Jump to content

Talk:Kamala Harris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pincrete (talk | contribs) at 08:07, 2 August 2024 (Survey: amend). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    The consensus version

    I don't know where I can add a message requesting an edit to Kamala's wiki page, but I would like one of the mods to add a hyperlink to the 2010 California Attorney General's election that is in the second paragraph: "Born in Oakland, California, Harris graduated from Howard University and the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. She began her career in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, before being recruited to the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and later the City Attorney of San Francisco's office. In 2003, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco. She was elected Attorney General of California in 2010 and re-elected in 2014. Can you link 2010 to the 2010 Attorney General's election? Thanks, Rhein Amacher, Tue May 10th 8:01 PM PST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhein Amacher (talkcontribs) 03:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) The consensus version for describing KH's achievement is the first female vice president of the US, the first African-American, and the first Asian-American. I'm on vacation until mid-February 2021. Admins valereee, MelanieN, Drmies, Muboshgu please note and restore; otherwise, the "ethnic" sub-nationalists and trolls will have a field day. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur this is the consensus version and I have restored it. "First female" is the first sentence since it is the most reported and most historic. "First African-American and first Asian-American" is the second sentence. Terms like South Asian-American, Jamaican-American, and (per the one I just replaced) Caribbean-American and should not be added without a new discussion and a new consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits I made did not contradict the overall achievement of Harris being the "First African-American and first Asian-American" Vice President, it simply provided further accurate and separate cited detail regards her own personal family's ancestry. Though I can see the FAQ, I do Respectfully request that someone please guide me to where consensus was actually reached not to include this information. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bodney, archives, linked at top of page. —valereee (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unable to spot the RfC in the archives, I now have thanks (maybe a simple specific wiki-link RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead? to similar previous archived discussions would quickly deal unknowing editors like me in future :) Thanks anyway. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And Bodney, the additional information about her ancestry is included in the body of the article, just not in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, the lead reflects the article, but I do agree that not everything can or should be in the lead, especially when an article is likely to be extensive based on her own personal biography. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we tweak the FAQ? It says South Asian American throughout, which could be confusing. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should simply be "Asian American". I believe that is what the sources predominantly say. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They say Asian-American specifically in reference to being vice president. In that position, she is not only the first South Asian, she is the first Asian. We say South Asian for other positions, such as senator where she was the first South Asian but not the first Asian. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If one goes far enough back, you will discover the consensus was South Asian-American. Then Sen. Harris was picked by VP Biden to be the VP nominee, and a large number of editors were attracted to this page. South Asian-American is how Sen. Harris identifies, and that is what should matter. Rklahn (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we had consensus that the largest group should be used for the "firsts", so rather than first South Asian-American VP-elect, first Asian American was what we went with. For the senate, first South Asian-American. My question was only whether that needed to be further explained in the FAQs. Not that anyone reads them, but it's good to document what current consensus is. —valereee (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not sure such a consensus existed, but I am also not the Oracle of consensus. That begin said, yes, there is value in documenting what the current consensus is. I think it moves us closer to consensus having some of the attributes of Stare decisis. I think that this idea floating around Wikipedia that consensus can be achieved, and in the next moment ignored, counterproductive. Rklahn (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rklahn, I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're getting at with that final sentence. —valereee (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tweak the FAQ to reflect her new status. Yes, it should be the first female, first African-American, and first Asian-American, in that order. In my view, Af-Ams takes precedence over As-Ams in the context of the US, not only because they go back further in this history of the US (indeed on average they precede even European Americans), but also because they have played a major role in the creation of the American ethos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PS She is and will remain the second female African-American senator and the first South Asian American (senator) in US history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fowler&fowler, can you clarify what you mean by new status? —valereee (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, The point Im getting at is that true consensus on Wikipedia is illusory. On this very page, on this very subject, I worked hard with a group of Editors to achieve a consensus, which we did. Out in the open and on these Talk pages. Less than a week later, that consensus was ignored. So, any move that gets us closer to consensus meaning something is welcome to me. Rklahn (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rklahn, diffs please? I'm still not following. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By new status I meant from senator to VP-nominee (and VP-elect and eventually VP). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee I cant even find the consensus Im referring to in the Talk Archive. Im reasonably sure it happened before the Talk pages were archived at all, so maybe it got lost in the shuffle. I think at this point the best move for me is to drop the point, which is minor anyways, and to say that I support efforts to document the consensus, whatever it is. Rklahn (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    First African American is disingenuous (at the very least) to say she is African American. Her father was Jamaican...how is this a qualifier for African American inclusion? The last I checked Jamaica was in the Caribbean and not on the continent of Africa. My asking this question and pointing out the obvious probably makes me a racist and surely a half dozen other socially stigmatizing labels. Though an answer would be appreciated. Signed an unimportant IP address editor.2600:1700:7610:41E0:C5FD:ED64:EB06:3ADA (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you think the Afro-Jamaicans wound up in Jamaica? Magic? Volunteer Marek 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the FAQ at the top of the page. This has been answered countless times already. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow! what a friendly and courteous answer from a arrogant and aggressive editor. I asked a question and I get sarcasm. Though in your response you do agree with me and yourself call her Afro-Jamaican and not African-American...hmm...interesting...don't ya think? This is probably why this article and many others do not get improved and only sink deeper into the abyss. The second response was much friendlier and appreciated. Thank you. Though I still find it inaccurate and barring a family tree likely inaccurate to be described as it is. Wouldn't one of the terms Black Caribbean, Afro or Black West Indian or Afro or Black Antillean or Afro-Jamaican (as the first respondent used) to be more accurate in describing her ancestry seeing as no documentation or family tree is provided or cited within the article itself. I would think an encyclopedia should be as factual and reference filled before taking a large leap (of faith with assumption) such as this article has done. Thank you and have a blessed day. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:64D8:8847:54E7:E855 (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am Australian and only drop in here occasionally. To answer the comments above, her father was Afro-Jamaican. As she is American, that makes her both Afro-American and Jamaican-American. In Australia, we have politicians who were child immigrants from Malaysia, but they are both Malaysian-Australian and Chinese-Australian. As with many people, if you look at enough generations, you find all sorts of interesting history. --Scott Davis Talk 10:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is well covered ground. Countless editors have spent a long time discussing this, and 2600:1700:7610:41E0:64D8:8847:54E7:E855, you have brought nothing new to the conversation, and ask the same questions countless editors have asked. Please take the time to cover the discussions in the archives.
    And what the heck? Ill repeat this too. You are confusing race with ethnicity. Race is grouping based on society's view. Ethnicity is grouping based on how people see themselves in common with others. Ms. Harris race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount. She is African-American and South Asian-American. Rklahn (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One issue that deserves a lot more attention in this article is her relationship with Willie Brown. While a 29-year-old deputy district attorney, Harris had an affair with then 60-year leader of the California legislature Willie Brown. While they were dating, Brown appointed Harris to two paid commission posts, and effectively jump-started her political career. As she would likely never have had a political career otherwise, an item of this significance should be prominently mentioned, perhaps in the lede. Certainly it deserves more than part of a sentence buried deep within the article. Vinny Gambino (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have discussed the Willie Brown connection many times, and seemed to reach a consensus that presents the facts in a balanced encyclopedic way with an appropriate amount of weight. That being said, if you have a proposed edit, let's talk about it. Rklahn (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I also have a few of questions regarding Harris' past employment history, specifically her being hired as Alameda county Deputy DA in 1990 (she was 26-years-old). Two of the requirements for that job is almost always to have clerked for a judge and have experience as an attorney in private practice or as a Deputy DA. Harris had neither. In fact, she never had a job until she was given her Deputy DA job. It should be noted in the article, in my opinion, that she had a resume that should have precluded her from getting that job. She claims to have gotten "involved" with Willie Brown in 1994. Well, the lack of a worthy or notable resume seems to indicate someone - someone of considerable influence - pulled strings to get her that Deputy DA job in 1990. Willie Brown was certainly someone who at that time, being Speaker of the CA Assembly, could have arranged her employment as a Deputy DA in Alameda county. Alameda county was in his district at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:6201:a79b:2913:a3bc:f1d3:c561 (talk)

    Your opinion of the matter has no bearing whatsoever on a Wikipedia article. If you have an actual suggestion of an addition to an article, then by all means produce one, sourced to a reliable source. Zaathras (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the requirements are that high. See for example Indeed's list of open positions.[1] IIRC, there was little interest among graduates to work for the county DA. In any case, you would need a source that said their was something exceptional about this. Otherwise, it's just a case of a law grad getting an entry level job that paid below average. TFD (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Muboshgu, Valereee, MelanieN, and Drmies: (admins mentioned above) - Is this pin still necessary? Can't it just be archived and linked from the FAQ if it's still current? This talk page is getting awfully long. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites, thanks--I learned what a "pin" is! I have no problem with you removing it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thumbs up iconRhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with removing pin, although if it comes up again and again we may need an FAQ. Valereee (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Requesting immediate archiving...

    Presidential Nomination

    If I'm not mistaken, Joe Biden just nominated her as his successor. I take it someone with permissions will make this change? SirShaunIV (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @SirShaunIV Joe Biden has nominated her HOWEVER the caucus has not. Democrats held primaries to nominate Biden. He can't just do that. Heddingite (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Biden endorsed her. He doesn't control the delegates other than to release them from being bound to him. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but having been named as his endorsement is noteworthy. Does it not belong on the page? SirShaunIV (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but having been named as his endorsement is noteworthy. Does it not belong on the page? SirShaunIV (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the endorsement has already been added Frankserafini87 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not African America

    Her mother is Indian, her father is Jamican. She is not African-American as India is not part of Africa nor is Jamica! 72.255.169.73 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See the FAQ near the top of the page. Americans from the West Indies (including Jamaica) can identify as African-American. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The FAQ is malformed. 202.89.148.53 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting these definitions from Wiktionary:
    African-American
    1. A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent.
    Indian-American
    1. An American with South Asian ancestry or extraction.
    See also WP:COMMONTERM, African Americans, & Indian Americans. If you still have questions about this, perhaps read the WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue essay. Peaceray (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The last I checked, 90% of Jamaicans are of African descent. Indeed, the article states Kamala Harris's Jamaican American father, Donald J. Harris, is of Afro-Jamaican ancestry. Peaceray (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't this mean, then, that she is Afro-Jamaican not African-American? I'm not expecting the article to change out the latter for the former, and black is still black, but I have always wondered why media refers to her as African-American when she is Afro-Jamaican. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as she was born in America, thus she is American. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course she's American, that's not the point. American isn't pertinent to her racial and ethnic origins, as we understand racial and ethnic origins as well as heritage. At least that's what I've always learned and have been taught for more than 60 years. Has there been a change in how a racial or ethnic identity is assigned per heritage? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamaica is neither a race nor a continent. But if we accept it as such (do RS?) then she would not be Afro-Jamaican, she would be Jamaco-American (which as far as I know is not a thing). Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Her father is referenced in media repeatedly as Afro-Jamaican. Harris herself has referred to her father as Afro-Jamaican. Which leads me to believe she would not only reject your identity nomenclature ("Jamaco-American"), but would be insulted by it. I know that to me, it has an insulting and dismissive ring to it. You might want to strike it. In the meantime, here's a good article on Jamaican culture, ethnicity, heritage.[2] A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    its an encyclopedia about facts not imagination, just because someone identifies as a chicken doesn't make them a chicken. 101.119.170.241 (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If RS accepts it, we do. Unless other RS (directly) contest the claim, do you have any? Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is that she was born in America and has African ancestry. After the arrival of Christopher Columbus in Jamaica in 1494, many of the indigenous people either were killed or died of diseases, after which the Spanish brought large numbers of Africans to Jamaica as slaves. That also makes her Black. It does not make her a chicken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She may well be "American", but NOTHING in her lineage is "African-American". Unless the term "American" is now going to be expanded to apply to AMERICAS, which would include central America, South America, etc.
    Mohammad Ali is African-American. Oprah is African-American. Magic Johnson is African-American.
    General Colin Powell, same as Harris is American, but his heritage is by way of Jamaica....so NOT African-American.
    One can be Black, but that does not make them African-American any more than somebody from Peru who is Indian, would called American Indian / Native American.
    Harris's attempts to claim she is African-American are false claims. 47.146.38.207 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See FAQ and umpteen threads above. As per wiktionary:African-American: A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent. Ergo, Harris is African-American. Peaceray (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of "the DREAM Act" and "advocacy for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants" from the lead

    An editor recently removed this part from the lead. Despite it being on the article for years. Why exactly was this removed? KlayCax (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When is enough enough. 100.8.153.58 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wanda Kagan

    Is all this really necessary or appropriate? Sounds gossipy to me. With fewer words and less drama we could have a sentence saying Harris took up the protection of women and children after a college friend told her of being abused.

    This is the passage I think she me should be eliminated or drastically reduced:

    Wanda Kagan, a high school friend of Harris, later told CBC News in 2020 that Harris was her best friend and described how she confided in Harris that she (Kagan) had been molested by her stepfather. She said that Harris told her mother, who then insisted Kagan come to live with them for the remainder of her final year of high school. Kagan said Harris had recently told her that their friendship, and playing a role in countering Kagan's exploitation, helped form the commitment Harris felt in protecting women and children as a prosecutor. YoPienso (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Information like this can be greatly shortened by moving attribution to the footnotes. For example, readers don't need to know that Kagan "later told CBC News in 2020." They don't need to know that "She said that Harris told her mother." Readers can infer that from the fact her mother asked Kagan to stay with them. TFD (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fowler&fowler: I removed details about Kagan from the article at 14:17, 23 July 2024, with the edit summary, Boldly removing off-topic details since there's been no response to my question on Talk. Preserving ref to Kagan.
    Today at 14:33, 23 July 2024, you reverted my edit with this summary: You posted yesterday! Please read talk page guidelines. In such a busy cycle, you need to give it at least a week and allowed people (e.g. I) who have had a hand in writing the article to think and look for sources. Again, at least a week.
    I can't find any guidelines that require waiting any time at all, much less a week. WP:BRD, which is prominently announced at the top of the talk page, allows me to boldly edit without even opening the issue on talk. Can you please point me to the guideline about waiting at least a week? Also, please engage with me here and explain your opposition to removing the details about Kagan. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, I guess; I see that The lorax restored my version. (An edit summary would have helped me find it much more quickly.) YoPienso (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    illegal immigrants vs undocumented immigrants

    There seems to be a disagreement between PrecariousWorlds and Slatersteven regarding which of the two phrases to use. The latter (in the comment for the first revert) suggests looking at the source, but unfortunately both cited sources are about her stance on gun laws, not immigration. (That points to another issue, one which--if addressed--might settle the dispute on terminology. Until then, perhaps a {{citation needed}} might be in order.)

