purpose of airbrushing a politician's image, against how he or she is portrayed in reliable sources, is disruptive editing and thoroughly unencyclopaedic in spirit. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The editors asked me to cut down the size of the page, sir. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you just said is an excuse for doxing. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article is about Kamala Harris, not Doug Emhoff or your opinions on corporate lawyers. You would need to find reliable secondary sources which discuss Emhoff's work with respect to Harris, beyond a passing mention that they're married. PrimaPrime (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an attempt to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. No thank you. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

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

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

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

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

Following the facts and evidence like any other case

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

NedFausa, The Hill is a tabloid with a long history of publishing any old crap. Guy (help!) 23:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, thank you for your succinct explanation. I have removed the disputed content from the article space. We certainly don't want "any old crap" in there. NedFausa (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard this opinion of The Hill before... Natureium (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's so helpful to have an administrator's guidance. There's really no substitute for the blunt instrument an admin brings to bear. NedFausa (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Natureium, seriously? Have you not? There are two serious issues with it.
One is the fact that it hired John Solomon, and put hi in a position effectively isolated from editorial oversight. Solomon is the guy who mainstreamed the Kremlin's Ukraine conspiracy theory. Finkelstein, the owner, is putting his thumb on the scales in favour of Trump, and his wife is reportedly friendly with Melania. So there's that.
But the more serious problem is that The Hill contains two different kinds of story, and we don't distinguish between them. One kind is the regular business of DC sports reporting - ball by ball commentary on the circus in Congress. That tends to elevate the trivial and contribute to the culture of permanent outrage. The other kind of content is op-eds, which are largely uncensored. It fulfils a valuable role in publishing the views of numerous partisans, but that publication should not be interpreted as imbuing those views with any factual merit.
So you have to handle with care. It's a reliable source for "X said Y", but only when it's a staff writer or X themselves. It's not a source for significance of anything, and unless it's the editorial staff and not John Solomon or someone nobbled by Finkelstein is also can't be taken as a source of fact. Guy (help!) 10:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much to my chagrin, following this discussion I found no fewer than seven remaining references to The Hill in Kamala Harris.
Naturally, adhering to the example of administrator JzG, I affixed a {better source} tag at the end of each such reference. We must not be satisfied with "any old crap" in this BLP of a prominent American politician. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am questioning the labeling of The Hill as unreliable. Ad Fontes Media has a different take than many of you. The have it in the Most Reliable sources, barely skewed to the right of center.
Peaceray (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am making my way through the citations you have listed above. Please explain what you find to be unreliable in them. Peaceray (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a blog, so fair game to remove. I see nothing that is not accurate in the other citations. Peaceray (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I'm afraid you're missing the point. A particular story does not have to be unreliable. After all, the quotation above where Harris said her decision was based on following "the facts and the evidence...like any other case" is entirely accurate. What makes these sources unacceptable is the fact that, as we have been advised by administrator JzG, The Hill is a tabloid with a long history of publishing any old crap. (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I am challenging that. I do not know what the reputation the paper had, but the web site now has a different reputation. One administrator does not make policy. Please tell me what makes JzG's opinion better than Ad Fontes Media? @JzG:, please feel free to weigh in on sources that indicate that thehill.com is currently disreputable. They may have had some problems in the past, but I have been following them a lot when they are referenced out of Google News. I have found them balanced, & I tend to be leftist. Peaceray (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is the right manner or venue to be having this discussion, but FWIW while I've always thought of The Hill as being tabloid-esque and certainly not the best source, it's not unreliable for basic facts about what a politician said or similar. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PrimaPrime, it is fine to establish what a politician said, but not to establish its significance - hence for any contentious BLP claim, I want another source that assesses the significance of the thing.
The Hill is, among other things, a blow-by-blow account of every spat in Washington. It is like toddler with no object permanence: things happen, and when they are shown to be trivial or misunderstood, The Hill has already moved on to the next drama. It can be entertaining and sometimes it can break real news but much more often it's just like the guy on Facebook telling you the latest thing the various warring factions said, with little or no analysis. Guy (help!) 09:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators do not get to decide what passes and doesn't pass Wikipedia sourcing muster by executive fiat - not that JzG was trying to that. I've never thought of the Hill as patently unreliable, and if that argument is going to be made it should be had on the reliable sources noticeboard before we disregard it here. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peaceray, The Hill is not unreliable as such, but a huge chunk of what it publishes is partisan op-eds, and it has a tendency to both-sidesism. It's basically a DC gossip sheet, and I want a better source for anything even remotely contentious. Guy (help!) 09:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the idea that Wikipedia should reject or downgrade a source simply because a single editor holds the opinion that it's unreliable or inadequate. The content of op-eds is not evidence of bias in news coverage. The Hill is well-regarded in the DC political community. JTRH (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JTRH, so go with the fact that they hired John Solomon, gave him a p[latform for his conspiracist bullshit, and leant on the staff to skew stories in line wihtt he proprietor's preferences.
Or read what I actually wreote, and make a diostinction between staff pieces and contributor blogs. Guy (help!) 22:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It's a WP:POINTY reaction to this. Leijurv (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bzweebl: Do you see any consensus in this thread for disregarding administrator JzG's advisory that The Hill is a tabloid with a long history of publishing any old crap? I believe our BLP Kamala Harris has already endured enough public censure for massive editing that violated WP:NPOV. We should not add to our embarrassment by knowingly citing crap sources just to promote Senator Harris's VP prospects. NedFausa (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe this demonstrates that my assessment ^^ is accurate :) Leijurv (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