    It seems to me that neither terminology is neutral, as both expressions seem to signal a certain stance on the issue. I don't know of neutral terminology for this concept (though I have seen reference to the expression unauthorized migrant). Perhaps someone else is aware of some. Otherwise, how do we come to consensus on a disagreement such as this? Trackerwannabe (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is unsourced, it should be just removed. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a few sources:
    I can neither add reference to the sources, nor remove the statement regarding her position, as I do not have permissions to edit a protected page. Perhaps someone, with such permission, will choose to do so.
    Trackerwannabe (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Undocumented" is the neutral term. "Illegal" puts a negative connotation on the individual. AP Stylebook has a good explainer. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has come up several times over the years. Most style guides seem to go with "undocumented immigrant" or something similar, but when it comes to picking one or the other those who prefer "illegal immigrant" point out that even those sources with style guides still sometimes use that formulation and, perhaps most saliently, it appears in many places in US law. IIRC consensus has stopped short of prohibiting "illegal immigrant" while acknowledging it's fallen out of favor and considered offensive by some groups. I think most people could get behind something like "people without a legal immigration status" or something as a compromise, but it's wordier. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence "undocumented", which indicates that their status isn't that of a legal citizen. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While "undocumented" may be a less loaded term, I wouldn't consider it neutral. Even the AP Stylebook page you reference states: "Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented." [Bold added for emphasis]
    Trackerwannabe (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really make sense to use "undocumented" in this instance when illegal immigration is clearly the accepted convention on Wikipedia PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that the article is much better as it is now, with the phrase omitted entirely and just mentioning the DREAM act. The wording of the sentence was confusing before PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we taking a stance to make her look good in the eyes of progressives? Is that what Wikipedia stands for? Bohbye (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you prefer we make her look bad? HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about no stance. “undocumented” is a fact. They don't have the appropriate documents as required by law (so could use illegal instead). Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pronunciation guide is chauvinistic

    The article begins with a pronunciation guide for Vice President Harris's name, but only her first two names. With the recent widespread interest in her, it is entirely possible that there are readers who know the pronunciation to her first two names but not her last. Be more inclusive. 75.118.53.241 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why complain? Fix it! Bohbye (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ECP is on the article due to vandalism. So they are asking someone else to fix it. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MAybe, but this is the English Lagnauge WIki, we do not tend to have pronounciation guides for common names. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a lot of discussion about the pronunciation of Kamala and I looked it up myself a few weeks ago. OTOH, supposedly Harris is the 21st most common surname in the US. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But, the audio, which I cut out from her swearing-in for VP, in her own voice, has all three names, first, last, and middle. Problematic for English-speakers (in this English WP) are the stresses in KA-mala and not Ka-MA-la and the vowel sound in Devi, which is akin to Davey (as in Crockett). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any stresses at all in her name? I've heard said stressless and with a stress on the first syllable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see the section above. YoPienso (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to ECP OP can not fix it, and i don't know how to do it either. I don't think it is chauvinistic, but i do think her full name should have her full name pronunciation. Bohbye (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The name Harris is pronounced differently in various U.S. and other English dialects. It could be Hah-riss or Hair-iss. No one is going to pronounce it differently from how they normally do. TFD (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Border czar 2

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


    In order to better collaborate and create a useful article based on verifiable data from reliable sources, I think it's important that we clear up the "border czar" issue.

    First, Biden's initial announcement on March 24. 2021, was unclear. He said, "I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border." Obvious goal: stemming the [im]migration at the southern border.

    Then Biden went on to talk about the root causes of the migration.

    As he headed for a conclusion, Biden reiterated the need to "stop what's happening," i.e., the surge at the border. But in his final description of Harris's job, he said she had "agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept re- — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders." Nothing there about our southern border.

    A garbled paragraph (beginning with "And I can think of nobody who--") follows, and then an appreciative paragraph, and finally he wraps it up with thanks and support.

    Harris accepted Biden's charge, mentioning only diplomacy and root causes and nothing about enforcement at our border. Here's what she had produced 3 months later.

    The venerable BBC reported on the day Biden made the announcement, "US President Joe Biden has put Vice-President Kamala Harris in charge of controlling migration at the southern border following a big influx of new arrivals," and wrote the line, "Announcing Ms Harris's appointment as his immigration czar. . ." [Emphasis mine.] The BBC said Biden believed Harris was the best person to "handle the complex political, logistical and diplomatic challenges this immigration issue presents." The article as a whole makes it sound like Biden put Harris in charge of every aspect of the border problem.

    Also on Mar. 21, 2021, Politico reported, "Vice President Kamala Harris will be the White House’s point person on immigration issues at the nation’s southern border, President Joe Biden announced Wednesday, tasking her with stemming the rising tide of migrants, many of them unaccompanied children, arriving in the U.S." The rest of the article goes on to explain that Harris's role was with the Northern Triangle, but one can hardly blame readers for taking the first paragraph as a summary of the article. (Indeed, that's the function of journalism's "inverted pyramid.")

    NBC News also got the pyramid wrong, with this lead: "President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that he has appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to lead efforts to stem migration across the U.S.-Mexico border, as the administration faces growing political pressure to address a surge in undocumented migrant children unaccompanied by parents." That report, too, explained Harris's role better in the body of the article.

    My point: the RSs were saying exactly what we understood back then. (And, yes, opposing politicians and pundits quickly ran with the "czar" moniker.) But here's an NBC News report many of us missed: "In the 2 1/2 weeks since President Joe Biden announced he was tasking Vice President Kamala Harris with leading diplomatic efforts to stem the flow of migrants at the Southern border, the White House has found itself having to clarify the shape of her role on a near-daily basis." This article is key to our discussion here; I recommend reading the whole thing. Here's one more excerpt: "White House press secretary Jen Psaki has fielded frequent questions on whether Harris' role includes addressing the current situation on the southern border, while aides to the vice president have quickly shot down suggestions that Harris is focused on anything other than tackling the root causes of migration in Mexico and the "Northern Triangle" countries of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras."

    This week, when corrections were made to reports from 2021, it seemed Orwellian, didn't it? Winston Smith was rolling up his sleeves to control the past, wasn't he? But on April 10, 2021, NBC News had clarified Harris's role in a timely fashion.

    Bottom line: As Wikipedia editors, we make more progress when we try to understand the facts, the perceptions, and the misperceptions brought to us. I think we can improve the Immigration section of the BLP. It's misleading to target Republicans as spreaders of disinformation when the BBC, NBC, Politico, and others got it wrong. (I should note the AP pretty much got it right.) YoPienso (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All of this is WP:SYNTH. RS do not call her a "border czar", and the few that did have issued corrections. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is zero synth here.
    The BBC called her an immigration czar and has not corrected or updated that story.
    Politico and NBC published erroneous or misleading stories; Politico hasn't corrected or updated, either, but NBC set it straight a month later in another article. (Good on NBC!)
    Just today Axios updated its 3-yr-old story.
    All RSs make the occasional mistake.
    People who thought Biden had made Ms. Harris his "border czar" aren't necessarily stupid or evil or ill-informed. We make more progress with less debate when we assume good faith. YoPienso (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's news I was unaware of: Six House Dems vote with GOP to condemn Kamala Harris for 'border czar' role. Not sure how or if this affects our discussion or the BLP. YoPienso (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't affect anything. Biden did not make her his "border czar". The fact that six of the 212 Dems joined such a vote is not relevant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim isnt that Biden called her "border czar", it's that *everyone did* based on the responsibilities he assigned. There's no offical position of "czar" and no one is suggesting otherwise. The entire debate here is a misinformation campaign driven by the DNC to distance Harris from her responsibilities with the border crisis.
    https://x.com/burackbobby_/status/1816523387948400854/photo/1 24.57.55.50 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not close to a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't, other than to lead me to point you to WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS so that we can stick with better sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This will probably be more relevant at Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign, which I haven't participated in so far. Her record regarding immigration policy will be an ongoing campaign issue.
    It's not only Fox that is reporting this, of course: ABC, the AP, Politico, Spectrum News, etc. YoPienso (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I looked at each of these sources and the Fox source. Only Fox added: House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., similarly opened debate with, "We've been told that Vice President Harris' job was to find the root causes of the crisis. Turns out to do so she could have just looked in the mirror." Which is to say that she was the root cause of this worldwide immigration problem; when just a week ago it was Biden who as the root cause of this worldwide problem. The community decided not to use Fox for politics for a reason. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The non-Fox sources are valid, but they don't change the fact that this vote is a publicity stunt meant to smear their political opponent, so UNDUE. I don't think we'll be hearing about the "Biden crime family" any longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lie that she *wasnt* called "border czar" is UnDue because THAT lie is being orchestrated directly by the DNC. https://x.com/burackbobby_/status/1816523387948400854/photo/1
    SO, in one case you have a ACTAUL House Resolution -- which you anoint yourself worthy to blithely dismiss -- and in the other, you have a documented and revealed misnformation campaign managed by the DNC.
    And you carry water for the DNC talking points. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, not close to a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like it or not, the HOUSE of Representatives -- which has more authority on appropriate labels than the press -- called her "border czar" - it's a first party citation, not merely media reports;
    House passes bipartisan resolution strongly condemning 'border czar' Kamala Harris (nypost.com)
    https://nypost.com/2024/07/25/us-news/house-passes-bipartisan-resolution-strongly-condemning-border-czar-kamala-harris/
    H.Res.1371 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Strongly condemning the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris's, failure to secure the United States border. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1371
    Second, here's a second fact-check article that speaks to the Orwellian propaganda now swirling here; trying to deny that the term was used (as if it matters, being simply pedantic and generic label, not an official title at all).
    FACT CHECK: Harris was Biden’s second 'border czar,' despite recent media claims | News | kten.com
    https://www.kten.com/news/fact-check-harris-was-biden-s-second-border-czar-despite-recent-media-claims/article_0ca9885a-48d1-53d5-b9a7-ba3a865e09e1.html
    It's a FACT that her responsibility gave her the moniker "border czar". The memory-hole work here on wikipedia to carry water for this lie only further cements wikipedia's decline. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > People who thought Biden had made Ms. Harris his "border czar" aren't necessarily stupid or evil or ill-informed.
    Because that was how it was _widely_ and unanimously reported at the time she was given border responsibilities. It's a fact. That was how it was reportd. Widely. An argument that "no such position exists" isnt at issue here; a term "czar" has been widely used for decades in american politics and its never been questioned. It's only NOW being questioned because this **misdirection is printed, paid-for, managed misinformation by the Democratic Party. And wikipedia is carrying water for the DNC.**
    See; Democrat Lawmakers Receive Talking Points On How To Talk About Kamala Harris | OutKick
    https://www.outkick.com/analysis/democrat-lawmakers-receive-talking-points-how-talk-about-kamala-harris-role-border
    Here's a photo of the talking points that are DRIVING this entire wikipedia debate;
    (8) Bobby Burack on X: "Wow. A Democrat lawmaker confirmed to FOX that Dems have received a piece of paper with talking points/lies about how to discuss Kamala Harris' role at the Southern border. They are already using the exact lines. https://x.com/burackbobby_/status/1816523387948400854/photo/1 24.57.55.50 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're missing here, IP user 24.57.55.50, is:
    1. There's no way to know if the list posted on X is legitimate, and
    2. The House of Representatives is a political body, sharply divided right now into Democrats and Republicans. It wasn't the House, but the Republicans, specifically Elise Stefanik, who purposefully used loaded language to attack the Democratic candidate for president. Only 6 of 212 Democrats voted "Yea," while every Republican who voted (214 our of 220, with 6 not voting) voted "Yea." This is political partisanship and by no means reflects the intents of Joe Biden, who appointed Harris to work on border policies, specifically the reasons so many people want to flee Central America and find haven in the US.
    3. At Wikipedia, while we acknowledge nicknames erroneously or hostilely applied, we don't use them in our own voice.
    YoPienso (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit out of practice posting at a wiki as I've not been active in years. I am concerned though with the rewriting of history when it comes to the "Border Czar" moniker. The casual term Border Czar was used in reference to Vice President Kamala Harris. Here's a link from one of America's oldest newspapers headline "Six Dems join Republicans to condem ‘border czar’ Kamala Harris for botching border crisis" Link: [1] The term may be a casual one, much like the term First Man or First Lady, and if we plan to remove a recorded usage of the term Border Czar perhaps we should start removing the casual titles given to presidential spouses. My biggest concern is Wikipedia rewriting history to suit their political persuasions. Reporters of history should always try to record history in an unbiased factual way. Think long and hard about the actions you've taken in rewriting history. I will finally add Congress acknowledged the Border Czar term.MDaisy (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Congress did not "acknowledge" the Border Czar term. The Republicans falsely claimed that was her appointment, an appointment that never existed. It is they attempting to rewrite history. Please read the several discussions here. Also, Wikipedia has no political persuasion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a neologism, First lady is well established. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, first used in 1838. We even have an article on it First lady. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter. Reliable sources make the facts, according to the standards of Wikipedia. Reliable sources report this, and it doesn't matter if you don't like it. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ask again. What reliable source states that she was appointed to this position without later retracting it? What source shows an announcement of this assignment? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MDaisy
    Agree.
    Just about every Wikipedia article makes use of media quotations and media references.
    so, at this point, if Wikipedia has chosen to remove the Harris "border czar" link, they are obviously playing politics with recording facts.
    I will remind you that up until a week ago, no one had an issue with this issue. It was not until the Republicans began campaigning with the issue that Wikipedia chose to sanitize Harris' entry.
    I have attempted to warn off these issues in the past and have had my talking pages deleted for the effort. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Removed offending comments. Agreed should have been a bit more civil. Original sources trump secondary sources. An official government document, which I linked to as a reference, is an original source and a government document.
    Accurate information is what's needed or readers will doubt your research. Wikipedia allegedly is an unbiased source that understands research.
    I'm a retired print journalist who believes in honest research. I also have a degree in English (didn't study journalism but fell into the job by accident) and a minor in history. I LOVE history and respect how it will hopefully give accurate information to the ones who are studying it later.
    Lest think I am biased towards one particular political party over another I am not in this instance as I believe in honest, accurate writing. MDaisy (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it is gross incompetence or lack of education. Please be civil WP:CIV. Original sources trump secondary sources. Original sources do not trump secondary sources on Wikipedia WP:PSTS. We use reliable secondary sources. A bill by the Legislative Branch cannot establish a czar in the Executive Branch. There is nothing "honest" about political documents in general. You will find that bills often purposely make misstatements for political reasons. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A government document is an unbiased, reliable, official source. It clearly states action taken by our legislators. That is accurate and unbiased. I have never mentioned my politics in this discussion. I might be a Biden-Harris supporter but you do not know that as I have remained objective. I do appreciate unbiased writing though. Thank you! MDaisy (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can state based on the text of the resolution that House Republicans called her a "border czar". But we can't use the resolution to call her a "border czar". Does that make sense? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bill that has not and can not pass the legislature as the Senate will not vote on it. It is a political statement with no expectation of passage. There is no "action" that will occur. Unfortunately, both parties engage in this nonsense. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Congress did acknowledge the term "Border Czar". H.Res.1371 [2][3][4]The reso did include the term and it has been used by various news sources for a long while. The term is correct as she did serve as the "Border Czar." MDaisy (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They did not acknowledge it. They made it up. The RS that reported it withdrew their mistakes. If you believe in primary sources, show the one where Biden appointed her "Border Czar". There isn't one. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    One last thing this is an official source stating Congress passed the bill that clearly stated:

    Strongly condemning the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris’s, failure to secure the United States border. Vote Type: Yea-And-Nay Status: Passed Link: [5]

    Bill: Roll Call 400 | Bill Number: H. Res. 1371

    This is official documentation and an original source. In research writing, which I assume Wikipedia is striving to reach, the source clearly states Harris was called a Border Czar. The term should be used in the WP article. This is called objective, unbiased research. In college I majored in history and english. I'm a retired print journalist who covered governmental affairs. I also believe in factual reporting. MDaisy (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a primary source from House Republicans, who are quite unreliable for their opinions on Harris. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you not understand research? Primary sources (which I posted) trump secondary sources. A government reso was passed by Congress. This is an official government document and original research. Do I need to teach a class on research? Did anyone here suffer through writing a research paper? MDaisy (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be more WP:CIVIL considering that you are wrong. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources. WP:RSPRIMARY: Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Also, that's a House resolution, that is not going to be taken up by the Senate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it wrong to want accurate writing? I was taught the MLA Stylebook, Strunk and White and the Little Brown Handbook. I also used the AP Stylebook professionally. All taught writing and what I've posted is accurate in all college level or professional writing. I will see if I can find an admin to review the article, if needed. Thanks!MDaisy (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not wrong to want accuracy, but calling Harris a "border czar" because House Republicans say she is isn't accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here some links from varying media sources calling Harris a border Czar:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/fact-check-harris-was-biden-s-second-border-czar-despite-recent-media-claims/ar-BB1qC2XX
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56516332
    https://www.axios.com/2021/04/14/harris-immigration-visit-mexico-guatemala
    And I end my message with this comment by stating Congress's reso said Border Czar. Both Republicans and Democrats voted to approve the reso. I have included references in my earlier posts. While the Czar was not an official title it was used to describe Harris' role when directed by President Biden to resolve the southern border crisis. ~~~ MDaisy (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not used by the Executive Branch, which is all that counts, and did not include protection of the border, which is what the Republicans falsely claim. And why do you keep bringing up the partisan political resolution? There were only 6 of 212 Dems to vote for it. Saying Both Republicans and Democrats voted to approve the reso is highly misleading. You don't even know if they just wanted to vote for other parts and couldn't do anything about that language as it was a Republican written bill. Such resolutions have no meaning in law. And we use secondary sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an official government doc and historically accurate unless you wish to re-write history. Congress called it that and that's all you need. Yes, you can use secondary unbiased sources. Has anyone posted secondary source calling Harris a border czar?
    I have reported this to the admin board. Hopefully, a neutral, objective admin will review this. MDaisy (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the House Republicans who are rewriting history by calling her a "border czar" when POTUS never did. It's an official document, that resolution, but that doesn't mean anything. It's a WP:PRIMARY document that is contextualized by WP:SECONDARY sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reported this to the admin board. And they explained to you that you are wrong and closed the filing. Why do you keep repeating this even after your report was rejected? Congress called it that and that's all you need. That's completely false. Congress has no power to do this. And Congress did not pass the bill anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Congress is an official government agency and they create actual legislation. That's newsworthy and worth reporting. I had not checked the admin board so I didn't know...thought being civil was important...
    While doing dishes I did come up with a diplomatic solution. Not saying you have to write exactly what I'm writing here but it could be something like this. Don't know if the article is locked, or not, so I'll post it here for review.
    In an alleged political move the United States Congress passed H.Res 1376 on July 25, 2024, condemning alleged Border Czar Kamala Harris' failure to secure the border. The vote for the resolution was passed by 214 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 6 Republicans and 10 Democrats did not vote on the resolution.
    That's a neutral statement that is historically factual. MDaisy (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Congress is an official government agency and they create actual legislation. Yes, but they passed a non-binding resolution, not legislation, and only through one house. Harris' failure to secure the border is not NPOV or sensical since she was not put in charge of the border. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can write alleged Border Czar. Missed that one and it would work. Yes, she was appointed to diplomatically work to reduce illegal immigration. I thought wikis were to promote collaboration...MDaisy (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2024 (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.

    More npov verbiage

    Here is the language from the page on Harris's policies, which is more npov regarding "sanctuary cities" than what is here now.

    In 2006, as San Francisco's district attorney, Harris expressed support for the city's sanctuary city policy of not inquiring about immigration status in the process of a criminal investigation, saying it allowed people to come forward as witnesses to crimes when they might not have otherwise.[6] She argued it is important that immigrants be able to talk with law enforcement without fear.[7] Seananony (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    fAILED VERIFCATI0ON. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven Are you suggesting the paragraph be deleted? Seananony (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    < no as this is on her page, Im am saying do not add it here without better sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven Maybe the links to sources didn't work in my post. They seemed like good sources for the proposed language. Not so good for the existing. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/us/12sanctuary.html
    https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/10/steve-cooleykamala-harris-debate-the-arizona-immigration-law.htm Seananony (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven
    Here is the existing language:
    Harris has expressed support for San Francisco's sanctuary city policy of not inquiring about immigration status in the process of a criminal investigation.[88] Seananony (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update Hastings School of Law

    Kamala Harris graduated from the school then known as Hastings School of Law. But the school has since changed its name to University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, largely because its former namesake was accused of genocide. Should we refer to the school by its name at the time she attended it or update the article to reflect the current name of the school? David s graff (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Already says that. Bohbye (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2024

    The word African-American needs to be changed to Jamaican-American. Her father is from Jamaica, not Africa. 2601:B017:4AE:B500:B10:394F:9981:21D0 (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See the FAQ at the top of he page. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The birth name

    @Strugglehouse: For four years, Kamala Harris's middle name on this (her Wikipedia) page has been Devi in the lead, the infobox, and the early years section. She was indeed given a different middle name at birth, but it was changed two weeks later, when she was very decidedly still a helpless infant not much different physiologically than she was at birth. That middle name is mentioned in the infox in a footnote, but no more. More pertinently, for Wikipedia, due weight considerations do not allow us to include this information more prominently as no tertiary sources do. Please read about the role of tertiary sources in determining due weight at:WP:TERTIARY. That this is the biography of a living person which has seen its share of nationalistic, subnationalistic, ethnic, or xenophobic bickering, cautions us further to tread carefully. Having edited this page for four years, I am confident that this is the consensus version here of how her name should be written. For all these reasons, I have removed what is only technically her birth name from any form of mention what would be considered undue. If you do not agree, you are welcome to reply here and attempt to reach a new consensus. But that, I should warn you, takes time. But please do not engage in WP:Edit warring. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fowler&fowler Birth name is what's written on your birth certificate. Her birth name is Kamala Iyer Harris, and this is what should be displayed as her birth name.
    I believe it should be included how I put it in the article (i.e. The lead should read: "Kamala Devi Harris ([...] born Kamala Iyer Harris; October 20, 1964) is an American politician [...]", and the name should be in the birth_name section of the infobox, and the Early life and education section).
    However, as a compromise, the lead could be left alone, and only the infobox and Early life and education section changed. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the note suffices. If Harris requested a copy of her birth certificate, it would say her middle name is Devi, not Iyer. YoPienso (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Border Czar 3

    This sentance; "Axios in 2021 inaccurately described Harris as a "border czar," suggesting she would be responsible for security along the U.S.-Mexico border; Axios corrected the story in July 2024, though Republicans continued to use the moniker.[283][284]"

    Is completely false. Everyone -- hundreds of examples, including the House of Representatives in 2023 and 2024 used the term "Border Czar" as title for Harri's responsibilities.

    The only reason the above sentence is exists is to cover and carry water for the partisan misinformation. That sentence is a direct embodiment of the DNC-directed misinformation issued to Democrats. See;

    https://x.com/Banned_Bill/status/1816581620704641271

    The media is parroting the DNC talking points. Partisan editors cite the compliant media (which is why merely axios is mentioned, because Axios demonstrated the greatest degree of supplication.)

    The above sentence should be removed. A new section created to document this entire affair. Instead, the cited sentance presents the most false and most generous representation to benefit the partisans and comply with the orwellian misinformation demanded by the Democratic Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really believe the purported DNC talking points posted on X is a legitimate DNC list? I don't. You would have to have reliable sources supporting it. YoPienso (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The MSM has been repeating -- almost in complete sync -- those exact talking points. Peter Doucy of Fox News asked Karine Jean-Pierre asked her about that very leaked talking point list.
    Do you _not_ believe that the talking points was created by the DNC? What other explanation would you have for the clear coordination on those same points? Out of no where, dozens of stories in the MSM trying to pretend she wasnt called "Border Czar". 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point to the announcement by the Executive Branch appointing her with this title. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unconstructive comments YoPienso (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    HOUse Republicans do not get to appoint cabinet positions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabinet positions? Harris was VP. YoPienso (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The legislative branch doesn't get to appoint any task to anyone in the executive branch. (Although there was an attempt a few years back to appoint a different president.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was my point, the house does not have the authority to declare any one an anything Czar. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. You two aren't making any sense.
    O3000, the House, in fact, elects (not appoints) the President if no candidate receives enough electoral college votes, and the Senate elects the VP.
    Slatersteven, why don't you just say "Whoops"?
    Hatting all this as unconstructive. YoPienso (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit request is merely a repeat of 3-year-old Republican propaganda memes, described as such in reliable news media and discredited from the moment they were created in 2021.
    • Contemporaneous news articles from 2021 emphasize that Harris was tasked by Biden with addressing the causes of migration from the Northern Triangle. The 2021 reference in this Wikipedia page,[8] from NBC News, is congruent with that. Here is another from WaPo on the day on the same event, with a similar description of Harris's remit.[9]
    • The Republican efforts to use the word "czar" and tar Harris with border enforcement failures go back to the original appointment time in 2021. Here are two WaPo articles published within a few weeks of the original appointment.[10][11] They explain that Republicans will try to pin border enforcement failures on Harris regardless of that wasn't her charge. One article describes Republicans repeatedly bleating that word "czar" which the administration kept rejecting.
    Parenthetically: the supposed Democratic talking points are, I believe, correct and factual. They reinforce what the reliable sources tell us, going back as far as the original reporting in 2021. I can't speak for whether it is indeed a list published by somebody, but I don't see that they contradict this Wikipedia page. It is pragmatically weird to wave a list of facts which agree with the news reporting and claim this proves the reliable sources are wrong.
    But to the topic at hand: the edit request is merely a repeat of three year old long-discredited GOP memes. -- M.boli (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 38,000 Google News references calling Harris "border czar" since she was appointed by Biden to these border responsibilities.
    All this nonsense over "border czar" or otherwise is moot. She was tasked with the border file -- call her czar or otherwise is immaterial. The ONLY purpose to distance from this term is to serve to distance Harris from the border crisis under Biden (which she was a party-to, czar or not.)
    She was given the responsibility to lead the effort, and she failed. Her support of an open border is clear and obvious. And, the 'czar' term was used widely. Denying it is Orwellian newspeak, driven by the DNC issued talking points and the usual gatekeepers are manipulating wikipedia to support it. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, she was not. She was not responsible for border security. That was and is Homeland Security. Her role was in dealing with the source countries, the root of the problem. To that end, she fostered foreign investment to increase jobs to improve the problem countries. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the word "inaccurately" as poorly sourced and unnecessary. The sentence makes it clear that Axios has retracted the designation. StAnselm (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is ONLY Axios mentioned? Every single MSM outlout, for years -- thousands of times -- have used the term.
    That the *ONLY* reference here is that *Axios* alone decided to rewrite history isnt the whole story. It's only being made the 'whole story' here because they retracted it.
    What about the hundreds of other references that *havent* been retracted? What about the fact that she was called "border czar" by passed House resolution in 2023 and 2024? Doesnt that primary source rise above a single mention of 'axios' here?
    This is obviously DNC-directed misinformation being pushed onto wikipedia. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the word "inaccurately" [3] that StAnselm removed as "poorly sourced and unnecessary" [4]. The content is directly from Axios's correction, which states, "Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a 'border czar' in 2021" [5]. Without the use of a modifier in the sentence of our article, it no longer makes sense because there is nothing to suggest why Axios issued the correction. The sentence currently in the article is "Axios in 2021 inaccurately described Harris as a "border czar," suggesting she would be responsible for security along the U.S.-Mexico border; Axios corrected the story in July 2024, though Republicans continued to use the moniker." – notwally (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's poorly sourced because we don't have an independent source saying it's inaccurate. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we do. We have WaPo reporting from a few weeks after Harris received the remit in March, 2021. Reporting which says Republicans made up using the word "czar" for their own political purposes, but the principals involved said it was clearly not correct. -- M.boli (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read the WaPo articles because they're behind a paywall. What are their exact words wrt to border czars? StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sullivan/Alamany on 24 March 2021 does not mention the word "czar."
    Sullivan/Wootson on 3 April 2021 has one usage, where Texas Governor Greg Abbott sends a letter that says she is the border czar ("Now that President Biden has named you Border Czar in charge of the administration's response, I want to express to you the threats and challenges caused by this administration’s open border policies"). LizardJr8 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) How about "Axios described Harris as a "border czar" in 2021, suggesting she would be responsible for security along the U.S.-Mexico border, but withdrew the designation in July 2024..." StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, perhaps following the WaPo articles cited above, something along the lines of "Harris was widely described in 2021 as a border czar, a designation which the administration rejected. Some news outlets, such as Axios, retracted the designation in July 2024, but Republicans continued to use it." StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    StAnselm, that's not what happened, and it looks like you are merely attempting to push a POV by ignoring the actual source and putting a "disputed" tag on a term directly supported by the cited source [6]. Axios didn't "withdraw the designation". They issued a correction notice that their use of the term was "incorrect", along with an updated article that explicitly notes that she was never the "border czar" (e.g., "border czar" title — which she never actually had" [7]). You can't attempt to use a source for the term while ignoring their correction. – notwally (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is saying she actually had the title - it was always, as the article you link to states, an "unofficial monicker". The issue is whether it was "inaccurate" or "incorrect" and it is this which is disputed (not just here, but in the media). StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually a large number of editors here are falsely claiming this as well as a large number of right-wing media that continue this claim and the Republicans in the House. Problem is that what you call an "unofficial monicker" includes the false claim that she was in charge of the border, which is false. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on what you mean by "in charge of the border". Do you agree that she was "tasked with curbing the flow of migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border"? StAnselm (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She was tasked with trying to solve the root causes in the failed countries, and in fact spurred foreign investment in those countries. In no way was she charged with border security as claimed by Republicans. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, although I don't know how many Republicans have made that claim about border security. I don't think it's necessarily implied by the term "border czar". StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every single House Republican claimed that in H.Res.1371. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @StAnselm: You reverted my edit. It looks like you took issue with this text:

    The role did not include power over the US-Mexico border, although critics began calling her the "border czar", a title then mistakenly repeated by some news organizations at the time, despite never holding such a role

    because your edit summary said:

    The claim that the label originated with the critics is quite blatantly made up, and it not in any of the sources provided

    Politifact: In the meantime, Republicans have revived a title they gave her in 2021: "border czar."
    Regardless, that's easily fixed by 'although critics and some news organizations mistakenly called her "border czar" at the time' or something. I fail to see how the version you restored, which inexplicably puts it all on Axios, is an improvement. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the StAnselm's revert was not constructive. And if there were any minor probems, fixing them is the correct action, not reverting to less accurate text. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I agree about Axios, but I think we should work out the wording here first. Yes, I saw the phrase "a title they gave her", and it's putting a lot of weight on that phrase to say that the critics/Republicans started using the phrase first - he could just mean they called her that. (Of course, it would be really interesting to actually find out whether it was the critics or the news outlets who first used the phrase!) Anyway, my other point above is that the informal POV nature of the phrase makes it hard to call it "mistaken" or "inaccurate". StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the opposition has declared that she was in charge of border security. That is, simply speaking, a lie. Now we all know that politicians never lie. But we should not be part of spreading a lie if by some extremely odd circumstance, a politician (or 200) did tell one. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://nypost.com/2024/07/25/us-news/house-passes-bipartisan-resolution-strongly-condemning-border-czar-kamala-harris/
    2. ^ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1371
    3. ^ https://rules.house.gov/bill/118/h-res-1371
    4. ^ https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hres1371/text
    5. ^ https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024400
    6. ^ McKinley, Jesse (November 16, 2006). "Immigrant Protection Rules Draw Fire". The New York Times. Retrieved October 28, 2010.
    7. ^ York, Anthony (October 5, 2010). "Attorney general debate: The Arizona immigration law". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
    8. ^ Egan, Lauren; Gutierrez, Gabe; Gregorian, Dareh (March 24, 2021). "Biden tasks Harris with 'stemming the migration' on southern border". Archived from the original on July 25, 2024. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
    9. ^ Sullivan, Sean; Alemany, Jacqueline (2021-03-24). "Biden taps Harris to handle border crisis". Washington Post. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
    10. ^ Sullivan, Sean; Wootson Jr., Cleve R. (2021-04-03). "With new immigration role, Harris gets a politically perilous assignment". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
    11. ^ Wootson Jr., Cleve R. (2021-04-27). "Republicans try to crown Harris the 'border czar.' She rejects the title". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-07-26.

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2024 (2)

    Why does this not list her appointment to “BORDER CZAR” by Joe Biden? It was part of the article before?! I trust Wikipedia to be unbiased and non-political, so this needs to be added back in! Thank you! 2603:8080:61F0:6C50:2963:D298:EAB3:EBCC (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user, we do mention the term "border czar," in quotes. That's appropriate. If I find time I'm going to edit that part, though, because it makes it seem like only Axios was confused. No need to mention Axios specifically, but we do need to include the fact that multiple RSs--not only right-wing media or Republicans--used the term. YoPienso (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Error in these articles. Kamala Harris is NOT African American. She is Jamaican. 2603:6081:5A00:CEC:1001:205C:FDE:A5 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not according to her birth certificate. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? Her birth certificate says her father was Jamaican. YoPienso (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She is not her father. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, according to her birth certificate, what is she? Or what is she not? I have no idea what your comment "Not according to her birth certificate" means. YoPienso (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as it says she was born in Oakland, California, USA, she is Amerian (by birth). Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question wasn't if she's American, but if she's African-American. YoPienso (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the question was is she Jamaican. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP user, Please see Q1: Why does Wikipedia say that Kamala Harris is African American/Asian American/South Asian American? in the FAQs in the yellow box at the top of this page. YoPienso (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I've read that explanation at the top, I find it faulty. Unclear. I can't follow the logic. We don't necessarily go by what people call themselves. (Consider Rachel Dolezal, for example.) What makes sense to me is that she is an American of partial African descent, thus making her partly African-American. YoPienso (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't, we go by what the law says she is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show me the law that says what Harris is.
    Wrt my comment about not necessarily going by what people call themselves, please read the concluding paragraph of the meandering explanation at the top. Here, I'll paste it in for you:
    Also of note is the difference between race and ethnicity. Race is grouping based on society's view. Ethnicity is grouping based on how people see themselves in common with others. Ms. Harris's race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount. Using this criteria, Ms. Harris is clearly African-American and South Asian-American. YoPienso (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    14th Amendement "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.... " Slatersteven (talk)
    ?!?!? There's no birther issue here. Nobody's saying she's not an American. The discussion was if she's African-American or not. Are you suggesting we should drop African-American and South Asian-Americn descriptors and simply call her an American? YoPienso (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Error in these articles. Kamala Harris is NOT African American. She is Jamaican.", that was the question asked, the answer was no she is not, she is an American. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A vast number of African-Americans have some non-African ancestry. This is due to the fact that masters slept with slaves and enslaved and/or sold their progeny. It was not called rape because slaves were considered property with no rights. Jamaica was filled with slaves and is now around 76% Black as a result. This is also likely where the rumor her great-great-great-grandfather was a slave holder originated. Fortunately, we don't have to determine this ourselves. We just go by RS. But an explanation in the FAQ is helpful for the constant claims she isn't. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe we need an FAQ entry for the racial history of the Americas, including the one drop rule, miscegenation, Middle passage, Triangular trade, and the rest of it.
    This the Kamala Harris page. Regardless of her phylogenetic tree, she was shaped as she as repeatedly said, by the African-American community in Berkeley and Oakland. Please read the third paragraph of the Early years section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Border Czar" discussion at Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars

    Editors here may be interested in weighing in at Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar" on the List of U.S. executive branch czars page. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would we add that she was appointed "border czar" when she wasn't? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the passed House Resolutions, she *is*. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And according to our reliable sources, she isn't: In 2021, Biden tapped Harris to head up a Central American initiative called the “Roots Causes Strategy,” an effort to “address the root causes of migration” from “from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.” It seeks to deter migration from those countries by, among other things, providing funds for natural disasters, fighting corruption, and creating partnerships with the private sector and international organizations. (Emphasis mine) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this section is being caught up in ongoing politics. Numerous left and right wing outlets called her the border czar, right up until June. She has been called it in interviews. It was a known title of hers, and she was in charge of the border. If the media are suddenly backpaddling, it's not because they were all somehow wrong. It's because they want to memory-hole this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No she was never in charge of the border. And please do not speculate about media motivations. Corrections are not only extremely common in reliable sources, it is part of being a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2024 (3)

    Change "Harris has said life imprisonment without parole is a better and more cost-effective punishment than the death penalty,[94]" to "Harris has said life imprisonment without parole for octogenarians is a better and more cost-effective punishment than the death penalty,[94]"

    The current text makes it sound like the source material was discussing people of all ages on death row when in fact it specifies elderly people. 2600:1700:83A2:8400:D999:549D:CEF:489C (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed that whole paragraph, because it didn't mesh well with the text in the reference. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    10 and 11 references issue

    They don't mention shr supported cannabis legalization and dream act. Also wasn't she known for strict prosecution of cannabis related crimes? 50.93.223.205 (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Soeruce? Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Userboxes

    Some userbox templates are available at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics by country/United States/Politicians#Kamala Harris. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nationality

    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.


    Nationality, she is not African American. She is Jamaican American and Asian Indian American 184.98.43.135 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2024 (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.

    贺锦丽

    The fact that Kamala has a Chinese name that is used in Chinese language communication is quite unique and should be mentioned. https://radii.co/article/kamala-harris-chinese-name John Vandenberg (chat) 03:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What's Chinese about it? HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found This article which seems to verify this. It was published by the South China Morning Post, which Wikipedia considers generally reliable. This NYT article may say something about it, but I don't have access. I think we need a reliable source that says something more specific than "the early 2000s" for the year she adopted the name. – Anne drew 04:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it does not, it says her name is translated into Chinese as X, not that it is a Chinese name. In fact "Her given name “Kamala Devi” means “the goddess Kamala” – one of the many names of the Hindu goddess of wealth, Lakshmi. And “Kamala” itself means “she of the lotus” in Sanskrit." make it pretty clear, its an Indian name. Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/china-watcher/what-kamala-would-mean-for-china/ (Politico) and https://sfstandard.com/2023/05/10/becoming-chinese-picking-the-right-name-on-san-francisco-ballots-is-serious-politics/ (The San Francisco Standard) which both use 賀錦麗 , which is different from 贺锦丽. We probably need a native Chinese speaker to assist here. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They are identical, one uses traditional (more complex) and the other simplified versions of the same characters. M.boli (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The South China Morning Post article is four years old. It acknowledges—as user:Slatersteven has already indicated—the name, "Kamala Devi" is from Sanskrit, it says, "To assist voters not proficient in English, the law requires that candidates’ names be translated into Chinese for the ballot in areas with a large number of Chinese speakers. And so 賀錦麗 will appear on the ballot in places such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York City." We don't know that this provision is still available, and even if it is, how "Kamala" is written in a ethnic community's native non-English script in order to communicate unambiguously to a critical number of voters not proficient in English is not of encyclopedic value in WP, for the simple reason that Chinese may not be the only script. I suggest that we not pursue this line of investigation much further, unless it appears in 2024 sources, and not just once. If there is agreement with this, can someone please collapse this thread? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not about her official name and its Sanskrit origins, so stop attacking that strawman. This talk section is about a Chinese name she was given by the father of one of Kamala's friends. And she adopted and used it as part of her public office. It is relevant to her early career. It is not a transliteration for the benefit of voters. And other politicians have tried giving themselves a cute Chinese name, and usually they are rejected for it. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahh I see, at least one of you other sources seems to say this is not unique "When San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston ran for reelection in 2020, he changed his name on the ballot—not his English one, but his Chinese identity.". Also (as far as Im can see) they are talking about the ballot, not "as part of her office". Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Very good point Slatersteven. A factoid that had appeared in one or two newspapers about how some candidates in the San Francisco area use Chinese names to court voters, and appear on the ballot in both the Roman and Chinese scripts to help those who are not proficient in English simply does not have enough due weight to warrant inclusion in such an article. I think we are wasting time here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That Politico article only incidentally mentions the name: The fallout from President Joe Biden’s decision Sunday not to seek reelection continues but there are indications Vice President Kamala Harris —whose self-chosen Chinese name is He Jinli (賀錦麗 ) —will maintain the Biden administration’s China policy if elected in November. Thereafter it talks about what to expect from her, policy wise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    She's Indian not black

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


    She's Indian not black look at her family and earlier Campaign ads Firefly1778 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is she described as black? HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the FAQ. Of emphasis: As PolitiFact notes (see A look at Kamala Harris' multi-ethnic background and racial identity in the US, PolitiFact (August 14, 2020)), social media posts have inaccurately suggested that Harris cannot be African American because she has an Indian mother and Jamaican father, but "this is a poor understanding of history, and ... the implication that Jamaicans aren't African or connected to Africa is wrong on its face." While not all Jamaican-Americans identify as "African-American," Harris and many others do. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also read the third paragraph of the Early years section beginning "African-American intellectuals and rights activists ..." The US today is a complex society in which identity is determined as much by Nurture and history as by Nature. Both Barack Obama whose father is from Kenya, but with no history in his ancestry of the Middle Passage and Kamala Harris whose childhood was shaped by an African-American world, a father and an ambience, which did have a history of the Middle Passage are African-American. India, KH's Indian relatives and Hinduism have played a secondary role in the formation of her outlook. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 27 July 2024 (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.

    Photo ... Kamala Harris and her maternal grandfather PV Gopalan. Lusaka circa 1971

    Edit ...

    Add photo ... Kamala Harris and her maternal grandfather PV Gopalan. Lusaka circa 1971

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._V._Gopalan#/media/File:Pv-gopalan-kamala-harris.jpg 76.156.161.247 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a provenance for this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    File is attributed to Meena Harris via Twitter. In other words, it is a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Provenance or not, a short visit to once-in-half-a-dozen-years-visited grandparents is is undue illustration of her life's arc. There are quite a few pictures of her with her father's family in Jamaica as well. The pictures already in the article are good enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Border czar 4

    Wikipedia states that the Vice President was and is not responsible for the southern border. Please refer to a press conference on March 21, 2021 - Joe Biden - where he assigned Kamala Harris the responsibility of immigration which included the Mexican border. You might want to include that transcript in the appropriate place to identify way conservatives think she was the “border czar.” Kimroot (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kimroot, I've moved your suggestion over here (from Wikipedia talk:Citing sources). This is the primary page that we use for discussing changes to the article about Kamala Harris. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Harris' assignment was to focus on the root causes of illegal immigration, not to supervise the southern border. It would be inaccurate to describe that position as a czar for the southern border. TFD (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    got transcript? soibangla (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hallo, maybe this is helpful Lotje (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/kamala-harris-border-czar/285-602d662c-c3f2-469e-b288-cd5795845480 172.92.122.122 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lotje Thank you. It refers to M as the Czar, I agree, but also dubs her a Czar and says she was in charge of the boarder? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamala Harris Afro American ?

    How can Kamala Harris be mentioned as "Afro American" ? Her mother's parents are both from Madras, India. Her father's parents are both from Jamaica, with African ancestry. Wikipedia describes them as Afro Jamaicans. 83.42.140.205 (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See FAQ and umpteen threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See wiktionary:African-American: A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent. Ergo, Harris is African-American. Peaceray (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Errata: her law school was renamed in 2023

    It is now University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. The name of her school should be amended in this article. 67.180.172.22 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think that this can be counted as errata. University of California, Hastings was the name of the school for 150 years, including during Harris's attendance. Most know the institution by its former name.
    University of California, Hastings is a redirect to the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco article which explains the name change. I think that this suffices. Peaceray (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolutely an errata. Regardless of how long the "Hastings" name was employed by said institution, the fact is that "Hastings" has been stricken from the school name per action of the California Legislature (see California Assembly Bill 1936, 2021-2022 session). As part of the legislation, the State of California explicitly found that the school's former namesake bears responsibility for funding "Native American hunting" parties" (specifically against the Yuki people) and thereby engaged in genocidial activities, that he enriched himself via said genocide, and that the genocide ennabled S.C. Hastings to finance the establishment of the law school. This was the impetus for the name change. The name change has been given retroactive effect per action of the State Bar of California (the law school affiliations for all California attorneys who graduated from said institution now reflect the name University of California College of the Law, San Francisco irrespective of graduation date.) Finally, the clear and explicit intent of the California Legislature, and of the school's board of directors, is that the school shall be knwon by its new name in all its dealings and in public references so as to address a past injustice; regardless of the personal opinion of any reader or Wikipedia editor, this intent should be honored. Spotty's Friend (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the nature of the historical acts that prompted the school's name change (i.e.genocide) I hardly think that a mere redirect to another page while in the main article retaining an old name that honors a person found to have been instrumental in enabling said genocide should "suffice". See my above comment with a little more detail on the name change. Cheers. Spotty's Friend (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    67.180.172.22 did not state this further information. Looking over the talk page, I see that this was discussed at #Update Hastings School of Law, but I had not seen it beforehand. It probably would have helped it the comments had been made under that heading.
    I was making my comments out of practicality but heretofore was unaware of Serranus Clinton Hastings's involvement in the California genocide. With this knowledge, it makes perfect sense to change the link to University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done As of this edit Peaceray (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamala identify as South Indian on official Youtube video channel

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7rNOAFkgE&t=74s 1:15 -> she identify as Indian and then she specifically identify as south Indian. Is this reliable source enough? rather than a news website. We are directly hearing from Harris rather than a news website. Video also talk about her Indian background heavily. Fact she eats Indian food etc... I think this is strong reason to update the lead. ( Faq says Also of note is the difference between race and ethnicity. Race is grouping based on society's view. Ethnicity is grouping based on how people see themselves in common with others. Ms. Harris's race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount. ) Astropulse (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No it's not. Some countries (such as mine, Australia) don't give people ethnic labels at all. So it can't be that critical. (No racial labels here either.) We allow people to self declare their ancestry, ansd that's it. We have heaps of details on Harris' ancestry. No more is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See FAQ, and youtube is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the other above have observed, since when did KH become a reliable source for her life or those of her ancestors? She's said, for instance, that her maternal grandfather was an anticolonialist freedom fighter in India. But the Indian relatives among whom he retired said that he worked very assiduously in the Imperial Secretariat Service, never raising an iota of doubt about his allegiance to the King-Emperor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is as follows: Per RSPYT, Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Given that this is Harris' official YouTube account, it appears to me to meet the level of ABOUTSELF applying. I am not convinced it passes all five criteria of ABOUTSELF, so it fails as a source there. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the only source i can find where she directly talking about her ethnicity. I think its RS because its her official channel. WP:RSPYT already states it has some level of reliability because its official channel. Because we are specifically talking about ethnicity - it is upto her. There is no other source i trust more that her own words. So yes, in this case, i think we can treat YouTube as reliable.
    All other website - is probably based on their own perception or based on available facts Astropulse (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

    Change "has been described as" the presumptive nominee to "is". The definition of presumptive makes "has been described as" redundant, and those are weasel words. Keys5257 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Please establish a consensus for this before proposing it. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that doing so will likely be academic, as she will actually be the nominee in a couple weeks. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that there will be a roll call before Aug 7th for the DNC to pick a nominee and Aug 19th will be when that nominee accepts or declines the party nomination. So that should be fine until the roll call at the least and maybe up until the convention. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamala's childhood in Madison, Wisconsin

    I see that this article does not mention that Kamala lived in Madison, Wis., from 1968 and 1969. (Her father was an associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin and her mother worked at the McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research.) An article in the Capital Times published information about those two years of her life on March 13, 2024, when she lived in a two-bedroom home on a bluff above Lake Mendota in the Spring Harbor neighborhood. Leavittdc (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What can I say but that I love Madison, Wisconsin! As for whether there's room in this article's shrinking space for those details, I can't say. Perhaps some others will weigh in. If only there was a picture of young Kamala and her family on the Memorial Union terrace! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024 (2)

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


    She isn't African-American but she is Jamaican-American / South Asian American LycanHD (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: See Talk:Kamala_Harris/FAQ EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2024 (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.

    Change "African American" to "Black"

    Most notably, the WhiteHouse.gov source used in the lead to describe her race/ethnicities uses Black, not African American. Per WP:V, we should be matching that language.

    Here is a review of other sources using Google searches of Kamala Harris "first X" where X is either black or african:

    Black:

    • BBC - "first woman as well as the first black and Asian-American to serve as vice-president"
    • AP News - "Harris is the first woman, Black person and person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president."
    • Pew Research - "She became the first female vice president, as well as the first Black person and first Asian American to hold that office."
    • ABC News - "become the first Black woman and the first person of South Asian descent to head a major party's presidential ticket after President Joe Biden’s ended his reelection bid"
    • New York Times
    • NPR - "after all, she's Black and Asian and South Asian and Indian American."
    • NPR again - "in addition to being the first Black or Asian American person in the position."
    • CNN - "Harris is the first woman to become vice president, as well as the first Black or Asian American person to hold the office."
    • CNN again
    • NBC News - "nation's first female vice president, as well as the first Black American and first person of South Asian descent."
    • Reuters - "The attacks on Kamala Harris, the first woman and first Black and South Asian person to serve as U.S. vice president, have intensified in the days since she consolidated support to become Democrats' likely presidential nominee."

    African American:

    Both:

    In sum, it appears that Black is more widely used by national news outlets and RS when referring specifically about Kamala Harris. I propose we change the language in the article and the FAQ accordingly. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven Read what I wrote. The FAQ is wrong. The ending "Ms. Harris's race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount." is beyond ignorant and easily refutable with RS. We are in violation of our own policies as it stands. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MAny of those sources also say "Asian-American", should we call her that instead, or as well? Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven Yes, if that's what the preponderance of sources use. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So do they, your the one who checked? Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a change to "Black". Incidentally, I would prefer we use the capitalized "Black", in accordance with most American style guides, and most available sources on Harris. Current usage in the article is mixed. I would also support removing the part of the FAQ that EvergreenFir quoted. It's not true at all that Harris's race is unimportant. The US Census treats "Black" and "African-American" as synonymous race labels, and a lot of American scholarship does the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, let's try changing the text and FAQ and hopefully that'll stop the otherwise never-ending edit requests. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I capitalized "Black". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    White house website says "Black American" - not Black as per your proposal. Black American or African american is fine. But big NO to just Black Astropulse (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Black American" is fine with me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence prior says she's American and, as VP, she has to be. It's redundant to say. And all the other sources I listed just say Black. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Capitalized Black works. She's obviously American. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    she's not even "Black", so stop twisting the truth. She's of Asian and Jamaican decent. BubD (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamaican is not a race, there are black Jamaicans. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As per wiktionary:African-American: A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent. Harris is of black African descent & is American. Hence she is both African-American & black. Peaceray (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not at all and will probably never support capitalizing "black". But that's a gud grammer argument. GMGtalk 17:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I suggest, with respect but very emphatically, that we not go back to Black as the main descriptor of Kamala Harris's ethnicity. We came to a consensus four years ago (after a long debate) that the best, the most expansive and inclusive description was: first African-American and Asian-American VP. Someone had narrowed Asian American to South Asian American, which I'm glad to see @Firefangledfeathers: has reverted.
    "Black" can be used occasionally or informally just as Native Americans use "Indian" informally among familiar Native American audiences, but not in a prominent place such as the lead. There are many reasons to prefer African-American and Asian-American. One is that they are increasingly the scientific and social scientific terms, i.e. the scholarly terms (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for its preeminence as RS). "Black," in contrast, appears more in autoethnography, and is more qualitative. Another is that Africa, Asia, and the Americas are continents, and thus the terminology is not only consistent, i.e. references large land areas, which first Black and first South Asian American would not, but also most inclusive as land areas. A third, which appears in the third paragraph of the Early Years section is that a critical support group of friends of KH's mother who were pioneers in the the field of African American studies, in fact gave that field of study its name, were her surrogate mothers, most influential in the formation of her life's arc and her sense of self. In other words, "African-American" was critical, and formative, for her, not just a name. As for Black American, a big problem is that the page redirects to African Americans. We will have to ask on the African Americans page why citing Whitehouse(dot)gov will grant us an exemption from that redirect. As for Asian-American, see the very recent article in the NY Times, The Lesser-Known Side of Harris’s Identity: Asian American.
    Pinging @MelanieN and Valereee: I don't think we should make any changes to a consensus we arrived at after much discussion four years ago. I request that the FAQ also be changed back to reflect that consensus. I'm happy to discuss this more, but I don't see any compelling reasons offered above for a change of descriptors. Flip-flopping at this late stage of high viewership is not good for the reliability of a tertiary source. Finally, although Black Americans themselves use Black all the time, on formal occasions and first mentions (which a lead is) they prefer, and are most proud, of African American. There is a good reason that the term (along with Native American for Indian) were invented in the wake of civil rights movements. Black or Indian (for native Americans) had been around for ages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fowler&fowler respectfully, it seems things have changed since 4 years ago. Recent RS do not use "African American" solely, and even the .gov site uses Black now. As for the FAQ, I am vehemently opposed to that nonsense about race being unimportant that was unilaterally added by an editor. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus emerged in late summer 2020 when she was nominated for VP, not in December. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read what I've written above carefully. Whitehouse(dot)gov is not a reliable secondary source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the consensus changing from four years ago, I will soon produce here a list of sources published the scholarly publishers (such as university presses, Wiley, Academic, Blackwell, ...) after 2021 which use "first African American" for Kamala Harris. Please note WP:SOURCETYPES, a part of WP Policy, which states: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to note that MOS:IDENTITY applies for this specifically and language evolves. So given that Vice President Harris works in the White House, even though it is a primary source, given that she has direct oversight of it, it may be her latest self-identification per our MOS, which is also specifically called out to be preferred If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. And it appears as shown above by @EvergreenFir that many other recent secondary sources use the same wording. The MOS guideline also calls out to Use specific terminology. For example, it is often more appropriate for people or things from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African. Raladic (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Whitehouse(dot)gov is not a reliable source. It is a form of autoethnography as reworded by a website manager. You are welcome to propose at WP:RS/N that it trumps WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The scholarly sources, the post-2021 use "African American," as I will soon demonstrate below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite a leap to say that whitehouse.gov is not acceptable for self-descriptors. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Self description, yes, but we can't write in the lead, "She is the first female and the first—in her description, Black American—vice-president ..." Like I said above, "Ask at RS/N if self description trumps peer-reviewed scholarly sources which according to Wikipedia policy are the most reliable. I'm in the middle of some chores, but I will soon make a list of the latter below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why can't we write, ""She is the first female and the first Black/South Asian vice-president ..."? YoPienso (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually like the way she and/or her helper(s) have it in her official government autobiography: "the first woman, the first Black American, and the first South Asian American" YoPienso (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because on her own websites of all her previously held offices as US Senator, Attorney General of California, and District Attorney of San Francisco, she self-identified as African-American.
    • Because a Wikipedia-wide RfC of 2020 overwhelmingly supported African American. To override it, you would need to have another RfC, by WP rules.
    • Because Black American redirects to African Americans
    • Because if she becomes president, she will be the second African-American to hold that office. (Barack Obama's lead identifies him as the first African American.
    • Because the WP List of African-American United States senators and the United States Senate's List of African American Senators lists her has the second female African American senator after Carol Moseley Braun, whose lead also describes her as African American.
    • Because a large number of scholarly books published after 2021 identify her as African American (See my collapsed list in this section)
    • In other words, there are already all sorts of precedents in Wikipedia and elsewhere that we would need to override if we change the lead's phrasing (i.e. African American)
    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a reply to you @Yopienso: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Several times you have mentioned a 2020 RfC. Do you mean this RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead That RfC did not give Black as an option, only African-American, and many of the respondents who responded Yes also said Black would be good. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.
    You seem to be stuck in the past.
    • Both her official White House biography and her Harris for President website call her Black, with no mention of African-anything. Both site call her "the first woman, first Black American, and first South Asian American..." (The campaign website inserts the article the 2 more times.)
    • I don't know what her Senate bio said when she was in the Senate, but now her congressional bio makes no mention or race or ethnicity.
    • Her attorney general bio does call her "the first African American woman and South Asian American woman." It also says she attended a HBCU, and identifies her mother as Tamilian. Harris was in that office from 2011-17, so the wording is at least 7 yrs. old.
    • I can't find her district attorney bio.
    • Regarding the 2020 RfC, O3000, Ret. points out many editors would have been happy to go with Black, even then.
    • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source
    Consensus can change. YoPienso (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Summoned by ping. IMO we go with how she self-identifies -- which is what I'd argue for anyone whose self-identification isn't being questioned in RS like Rachel Dolezal -- and the best source for how she identifies is a self-source/affiliated source. Whitehouse.gov says "the first Black American, and the first South Asian American to be elected to this position". IMO that's what we go with. Valereee (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when did self-identification become a matter of WP:RS? Of course, her self-identification is not consonant with the RS, if reliable scholarly sources published after 2021 describe her as African American. (Added later, here are books published after 2021 by scholarly publishers:

    Fowler&fowler's Scholarly Textbooks that use African-American for Kamala Harris

    • Please do not edit this section
    Books published after 2021 by scholarly publishers using "African American" as a descriptor for Kamala Harris's ethnicity

    Fowler&fowler's Excerpts from VP Kamala Harris's Remarks on her Trip to Ghana

    See the full conversation about her Africa trip here.

    Moderated Discussion at the National Museum of African American History, Washington DC

    MR. YOUNG: ... I really want to ask you a bit about the Ghana portion of the trip. We’re in this museum of history and remembrance, a place from the beginning that was committed to the unvarnished truth. And I know you visited Cape Coast Castle in Ghana. And you said some powerful words, which are not only about pain but survival.

    I was watching it today, and it said, quote, “History must be learned, and we must then be guided by what we know also to be the history of those who survived in the Americas and in the Caribbean.”

    Can you tell us about your experience at the “Door of No Return” and what that meant to you? THE VICE PRESIDENT: You know, in many ways, I’m still processing it. It’s one thing to read about it and learn history as most of us have since the day we were born, and then to be at that site, which is one, sadly, of many such sites.

    And, you know, the — the tour guide — I don’t want to call him a tour guide; he was a historian — taking us through the various dungeons — right? — the section for men, the section for women, the section for the troublemakers, where pregnant women were kept because they had been raped. The details of the fact that women were being raped by their captors and then the baby taken away on the day she gave birth so she could be sold — the mother. And then if the baby lived, would be put to work in that very place.

    It’s — it’s like — this monument to all that we are discussing today. There is something about being in a physical space that if you have learned about what it represents, you feel what it represents. And that’s how it felt. It was — it’s a place of horror. It’s a place of horror.