the Intercept

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

Volunteer Marek: You looked at the wrong diff. Here's the correct one. Administrator JzG removed this reference to a primary source and replaced it with a {better source} tag. I believe his tag related to the OneWest Package Memo not to The Intercept. Hopefully he'll drop by again and clarify. NedFausa (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think my diff is the correct one, but what the actual issue is here is indeed confusing. Volunteer Marek 05:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, no, the better source tag refers to The Intercept. I do not like single-sourcing to them, it's too small an outfit. Surely one of the heavyweights reported on this? WaPo? NYT? The Intercept does great work breaking stories, we can trust the accuracy, but not the significance. Guy (help!) 09:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG Thank you for clarifying! I apologize for misunderstanding, and kudos to Volunteer Marek for bringing this to light. I have restored the {better source} tag following that disputed reference. Presently, there are no other references to The Intercept in Kamala Harris, but I will keep a close lookout for new additions and tag those accordingly, noting your caution about this dubious source. NedFausa (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, it's not dubious as such, and I wouldn't want to mislead there: it is reliable for facts, but The Intercept has a distinct POV so we must be mindful that it may be misleading by virtue of selectiveness. That is, they may choose to publish or not publish according to the biases of the staff. If it's mentioned in other reliable sources, which establish significance, then it is unproblematic and does not require attribution. If they say it's a fact, it generally is. Guy (help!) 17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regrettably, I doubt the CNBC story will pass muster because it expressly relies upon The Intercept article that is here disputed. (See circular reporting.) We need an independent source. NedFausa (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, CNBC is a bit marginal but probably does establish the significance of the Intercept piece (see above). Guy (help!) 17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Attendance