    Because let’s remember, first of all, people were kidnapped from their homes and taken for miles, hundreds of miles, to this place. They didn’t know where they were headed. Untold numbers died on that voyage, then to be put in dungeons, where there’s a hole toward the ceiling where the light could come, but also depending on whether it was — there was a pathway behind it is where the guards would watch. And from time to time, they might give water. And the water was so — there was — it was so little that he described about how these people who had been kidnapped — these victims of a horrible crime — would try to survive, including drinking the water off of somebody else’s hair.

    And you — you see this place, and it’s — it’s — it’s horrendous. It’s horrendous.

    And so, after — you know, we had press with us on the trip. And after they had — they — I spoke to the press, and I had some prepared comments. And I looked down at the prepared comments and I was like, “No, I’m not doing that.” And I just said what I felt. (Applause.)

    And — and it was about — yes. Right? In the midst of so-called leaders who are trying to erase history in our country — (applause) — what we must all do to stand up and speak out about this as loud as we can. It’s not just about “forget”; they’re trying to erase history.

    Let’s understand what this means. And there are historical precedents for this kind of approach and what it means and what could come next. So there was that piece of it, in terms of my comments that day. There was also the piece of it that — that I spoke of that was about: We are not going to be defeated. And we weren’t defeated.

    And out of that incredible pain and those crimes, the survivors and the descendants, carrying traditions and culture and faith and a memory of family, endured generation after generation. And in this country included the freedom fighters who fought for civil rights. And all of those who benefited across the board, whether their ancestors were at that slave — I don’t even like calling it a castle, by the way.

    MR. YOUNG: Right.

    THE VICE PRESIDENT: And what we should do then to also celebrate the strength of our people to come through that and go on to be astronauts.

    I just spoke yesterday with Astronaut Glover. Do you guys know who he is? (Laughs.) (Applause.) He’s about to go on the Artemis II mission to circle the Moon. I just talked to him yesterday. Right?

    And so, the scientists and the astronauts and the mathematicians and all of the people —

    MS. NABONGO: And the Vice President.

    THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and the Vice President of the United States. (Laughs.) (Applause.) Right.

    Discussion continued

    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It always has been for the purpose of MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:GENDERID - we trust the person itself first as other secondary RS can lag behind, which is why we allow primary sources if they are WP:ABOUTSELF. Raladic (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes!!! YoPienso (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not genderID. We don't describe right wing nuts who self-identify as Aryan to be Aryan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked two separate MOS guidelines, both of which refer to use self identification - in this particular case MOS:IDENTITY is the applicable one. Raladic (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fowler&fowler, I don't think that argument works. Right wing nuts may not be Aryan and it may not be relevant. She is Black. That is relevant. RS editorial guidelines differ and it's probably something requiring difficult internal debate. In a case like this, I think self-identification trumps. Let her identify herself as she wished so long as it is accurate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Objective3000: In that case, since you guys are the ones looking for a change in the longstanding language of the lead based on the overwhelming consensus of an RfC (see its link I have posted above or below), post at WP:RS/N and see if self-identification has traction there, especially when KH's self-identification is variable. She uses "Black" in part because it is more familiar language to "African-American"'s more formal, not necessarily because she thinks one is more accurate than the other. If and when you do post at RS/N, please let me know. But an RfC consensus is not easy to overturn with an informal discussion such as this or even at RS/N. If you have the heart for it, please start another RfC and see where it goes, i.e. its consensus is more definitive than the previous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She uses "Black" in part.... Please don't assume others' motivations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is still a variable self identification.
    • When she began her major public career as SF's District Attolrney, she was described as "African American." (See here) Here it is the host calling her that, but I remember her own website when it did exist and she called herself African-American.
    • At her CA AG website, she was " first African American woman and South Asian American woman in California to hold the office."see the website
    • When she became a Senator, she was still "African-American" on her website. The website no longer exists, but you can view numerous references to it in the RFC of four years ago, whose link I have posted here.
    • At the VP website, she is "Black American."
    So, if we are going to be obsessively self-identifying, what do we say, "She is the first Black American VP, the 2nd African American female Senator, the first African American attorney-general of CA, and before that the first African-American District Attorney of SF?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But @Valereee: All her previous website—US Senator, California AG, San Francisco DA—said first/second African American as I've pointed out above and was noted in the RfC of four years ago in which you supported "African American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Very difficult question. Three points: (1) African American and Black (or Black American) aren't interchangeable, so it's entirely possible that it makes the most sense to include both in some way. (2) Whether a Jamaican American identifies as African American is very much that -- a matter of identification. While we should consider what secondary sources say, what Harris herself has said matters. (3) The bit at the end of the FAQ was a controversial claim that was out of place in an answer to a frequently asked question and does not clearly come out of the discussions which led to the FAQ. I've made a bold copyedit of the FAQ, including removing that line. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that African American and Black American are both used. As I've written above, Black American redirects to African Americans. We can and do use "Black" later in the article.
    There is another issue we need to think about. If she does become president, what will we write? It will have to be: She is the first female president, the second African American president and the first Asian American president in US History." We can't really use "Black American," as the Barack Obama page says, (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. As a member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no, we don't have to word it that way. How the Obama article is written isn't relevant to this article. How about this for another possibility: including both. We should definitely include both in the body of the article, and possible even in a dedicated section for "historical firsts" that goes into all of these details (there are so many sources talking about firsts that there's a good WP:DUE argument for it). Then the question is just the lead. I'm not opposed to including both, but if it really comes down to it, and if we can't find quotes for self-identification, I suppose we could do some searches for ("first black *" OR "second black *") vs. ("first african *" OR "second african *") and see which gets more hits. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We already mention both in the lead. In the second paragraph, we say, Harris served as the junior U.S. senator from California from 2017 to 2021; she defeated Loretta Sanchez in the 2016 Senate election to become the second Black woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the U.S. Senate, and thus give the reader a flavor of her different descriptions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)I suggest we stick with African American. Black is a term that refers to the race of a person while African American refers to their ethnicity. Race is a fraught subject (and is often uncertain anyway) while ethnicity is often easier to source and is a better marker of identity (and also happens to be Harris' chosen identity marker). And, of course, Fowler&fowler makes a cogent point in their comparison with the way we refer to Barack Obama.--RegentsPark (comment) 19:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate the progress made here, particularly changing the illogical statement in the FAQ. There's one more to change: When Wikipedia describes Harris as the "first" to do something, we default to the larger category. Therefore, while she is the first Tamil-, Indian-, and South Asian-American to be elected Vice President of the US, we describe her, as reliable sources do, as the first Asian American.
      That makes no sense. Default to the larger category? So just call her a woman with no descriptors? No, you'd have to call her a human. No, that won't work either. Mammal? Animal? Earthling? Sentient being?? YoPienso (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest going with "Black," which is what she calls herself and is accurate. "African American" is accurate, too, but misleading, since many readers will think of a descendant of an enslaved American. Maybe everyone should take a moment to scroll through Black people.
      Also, watching the endless discussions, it seems some editors don't keep in mind that Harris is of MIXED HERITAGE. We can't focus on just one of her lines of descent. YoPienso (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      George Washington too had many descriptors, but we choose the most inclusive, i.e. human, which, as the American presidency is thus far limited to humans, is a tautology and left unsaid, " (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was an American Founding Father, military officer, and politician who served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm guessing you mean racial/ethnic/gender descriptors? Or, it could be systemic racism and genderism--by default, Washington was a white male. I honestly don't know what you were trying to communicate to me. I do NOT think we should use the "most inclusive" racial/ethnic/gender descriptors for Harris, or we erase her as a unique human being. YoPienso (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Yopienso: Of course I meant ethnic descriptors. The language of the lead is the result of the overwhelming consensus in a long standing Wikipedia-wide RfC. View its link below. If you'd like to change it, please start another. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you please name some half dozen of the "many [ethnic] descriptors" Washington had? YoPienso (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @RegentsPark "Race is a fraught subject"... so? Obama was Black and his race was the most salient identity for him and for the American public, not his ethnicity per se. He said on The View, if memory serves, that he "Black enough to not catch a cab in New York". His Kenyan ethnicity didn't matter as much as his race did. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @EvergreenFir: What I mean is that it determining a person's race is not easy, and this is particularly true for Harris. Most people are multi-racial as DNA tests usually end up showing. Ethnicity, since it is not a physical characteristic and is often self identified, is a lot easier. To be African American, for example, merely requires having a black ancestor since around 1600 (Medievial times, otherwise all Americans would be African Americans) regardless of whether there are other types of ancestry in the tree. That, coupled with self-identification as African American is all that is necessary.RegentsPark (comment) 14:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Black Jamaicans are black because their ancestors came from Africa. Surely that means they can become African-American if they move to the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HiLo48 not to all of them. I knew a Black Jamaica woman in undergrad. I called her African American once and she quickly corrected me saying "I'm Black and Caribbean American". Her family may have had Indigenous ancestry, for example. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was she also American? HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Trillfendi: As KH's mother had perceptively pointed out to her and her sister, society would see her as Black (and she meant not just American society, but also Indian, which had been and still is in 2024 straitjacketed in arranged-marriages within caste.) The milieu whose values Kamala Harris primarily imbibed in order to have pride in her life's arc, as this article has long taken pains to point out, is that of African-American Berkeley and Oakland: Although the two Harris sisters spent summers with their father in Palo Alto and now and then traveled to Jamaica with him, their "experience and relationship with blackness," according to Maya Harris's daughter, Meena Harris, " is through being raised in these communities in Berkeley and Oakland, and not through the lens of being Caribbean."[1]
      As for this Oakland and Berkeley community and why we use African-American, please see the third paragraph of the Early life and education section.
      Just as her Jamaican identity is secondary to her African-American, so is her Indian, if for no reason than no Hindu Indians in the mid-1960s would have touched a divorced Hindu woman previously married to a Black man, any Black man, with two girls in tow (heavens forbid in India's obsessively patrilineal and caste-ridden culture)—with a ten foot pole. Sure they are thrilled today as KH is soaring, but even today how many Hindu men will marry a 20-something ordinary Hindu woman previously married to a Black man and with two girls from that marriage? How many Hindu families will even associate? It is a sad reality, that K. H.'s mother had shrewdly observed, but communicated in more positive and self-building ways to her children. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      African-American implies that her family is from Africa when her maternal family is from India & her paternal family is from Jamaica. Trying to pass her as Asian-African American is just a ploy to make her look like someone she is not. 2600:1700:344C:3600:E02E:CED9:398A:5511 (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As per wiktionary:African-American: A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent. Harris is of black African descent & is American. Hence she is both African-American & black. Peaceray (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fowler&fowler mentioned scholarly sources using African American and presented examples, but failed to show if Black is used as well. Unsurprisingly, it is. Here are some examples:
    Locke, T., & Joseph, R. L. (2021). All intersectionality is not the same: Why Kamala Harris is our vice president and not Stacey Abrams. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 107(4), 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2021.1983197
    Clayton, K., Crabtree, C., & Horiuchi, Y. (2023). Do Identity Frames Impact Support for Multiracial Candidates? The Case of Kamala Harris. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.33
    Filindra, Alexandra, and E. J. Fagan. 2022. “ Black, Immigrant, or Woman? The Implicit Influence of Kamala Harris' Vice Presidential Nomination on Support for Biden in 2020.” Social Science Quarterly. 103: 892–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13162
    Ma, D.S., Hohl, D. & Kantner, J. The politics of identity: The unexpected role of political orientation on racial categorizations of Kamala Harris. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2021; 21: 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12257
    EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sole criterion should be how rs describe her. All of the terms are problematic, so arguing about which is correct is fruitless. They say first African American and first Indian-American. TFD (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: Not journal articles but books published by university presses that are vetted for due weight. Journal articles are a dime a dozen. See the role of textbooks in determining due weight in WP:TERTIARY Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also (as one of the sources (also) says "On her official website, she asserts that she is “the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history.”", so she idetiofices as African-American, and this is a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: On her previous US Senate website, her California AG website, and her San Francisco DG website, she was "first/second African American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She gets to decide how she identifies, not us and not the media. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eeeh. This isn't an absolute principle (and an example about why "race" is stupid at a base level). But like... I can't identify as white. It's not gon work. Trust me. There's some wiggle room probably for people like me and a large number of others who have a diverse ancestry, but I can't just up and decide to identify as Japanese.
    This is Wikipedia. We follow the sources. We are a servant to the sources first and foremost. GMGtalk 11:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And no RS has said she is not African-American, they just have not said exactly that. We do (however) have sources (explicitly) calling her African American, and none contesting it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, sure. I'm just contesting what seems to be an assertion that self identification trumps the description in sources. GMGtalk 14:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    just like her Wikipedia page has recently been edited with black adjective in front of about everything so just because her recently edited page of some website says it doesn't make it so 2603:9001:1702:D00D:4D1B:7E37:4611:840F (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, if this needs an RFC lets have one. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slatersteven: An RfC is a complicated thing. It has to be framed without bias. It has to be advertised at a large number of Wiki Projects, and the previous consensus, which was closed by an admin MelanieN was overwhelming for "African American." Complicating this further is KH's own self identification in her previously held offices (US Senator, California Attorney General, San Francisco District Attorney) was "African American." So what happened that in four years that her ethnicity has changed? I recommend not going for an RfC. The way I see it is this: some new editors have appeared on this page very likely because of the new buzz around KH, but they are not aware of the precedents that already exist on Wikipedia and elsewhere for KH as "African American." Let us just patiently answer the questions. The high level of interest will die down soon enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RfCs are not that complicated and neutral phrasing and "advertisement" are trivial. As has been mentioned, this section should have been tagged an RfC in the first place. And I responded to your many comments about a previous RfC. There was no option for "Black" and many respondents said Black is OK anyhow. If this is the RfC you are talking about; I think all your refs to it should be stricken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because there was a previous RfC discussion on it four years ago, doesn't mean that we have to form a suicide pact around it and never change. Any topic is subject to discussion and language and the WP:CONSENSUS can shift over time.
    Also, as others have already pointed out, the previous RfC centered on the topic of whether to include her race/ethnicity at all, it didn't explicitly list Black as an option.
    So yes, maybe it is time for a new RfC to determine if the consensus has shifted, in particular based on her apparent shift in self-identification, which we do take into account per our WP:IDENTITY policy. Raladic (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:IDENTITY says, "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses."
    • But WP:SOURCETYPES says: *Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
    • WP:TERTIARY says, Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.
    • That is why I made a list of text-books and monographs published by Oxford, Princeton, Cambridge, University of California, Springer, SAGE, ... which use "African-American" (See collapsed list here.)
    • Even if you make the claim that the tertiary sources are not unanimous, the question of her own identity is fraught, as in all her previously held offices, she self identified as "African-American." (See for example: Kamala D. Harris, 32nd Attorney General, which is much more detailed personal biography than the
    • If her blurb on the White House website, which is chock full of superlatives (e.g. "Both of the Vice President’s parents were active in the civil rights movement." view here) is a personal self-identification then so it her entry in the timeline of the US Senate, whose President she is. It states, "2021, January 20 Kamala Harris of Los Angeles became the first woman and the first African American and Asian American to serve as vice president of the United States and president of the U.S. Senate" (scroll all the way to the right here)
    In other words, neither in the scholarly sources, nor in the websites of all her previously held appointments which can be considered to be a form of self-identification, is there any preponderance for the label "Black," or "Black American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever happened to the useful and apt term "multiracial"? Acroterion (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the kind of "she's not X, she's really Y" has become some kind of talking point now for opposing candidates and surrogates, echoing the perennial arguments we keep seeing here and muddying what may appear in RS. We have handled this demand for racial classification poorly since 2008, and it's not confined just to Harris or Obama, it's just amplified. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Goodyear, Dana (July 22, 2019), Kamala Harris makes her case, The New Yorker, retrieved August 22, 2020

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

    hey so 3 parts written about her...

    first is: Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a biologist whose work on the progesterone receptor gene stimulated advances in breast cancer research.[16] Shyamala had moved to the United States from India as a 19-year-old graduate student in 1958.

    the second is:Kamala Harris's father, Donald J. Harris,[20] is a Stanford University professor of economics (emeritus) who arrived in the United States from Jamaica in 1961,

    the 3rd is: She is the United States' first female vice president, the highest-ranking female elected official in U.S. history, and the first African-American and first Asian-American vice president.[273][274] 
    

    so she's not African- American if her mom is from India and her dad from Jamaica. 2001:569:777C:6300:9981:86BA:2A40:E897 (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Please see the FAQ and this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2024 (2)

    Vice President harris was not voted for Presidential nomination by anyone in any State primary and has yet to be confirmed by Democratic convention. 173.170.39.163 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2024 (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. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

    There is a typo under "Early life and career".