I have reverted a recently proposed addition (in a new section) about Harris's Senate attendance record, cited to GovTrack. I don't think this tracker/aggregator website is a good sole source for any section, and I don't think that the fact is due weight here, given that it has not been the source of significant coverage in the reliable sources. I found one California news article noting that Harris' attendance record is explained by the fact that she (and others, like Sanders, Gillibrand, Booker, and Warren) skipped votes while campaigning for the presidency. The same article notes that "it appears none of the Democratic candidates would have changed the outcome of votes they missed in the GOP-held Senate." For these reasons, I don't believe that this content should be included in this encyclopedia article. Neutralitytalk 20:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP policy you were correct to remove that edit. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. My addition meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. It has a "neutral point of view." It is not biased, it is accurate, it is sourced. Although there is "salvageable text," User Neutrality failed to improve it; instead Neutrality simply deleted the entire section. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. "Member participation" or "voting participation" (percentage of roll call votes for which a position is recorded) is a standard metric of performance of a member of Congress. "Congressional Quarterly" (CQ) regularly compiles and reports it. It is a neutral, objective benchmark that is highly relevant to understanding the performance of a U.S. senator. "CQ" has compiled and published this metric for every member of Congress for around 70 years. If I had access to the "CQ" database or access to a public library right now, I would cite to the "CQ" "member participation" statistic, but GovTrack.us is reputable and objective. Senator Harris has skipped nearly one-quarter of all votes since she entered the Senate. She has a 23% absentee rate. That fact merits inclusion in a Wikipedia article about a U.S. senator. It's neutral and objective. Any reasons why Senator Harris fails to show up for Senate roll call votes is a secondary issue. Users Neutrality and Gandydancer and anyone else should explain why this objective benchmark does not belong in this article, citing exact Wikipedia policies. After 24 hours, I intend to restore this section to what I originally posted or with substantially similar material. Jab73 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are under the misapprehension that a source guarantees inclusion. But "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (WP:ONUS). And, of course, you must not "restore the section after 24 hours" since it has been challenged and you lack consensus. Neutralitytalk 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't see a consensus for this addition. Her attendance record would have to be particularly notable compared to other senators, as established by reliable secondary sources. Just because a random factoid is true doesn't mean it merits inclusion. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is not worth mentioning in the article. As far as I can tell, her missed votes record is comparable to that of other presidential candidates. If we were to include this, I would want to see at least a couple of secondary sources that emphasize it. - MrX 🖋 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should omit it unless it has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces, I see it differently. Every article about every hamlet in the world includes basic information about population, area, climate, etc. We don't exclude that data unless it is outside the norms and specifically covered as such. I think attendance record is almost as basic a data item as age, term and political party. We should be working to include it for every elected official. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our inclusion criteria are significantly more relaxed for geographical articles (see WP:GAZ) than for biographical articles. - MrX 🖋 15:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Wikipedia articles about hamlets should contain the basic information available in tertiary sources such as gazetteers. As the policy I linked to explains, tertiary sources may be helpful in evaluating due weight. Their authors decide the key facts that are important about each hamlet. But there is lots of basic information that they omit which nonetheless there may be figures for, such as number of nail salons, people who have masters' degrees, people who have cable tv. While all this information may be important to some people, the authors have decided that it lacks relevance for the average reader. You would have to show that directories of politicians routinely list attendance records in order to include it. I would guess that while most articles about hamlets have the information you mention, most articles about politicians do not list attendance records. The article on Mike Pence for example does not mention his Senate attendance record, although he is President of the Senate. And it's probably much lower than Harris. TFD (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana

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

It says, in total:

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

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

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

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

Harris oversaw more than 1,900 marijuana convictions in San Francisco, previously unreported records from the DA’s office show. Her prosecutors appear to have convicted people on marijuana charges at a higher rate than under her predecessor, based on data about marijuana arrests in the city.
But former lawyers in Harris’ office and defense attorneys who worked on drug cases say most defendants arrested for low-level pot possession were never locked up. And only a few dozen people were sent to state prison for marijuana convictions under Harris’ tenure....
Still, advocates wonder why it took so long for the California senator to come out in support of marijuana legalization. She actively fought a ballot measure for recreational pot in 2010...
Harris publicly came out for legalizing marijuana only in May 2018, after she was widely considered a likely presidential contender....
When it came to the fight for legalization, “she was nowhere, zilch, nada, no help,” said Tom Ammiano, a former San Francisco supervisor and assemblyman who has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for president....
“Kamala Harris and I disagreed on a lot of criminal justice issues, but I have to admit, she was probably the most progressive prosecutor in the state at the time when it came to marijuana,” Solis said.
Not all defense attorneys agree. J. David Nick...
“Just because you didn’t rot your life away in prison doesn’t mean it wasn’t a big deal to get a conviction,” said Dale Sky Jones, a Bay Area marijuana activist. “Your ability to keep your job, get another job or get housing with that conviction on your record is all hurt by that.”

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

The issues of exculpatory evidence are written in precise legal language that describes what happened in court proceedings. I know this because I reviewed all of them in detail. If accuracy is your concern, you should probably question why Professor Bazelon felt the need to embellish her criticisms with respect to the wrongful conviction cases, such as the 2014 Carney appeal or the Gage case. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, could you give your 2-3 best examples of this article's "news stories that are essentially press releases"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "never charged with a crime" to "not sent to prison,"[5] since the source says "never locked up." Defendants are by definition people charged with crimes. Unfortunately the source is not clear whether that decision was made by Harris' staff or the courts. TFD (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

All due respect, NBauman, it is important to be precise and accurate in describing what happened in certain cases. What you deem irrelevant may not be factual. And I took exquisite pains to ensure everything I wrote was legally and factually accurate, every time. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people think that their work is legally and factually accurate, but since they often come to different conclusions, they can't all be right. Bazelon is a law professor and NYT contributor, and her work is reviewed by editors, which makes her a WP:RS. You are, like the rest of us, an anonymous Wikipedia contributor, which makes your efforts WP:OR. According to Wikipedia guidelines, we should take Bazelon's opinions over yours. Sorry.
And on the merits of it, I don't think your description of Harrison's critics is good legal writing, because you mention Bazelon but don't include her supporting arguments. --Nbauman (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the case. (BTW, in Wikipedia, you should add your comments to the end of a section, not the middle.)
You're right. It doesn't matter what you think or what I think. What matters is what Bazelon, a WP:RS thinks. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html She wrote "that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence," and that Gage couldn't bring it up again because, while acting as his own lawyer, he hadn't raised the issue in lower court. Bazelon is a defense attorney. She thinks that, whatever the court decided, it's an injustice to convict Gage when the prosecutor withheld evidence. That's what a WP:RS says in support of her position and I think it should have been included in the article. And I think it's bad legal writing not to include it. --Nbauman (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of opinion pieces published in the NYT is generally very good, but it is still Bazelon's opinion and not the only RS that matters. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


Whoever is scrubbing this page for Kamala Harris is getting noticed

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

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

That's already been discussed in the threads above. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

"Harris is the first woman of Jamaican or Indian ancestry to represent California in the United States Senate."(reformated to emphasize)
"Many sources consider her the favorite to be chosen by Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate in the election."

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

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

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

  • Remove the speculative material from the lead. (or)
  • Edit the language to more closely reflect the facts in the underlying referenced materials as follows:
"Harris is reported by the New York Times and CNN as one of several contenders to be Biden's running mate."

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

I think the second part, about being the favorite, should be removed. It may very well be, but as you say at this point it's WP:CRYSTALBALLing. For the first part, I think there are sources which mention that, maybe in the body of the article? Volunteer Marek 16:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I revised wording in the concluding paragraph of our subsection Speculation as Joe Biden's running mate to conform to The New York Times and CNN sources. I also revised the lead accordingly and added references to those same cited sources. NedFausa (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a {citation needed} tag to the lead because no source in text appears to support her being the first woman of Jamaican or Indian ancestry to represent California in the U.S. Senate. Of course she is, but without a source, this violates WP:NOR. NedFausa (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We had the same discussion on Barack Obama. Citizens of the United States with black ancestry are called African-Americans. Since it's a social construct, the determination for Wikipedia editors of whether someone is African American is whether that is how they are described in reliable sources. Per no synthesis we cannot second guess their judgment. TFD (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked and we refer to Harris as African-American only twice in the article space—in both instances using the term verbatim from the respective cited WP:RS. NedFausa (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]