    "Harris's office ultiamtely prosecuted seven parents in three years, with none jailed" Nextrava (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Jamedeus (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Her mom is Tamil from TamilNadu

    I don't see the point of deleting this information, it's necessary because it's part of her history (Kamala Harris went to Tamilnadu every year when she was younger). Please put the state where her mom is from, which is TamilNadu and her ethnicity which is Tamil back again. 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the biography of Shyamala Gopalan but rather of her daughter. Anyone who wants details of Shyamala Gopalan's birthplace and ethnicity can go to her biography. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Her mother's ethnic group is also Kamala Harris' ethnic group. It's part of her, especially as she's already said words in Tamil on several occasions during her speeches. She has also mentioned many times that she comes from South India, which has a different culture to North India. It is necessary to add at least the state from which her mother comes or her ethnicity, which also refers directly to Kamala Harris. To simply put that her mother comes from India without any further détails is not a complete Biography.
    Please read the link below :
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/20/chittis-kamala-harris-dnc-tamil/
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/my-chitthis-significance-sen-kamala-harris-speaking-tamil-national-stage-n1237562
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9037j47pyzo 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9 (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Her mother's ethnic group is also Kamala Harris' ethnic group. It's part of her, especially as she's already said words in Tamil on several occasions during her speeches. She has also mentioned many times that she comes from South India, which has a different culture to North India. It is necessary to add at least the state from which her mother comes or her ethnicity, which also refers directly to Kamala Harris. 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024 (2)

    "Kamala is jamaican american and indian NOT african american this is creating a false narritive of her ethniticity" jamaicans are NOT africans" 2600:1011:B150:A4A4:406:ED3E:6139:16E3 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: She is described as African-American by reliable sources, this term is generally understood to include anyone of African descent (including Jamaicans and other Afro-Caribbean). Jamedeus (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: How to refer to the African ancestry of Kamala Harris?

    Which of the following should we use to refer to Kamala Harris when discussing her African ancestry:

    • African-American
    • Black

    Note: There are cases where she may be referred to as Asian-American either alone or with one of the above two. This RfC is only about her African ancestry as that has been the greatest area of contention. This does not apply to quotes. You will find a lengthy discussion on the subject above at:[8]. --O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If Black, please indicate capitalization preference so we don't have to have a second RfC. Also, try to keep responses in the Survey section reasonably brief. The Discussion section can be used for more detailed responses. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    • Both. They're not mutually exclusive. Might remove the "when talking about her African ancestry" part of the question, as the context in which each are used can be complicated. IMO the question is really more about how to thoughtfully present both, and how doing so in the lead might differ from the body of the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black - To reiterate what I've said in the discussion above, most news sources now use Black to describe Harris and the most recent official websites use Black:
    • WhiteHouse.gov says "On January 20, 2021, Kamala Harris was sworn in as Vice President – the first woman, the first Black American, and the first South Asian American to be elected to this position."
    • KamalaHarris.com says "Throughout her life, she’s broken barriers, and she’s now the first woman, first Black American, and first South Asian American to serve as vice president."
    List of other sources discussed above
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Black:

    • BBC - "first woman as well as the first black and Asian-American to serve as vice-president"
    • AP News - "Harris is the first woman, Black person and person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president."
    • Pew Research - "She became the first female vice president, as well as the first Black person and first Asian American to hold that office."
    • ABC News - "become the first Black woman and the first person of South Asian descent to head a major party's presidential ticket after President Joe Biden’s ended his reelection bid"
    • New York Times
    • NPR - "after all, she's Black and Asian and South Asian and Indian American."
    • NPR again - "in addition to being the first Black or Asian American person in the position."
    • CNN - "Harris is the first woman to become vice president, as well as the first Black or Asian American person to hold the office."
    • CNN again
    • NBC News - "nation's first female vice president, as well as the first Black American and first person of South Asian descent."
    • Reuters - "The attacks on Kamala Harris, the first woman and first Black and South Asian person to serve as U.S. vice president, have intensified in the days since she consolidated support to become Democrats' likely presidential nominee."
    • Locke, T., & Joseph, R. L. (2021). All intersectionality is not the same: Why Kamala Harris is our vice president and not Stacey Abrams. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 107(4), 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2021.1983197
    • Clayton, K., Crabtree, C., & Horiuchi, Y. (2023). Do Identity Frames Impact Support for Multiracial Candidates? The Case of Kamala Harris. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.33
    • Filindra, Alexandra, and E. J. Fagan. 2022. “ Black, Immigrant, or Woman? The Implicit Influence of Kamala Harris' Vice Presidential Nomination on Support for Biden in 2020.” Social Science Quarterly. 103: 892–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13162
    • Ma, D.S., Hohl, D. & Kantner, J. The politics of identity: The unexpected role of political orientation on racial categorizations of Kamala Harris. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2021; 21: 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12257

    African American:

    • CBS News
    • CA.gov
    • USA Today
    • " Kamala Harris became the first African American vice president of the United States ...", Statistical Thinking: Analyzing Data in an Uncertain World, Princeton University Press, 2023, p. 78.
    • "Kamala Harris his running mate, thus giving her the opportunity to become the first African American vice president in American history." , Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era, Oxford University Press, 2022, p. 286.
    • " Kamala Harris the first woman, the first African American, ... to serve as vice president." Winds of Hope, Storms of Discord: The United States since 1945, Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 486
    • "Vice President Kamala Harris's ascension as the country's first woman (and African American) to assume the number two position in the White House." Race and National Security, Oxford University Press, p.
    • "Celebrating America's arrival as a desirable "post-racial" ideal has been somewhat reinvigorated by America's first African Asian vice president, Kamala Harris." Discounting Life: Necropolitical Law, Culture, and the Long War on Terror], Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 118.
    • "Senator Cory Booker and Senator Kamala Harris are African American", The Point of No Return: American Democracy at the Crossroads, Princeton University Press, 2023, p. 202.
    • "Right-wing critics ready to pounce on all things Harris—the first vice presidential candidate with African American lineage—were quick to contradict and condemn her ...", Trash Talk: Anti-Obama Lore and Race in the Twenty-first Century, University of California Press, p. 129
    • African-American women are unrelentingly conceptualized as the embodied salvation of national political parties, most predominantly in Joe Biden's selection of Kamala Harris as his vice president ...," The Divided States: Unraveling National Identities in the Twenty-First Century , University of Wisconsin Press, 2023, p. 44.
    • "In 2020, Biden was elected president, and Harris became the first woman, and the first woman of 'African and South Asian descent, to be elected vice president of the United States." Making the World a Better Place: African American Women Advocates, Activists, and Leaders, 1773-1900, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2023.
    • "This chapter explores the stony road African American women have walked, from ... to the ascendancy of Kamala Harris, the first African American woman Vice President." (Identity Politics in US National Elections, Springer, 2023.
    • "Kamala Harris, as the highest-ranking woman official in US history, as well as the first African American and first Asian American vice president of the United States," Barbara Jordan and the Politics of Scripture, Georgetown University Press, 2022.
    • "In the person of Kamala Harris, the first woman, the first Asian-American and first African American Vice president was elected—a historic breakthrough ...", The Battle for the White House: The US Presidential Election 2020 under the impression of Polarization, Coronavirus Pandemic and Social Tensions, Springer, 2022, p. 156.
    • "It is also historic because Kamala Harris became the first woman vice-president and the first African-American and Asian-American vice-president." Politics of Racism Beyond Nations: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Crises, Springer, p. 235.
    • "the first African American and South Asian woman vice president Kamala Harris. ", Religious Rhetoric in US Right-Wing Politics: Donald Trump, Intergroup Threat, and Nationalism, Springer Nature, 2022, p. 14.
    • "Although Ms Harris was received with excitement and enthusiasm by many as the first woman, the first African American, and the first Asian to be nominated for and elected to this high office ...," Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace, SAGE, 2022, p. 158.
    • "Kamala Harris as his running mate, he positioned her to serve as the not only the first woman but also the first African American, and Asian American vice president in American history," Mass Media and American Politics, CQ Press, the historic collection of workings of the US Congress., 2022, p. 343.

    Both:

    The strange insistence on either textbooks or some other specific sources does not square with WP:V or WP:RS. Self-identification is key to our handling of race, gender, sexuality, disability, etc. and the two main official websites about Harris use Black. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic query, now anwered
    Please no collapsed lists here. Create them elsewhere and link them, as I have done. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remove the references to African American that were already in my list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have reproduced my quotes in the length in which they appeared in my list. This is a little distressing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fowler&fowler - There is no rule against collapsed lists. As the list's title says, I've included other sources discussed above, including the African American ones you mentioned. I copy-pasted them verbatim so readers can see a full list. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both: But with African-American in the second-sentence of the lead, followed by Black in the second paragraph (as in the current lead), or African-American in the second sentence with a footnote which says: "Also Black and Woman of Color"
    Follow up to Yopienso's helpful remarks
    You seem to have misread and misinterpreted Harris's report about her visit to Zambia. Either that, or you accidentally linked to the wrong report. YoPienso (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She is talking there about her earlier visit to Ghana. It is that part I am referring to, to the Door of No Return, etc. I have to take my cat out to the doc's but will take another look upon my return. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm back @Yopienso:. I'll take a look and fix it. Thanks for noticing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. See above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, and thanks. There are still some discrepancies, though.
    The document you linked to never once says "African American" or "Black."
    Wrt whether "Kamala Harris herself prefers the label "Black,'" here's another document about that trip. In a speech to Ghanaian youth given at the Black Star Gate on March 28, 2023, she said, "...this continent, of course, has a special significance for me personally as the first Black Vice President of the United States of America." [Emphasis added.]
    Now, that doesn't necessarily show a preference, but it's a prime example of her recent usage.
    I don't find where she "explicitly identifies with the descendants of those who survived the Middle Passage." She visited the Black Star Gate in Accra as a tourist, making no mention of any ancestor who passed through it or any of the 40 or so similar gates across western Africa. I suspect she doesn't know her father's genealogy many generations back.
    Maybe it doesn't matter much if we use "African American" or "Black," which are commonly used synonymously. YoPienso (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak to what she said elsewhere, but in the conversation I've referenced she very much considers herself to be a descendent of people who endured the Middle Passage, for this is how that excerpted conversation ends:

    THE VICE PRESIDENT: And what we should do then to also celebrate the strength of our people to come through that and go on to be astronauts. I just spoke yesterday with Astronaut Glover. Do you guys know who he is? (Laughs.) (Applause.) He’s about to go on the Artemis II mission to circle the Moon. I just talked to him yesterday. Right? And so, the scientists and the astronauts and the mathematicians and all of the people — MS. NABONGO: And the Vice President. THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and the Vice President of the United States. (Laughs.) (Applause.) Right.

    As far as I'm aware, the term African American as envisaged by the people who originally created it was a reference to the Middle Passage Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the interviewer interrupted and included her, and Harris then repeated the interviewer's words. YoPienso (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But she agreed and had used "us" and "our people" before. She was being modest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    {{re|@Yopienso: I am collapsing this, so it doesn't distract other participants. Thanks for your helpful comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I really appreciate your friendliness. My view isn't that Harris was being modest--why would a politician be modest? She was being gracious with the interviewer, an increasingly rare quality. You can tell by the fact she laughed and then said "Right" that in the moment she wasn't thinking about including herself.
    I'm not sure I want all my comments hidden, particularly this:
    Wrt whether "Kamala Harris herself prefers the label "Black,'" here's another document about that trip. In a speech to Ghanaian youth given at the Black Star Gate on March 28, 2023, she said, "...this continent, of course, has a special significance for me personally as the first Black Vice President of the United States of America." [Emphasis added.] 
    Now, that doesn't necessarily show a preference, but it's a prime example of her recent usage.
    

    How can we give those lines visibility? Between you and me, I'm concluding that we're wasting our time here. "Black American," "Black," and "African American" mean almost the same thing. They do generally mean exactly the same thing; the difference lies in the speaker's and hearer's personal opinions. "Jamaican" or "Jamaican American" would work just as well. Same for Asian. I much prefer South Asian to the much broader "Asian," which often conjures images of China, Japan, and Korea. Far better would be to use "Indian." It's been a pleasure working with you because you've been so civil. Just a friendly hint here: Be sure not to cross the line into WP:OWN. YoPienso (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the need for a note. The current wording is fine, with AA in the first paragraph and B in the second. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black and Asian American (my preference is Black Asian American, or just Black for brevity). This aligns with what it says at her own website and the White House website. Apparently, it's what she wants and what her PR people want, as she and they both had to sign off on those descriptors. Media often get things wrong, so I think we should go to and rely on the primary source(s): Kamala Harris and the people who promote her and speak for her officially. It's at both of those places online where she's told us who she is. Why would we want to call her anything else? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    *:But for 16 years before that, as Senator, California AG, District Attorney SF, her previous media people identified her as African-American. See my statement above. So, is WP a tool of the media PR people, and if so, of which version of a subject's changeable identity? How do the last four trump over the previous 16? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Corrected in light of @Objective3000:'s remark below. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • is WP a tool of the media people Would you please stop this? Media have their own editorial rules. In earlier days, African-American became popular because older terms were heavily frowned upon, including the term Black before they owned it. Go back far enough, it was "colored". I remember the waiting room and water fountain signs. Then was then, Now is now. Let people be called what they want to be called, as long as it has a legitimate foundation, whether it be race, sexual identity, gender, etc. Trump was ranting today that she just turned Black. Let us not be his "tool". O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, let's not stay stuck in the past. Let's use the terminology Ms. Harris uses.
      We could always say in the lead that she's a "person of color" and then use African American and Black throughout the article. (I realize there's a good argument that the two terms aren't interchangeable, but it seems they're often used as synonyms.)
      That said, in 2019, when she was running for the 2020 nomination, Politico quoted her as saying, "I am black and I am proud of it. [...] I was born black and I’ll die black and I am proud of it. And I am not gonna make any excuses for it, for anybody, because they don’t understand." YoPienso (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • African-American or Black American - black is very informal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropulse (talkcontribs) 04:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I do agree with you that "Black" is more informal than African American. It is one of the reasons the US Senate calls its list: African American Senators. It includes Kamala Harris.
      Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mmm, and then we have the Congressional Black Caucus, the HBCUs, the NABJ, the Association of Black Psychologists, etc.--all formal.
      Couldn't we agree that colored, Negro, Afro-American, Black, African American, all mean the same thing? They just arose from different times and places.
      (I'm aware that "colored" "color" as used in person of color now includes just about everyone who's not white, but I'm referring to "colored" as in the NAACP.) YoPienso (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The word colored is considered highly offensive. Rep. Eli Crane used the word on the House floor a couple weeks ago. It was stricken from the record.[9] The NAACP chose the term "colored" for its name because it was the most positive description commonly used in 1909. More common words back then were and are far more offensive, but still used by many people today. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you might be confusing it with person of color, which is not the same thing – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 20:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Objective3000: @Macaddct1984:
      I was speaking historically, starting with colored, and I specifically referred to the NAACP. I also said the names arose from different times and places. It's exactly my point that it was the preferred term at the time. (Surely you noticed I omitted the most common term I heard when I was young.)
      I wasn't exactly sure where to put Black in the list, since "Black is beautiful" was a slogan before Afro-American morphed into African American, IIRC, but now since the Black Lives Matter movement began, "Black" seems more popular than "African American."
      I'm well aware of POC, which indeed is not the same as colored. I should have been more precise, and will correct that to avoid offense. YoPienso (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand. Speaking historically myself, I remember my teen years when the "whites only" signs were prevalent along with the "colored" signs. The public swimming pool was whites only, as well as the public schools I had to go to, a whites only school, and the sundown laws said all Blacks must cross the tracks before sundown. I could rant for an hour on other problems in my city alone. My point is that, at the very least, we should allow these people to self-identify and not be forced to accept the labels put upon them by others. And before someone says RGW, No, I am striving for neutrality and balance in a BLP. How can we document a current presidential candidate by changing the wording that she uses about herself? It's not like she is claiming she has done more for Blacks than any president since Abraham Lincoln (as another candidate just claimed). She just wants, and has wanted for a long time (BA from a Black college, pledged to a Black sorority) as Black. Who are we to change that? Appolgies for the rant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. We must be about the same age. I attended segregated schools until I was in the 7th grade, and the integration was NOT seamless.
      AFAIK, my list of words were all chosen by the people they describe(d). Every decade or so I've done my best to accept and use the term du jour. That's why on this page I've repeatedly said older RSs (more than 2 years old, I'll now say, or maybe even one year) aren't the best; we have to look at what Ms. Harris calls herself now, which seems to be "Black."
      What's RGW? YoPienso (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status Quo, as no good argument has been made for a change to the article, I see no reason to change it. Ther is no controversy in RS about her ethnicity, this is a manufactured controversy here. This is wp:falsebalance, her self-identification has not actually been challenged by RS,so there is not need for us to challenge it, it's not controversial. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As evidenced by her own words (quoted just above), her own webpage and the White House webpage, her self-identification is Black and Asian American. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have missed where she says "I am not African American", please quote it for me. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You want the article subject to prove you wrong, to prove that your preferred definition of her is inaccurate? I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, is it? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No I want you to address the point I made. She has identified as African American, RS has identified her as African American. No one has said she is not African American. Just as we can say water is wet (even if you can find a source that does not say "water is wet"), so just finding a source that does not say "African American" does not mean its a contested claim. There is no controversy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black-ish When quoting a source, use what the source says. Otherwise use Black as that is her self-description. Considering the past treatment of minorities, self-description in cases of race, gender, sexuality, disability, is an important neutralizer. Of course it has to be accurate, not a self-description like ‘most healthy president in history’. Also capitalize Black. There was a lengthy discussion about this elsewhere on WP some months ago. A few days ago, EvergreenFir changed African-American to Black in the lead sentence: She is the first female vice president and the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, as well as the first African American and first Asian American vice president. It was reverted back to Afro-American. The citation is[10], the official page on her at the White House site. That official page says Black American, not Afro-American. Why would we misquote this? EvergreenFir’s correction should be changed back to Black now, instead of waiting for RfC close. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      African American had been in the lead (a result of the previous RfC) from January 2021 until very recently when it was changed without consensus. What is in place now is the longstanding consensus version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your repetitive mention of that RfC is highly misleading. It did not have Black as an option and wasn't about Black vs. Afro-American. What is in place now is not what is in the citation provided, a page in an official White House site about VP Harris. If we are going to use citations, we should say what they say, not an editor's opinion about what they should say. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      From 11 November 2020 until 29 July 2024, when EvergreenFir made the change, and from 30 July 2024 when it was reverted (with edit summary: "reverting lead change without consensus") until now, the lead of this page has always used "African American." That is three years and 9 months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errr call me stupid, but what's the difference? Af-Am is more formal, as is "European" or "of European descent", while 'black' is slightly more colloquial, as is 'white'. Neither is any longer derogatory or excessively informal. If she herself is happy to be called 'black', who are we to argue? Whether to capitalise should be decided by the MOS, though I'm not sure what that would say. Incidentally, Obama himself sometimes uses the terms interchangably, and I've heard (and read) him describe himself as 'black'.Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pincrete: The difference is that in the Wikipedia pages of all the other major Black office holders from before emancipation until now, including KH, the first mention of the ethnicity in the lead is "African American." See my statement. I'm sure most have referred to themselves now and then as Black. The first mention is in formal language. Later, in the KH page's lead's second paragraph, we use Black. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • African-American at first use, Blacktherafter. Both terms appear to be almost equally sourced/used, with a slight preference for AA in more formal contexts, and Black in colloquial ones, and her own use. Apart from considerations of formality and her personal preference, AA is more precise. In the UK, 'Black' is most often used to refer to African-Caribbean and/or direct African ancestry, but it has also been commonly used for all non-Europeans. In Australasia I believe, it is commonly used for the descendants of indigenous peoples there. While I agree with the general principle of self-identification in such matters, when neither term has been objected to by KH, and when sources use both, being precise trumps (no pun intended) the language she herself uses when addressing a US audience. We should follow whatever MOS says about capitalisation, I can see the arguments both way on that as the term, when used about ancestry, is not being used in its ordinary adjectival sense. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Off-topic post

    India is a country full of different ethnicities, languages and cultures. Kamala Harris's mother comes from Tamil Nadu in the south of India. Kamala Harris herself has already spoken about the south. It's important to make this clear, and it's not enough just to say that her mother is Indian. Her ethnicity was mentioned, but someone with little knowledge of the subject had to remove it. So it would be good to put it back in.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/my-chitthis-significance-sen-kamala-harris-speaking-tamil-national-stage-n1237562

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9037j47pyzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9: Sorry, but you should open a new section/thread, as your comment does not belong to the topic of this RfC which is about ethnicity in the lead of the article, in particular the African-American or Black American, or Black, aspect of her ethnicity. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The redirect 贺锦丽 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31 § 贺锦丽 until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The redirect He Jinli has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31 § He Jinli until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The redirect 賀錦麗 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31 § 賀錦麗 until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of content of due weight in KH's biography

    @Antony-22: I'm sorry but no matter how you interpret WP's injunction to be WP:BOLD, you cant importune a page's longstanding content with such mutilation, without posting on the talk page first and garnering a new consensus. You've seriously mangled her biography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PS As 38K bytes of longstanding content was removed the sources for which some of us had painstakingly read before summarizing, can @RegentsPark, MelanieN, Valereee, and Abecedare: please keep an eye on those sections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No content was removed; I split the content to Early life and career of Kamala Harris, but it looks like someone removed the hatnote with the link. The article was on the long side by the WP:SIZE guidelines. Does anyone have any actual objection to the split? Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 00:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You spun it off to a new article, I think, which is fine if an article has ballooned, but the determination of what is to be removed and what constitutes an precis of due weight is usually made on the talk page with the input of many editors. That is why I restored the sections. I know you meant well.
    Coming to the topic of spin offs: upon a quick reading I think it is the Senate and VP sections that need them. They seem to have recitations of deeds done with little qualitative discussion of their impact. A section even has her oath of office as if to say it is different from all the 48 other VP before her.
    Please tell us how you would like to proceed. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I don't understand why after your edits the content size decreased by 38k, but after my "restoration" it increased by only 1.4K! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you didn't restore all of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The spinoff is good as it helps keep this main article as an overview.
    I agree that likely we could also consider spinning of the US Senate career of Kamala Harris to further lighten the length of the current article. Raladic (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raladic: I think the version of Early Years etc in place at the end of this edit of yours is fine by me, but no further reduction is required. But the rest of the article, especially her career of the last eight years, has too much undigested recitation of deeds done, without a qualitative higher level description. What it needs is rewriting more than just reduction. The article size is 6K words, which is not excessive for an important biography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOLD is WP:BOLD, but spinning out a big piece of one of the highest traffic, most controversial articles on the entire project ... there weren't very good odds of it sticking absent any discussion. I'm ambivalent. It's a long article, and the early life section seems as good as any to split off, but it also doesn't seem like a huge improvement and the removed content was only about 14% of the article. That said, it doesn't seem particularly harmful, either, and I don't see any real objections beyond "discuss first". Fowler, if you're going to revert, please make sure to do so in full. You could also "revert" by nominating the other article for AfD, I guess. But I'm curious if people have concrete objections here first. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine to start a formal split proposal discussion if people are more comfortable with that. The article was >9,000 words before this split (and >11,000 words before I split the Attorney General article!) which is in line with when WP:SIZERULE says it's appropriate to split. Since Harris is now a presumptive presidential nominee, there will likely be more detail added to all periods of her life, and it's easier for editors to do that if the article isn't already very long.
    I'd also like to point out that WP:DUE is completely the wrong guideline here, since that only applies to coverage of opposing viewpoints, not biographical facts from different time periods. WP:SUMMARY is the proper guideline here. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 02:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think a formal split discussion is really needed in this case as I think most would agree it is time to start focusing the article to overviews with separate main topic articles. The size of the current article is growing rapidly, so starting to outsource these sections like we have done for many other notable figures sounds entirely appropriate. Raladic (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the page is not that 6000 words is too long, but that much of what there is is written without high-level sources, such as scholarly books and journal articles, not even trade books or long featured article in major newspapers or magazines. When the sources used are poor, what you get is an article without subordinate clauses (for those require a qualitative judgement). Nothing will be achieved by shrinking it for it will still be fluff, only less of it. A case in point is the Presidential Campaign section. No subordinate clauses. Very few adverbs (for those too qualify). Little is said with enough knowledge to qualify. How will you write a precis of this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is not about Napoleon. It's a bio of a living person. I don't think I'd give much trust to an author of a scholarly book or journal article as it's too early for them to provide adequate perspective on a living person's life, particularly given what may lay ahead for her. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The quality of sources has nothing to do with the article split. I do agree that the sourcing needs improvement with more holistic, retrospective articles. If anything, splitting the article should make this slightly easier. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 22:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it does. If you use better sources, replace endless recitation of simple declarative sentences with semantically and syntactically complex ones, you won't need spin offs. In other words, how are you able to summarize when you don't know what is important? Or alternatively, how do you know what is important, if you don't have sources that make those judgements for you? Hard news does not for the most part. I couldn't disagree more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Objective3000: How are WP:FAs such as Mitt Romney and Liz Truss written? She is ten years younger than KH. Examine their sources.
    Alternatively, please propose that notion about BLPs at WP:RS/N and tell me when you do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nonsensical—it's not the case that details are unencyclopedic and should be removed outright, and changing the grammar or sourcing won't bring down the article size by thousands of words.
    Is there anyone other than Fowler&fowler who objects to the split? It's a bad idea to keep a content fork going because it becomes a mess to resolve if the versions diverge, so I'd like to restore a summary-style overview here as any further discussion continues. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 23:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please examine the two FAs I have just mentioned. Compare the sources of your unilateral spin off and those of Liz Truss. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antony-22: No one is saying details are unencylopedic, only that they are best presented as vignettes interwoven with synoptic prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And for those itching to reduce Kamala Harris, simply because it is too large at 6394 words, please note that Liz Truss is 6222 words and Mitt Romney when it successfully navigated FAC was 11K words. It is not the size per se, it the size of blather. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concluding: An alternative is to ask for a peer review. They might say the article is not nearly far enough along for PR, but on the other hand this is about someone poised on the cusp of glory and they might bite. It's worth a try. Anyway, I've said what I had to. I have to bow out. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing DA section?

    Right now I'm seeing her early career and then her time as AG. No section for her time as SF DA. Would be very helpful! 136.62.205.81 (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This section was moved to Early life and career of Kamala Harris, and then there was a bungled revert. This should be resolved soon. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 22:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

    There are two ISBNs on this page in section Publications with incorrect hyphenation, according to Bowker and ISBN International. 978-1-984837-49-3 -> 978-1-9848-3749-3 and 978-1-984886-22-4 -> 978-1-9848-8622-4.

    • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
      978-1-984837-49-3
      +
      978-1-9848-3749-3
      978-1-984886-22-4
      +
      978-1-9848-8622-4
    • Why it should be changed: ISBN hyphenation rules (which indicate the publisher, showing that the two books were published by the same agency) are controlled, and we should follow them.
    • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]

    Cam1170 (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

     Done See this diff. Thank you for your request, and happy editing! Bsoyka (tcg) 21:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

    Change ethnicity from African to Jamaican, per her father's description 140.177.141.89 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: Read the message at the top of this page for further explanation. Bsoyka (tcg) 02:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]