Talk:Kamala Harris

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

Capital punishment

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

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

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

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

Missing refs

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

That is strange, I also only see refs 1-58. The user Bnguyen1114 made a lot of edits expanding this page in April and May, and I don't know that anyone has vetted the changes. Maybe the page is too long now, like the problems on Trump's page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to ask. Why do I only see 1-58 references? I took the time to gather 400+ for all this. Where did they go? If it is because of length, I can start editing for length... Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

That's exactly the issue that's been brought up at Talk:Donald Trump, and what I suspected was going on here. Thank you Ahecht. Based on my estimation, there are about 480 templates on the page, over 400 of which are {{cite}} templates. So, what can we trim? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me know how I can help. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Bnguyen1114, one thing to do is to look for any cases of WP:OVERCITE. Like, for instance, in the early life section, I see this: She went on to Howard University in Washington, D.C. where she double-majored in political science and economics, interned as a mailroom clerk for California Senator Alan Cranston, chaired the economics society, was elected to the liberal-arts student council, led the debate team, organized mentor programs for local youth, demonstrated against apartheid, and joined Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority.[31][32][31][8][33] Are all five four (just noticed that ref 31 is invoked twice there) sources required to verify that content? Any time two citations are used where one would do, we lose no content by cutting the extra source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank, Muboshgu. I will identify those instances, verify their content, and remove accordingly. Good tip. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Bnguyen, I see that you are fairly new and I'm sure that you tried very hard to improve this article. The problem is that in your effort to provide a great deal of information you overdid it. I know that when I tried to go through it I just couldn't take it no matter how hard I tried. And the thing is, by nature I'm one of those that usually reads every word in the articles I look up and I often look at some of the refs as well. So I'm thinking that for the most part people are just not going to read this article. They just want an overview. Hopefully others will give an opinion as well so we can be sure that I'm not alone in my suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is bloated and also pretty much too unstable to edit or review. One editor has made almost 500 edits to this article in barely six weeks. Gandydancer is entirely correct. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem....I can pare it down even more. I'll make another pass at it. Just want to note that when I started, there was granular details about her career. So I followed that format. But I can make it look like "general overview" no problem. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

And we are at about 180K. Let me know what you think; feedback is welcome. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I still think that it is far too long. However, majority rules here and it seems that the other editors find it to be appropriate for a political bio. So I will step aside with my objections. Gandydancer (talk)

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

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

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

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

I am the one that removed that information. It is my understanding that when we include criticisms in our BLPs we need to provide substantial sourcing that demonstrates that the information is not only accurate but that it rises to a level of importance to include in our short overview of the subject's life. Can you provide multiple RS? Gandydancer (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking back I removed only the salaries but I left the rest of the info. The date was June 8. I did google this and found that it came up again related to her run for president. Here is what Vox had to say: [1] Gandydancer (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Other users may weigh in.

I checked, and as it turns out, Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge of Wikipedia.

I shall wait 24 hours for user "Calton" to offer a reasonable justification

You have it backwards, son: as the one adding disputed material -- ESPECIALLY IN A WP:BLP -- it onus is on YOU to justify it. Not me, YOU. --Calton | Talk 22:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a classic example of truth being used as a smear. I'm surprised it doesn't mention that Brown was married. The language is non-NPOV. Gandydancer should attempt to write this in an NPOV fashion before attempting to re-insert it; it would be an interesting exercise. You can tell by the adjectives, though. "Lucrative position" -- was it? How much did a Deputy DA in Alameda County make in 1994? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I want to reinsert it. If we included every time a politician gave out special favors we'd be at it for a long, long time and many of our political articles would expand. BTW, thanks for the "It's a classic example of truth being used as a smear" line because this is exactly what it is and I'm going to find that line very useful in my future editing. (BTW, I think that the only other time I edited this article was years ago when I deleted some tabloid-like stuff about her affair with Brown, a married man!!! and such...--though he and his wife had not lived together for years.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I got lost in the train of who said what; and I'm a bit frustrated trying to do anything or monitor anything on this article, since it keeps changing so dramatically. I do think a mention belongs in the article, just in passing; we can easily say Harris's political career was given an early boost when Brown appointed her to a patronage position; one sentence should suffice. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I will defer to the editors on this one, I just took it out because it seems pointless. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Jpgordon, that seems reasonable to me. I have worked with the Elizabeth Warren article for years and like it or not we have pretty much had no choice but to include Pocahontas, err... information...because of her political positions and most recently because she was running as the Democratic candidate against Trump. At any rate, if Biden does happen to choose Harris as his running mate we can expect this information to spring into the forefront. Better to include it now than be forced to include it later. Perhaps? (Hope fully no one will wisely accuse me of crystal-balling--because I'm not.) Gandydancer (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah i'm cool with adding a sentence or something - its all true so it should be there but maybe not to the level of detail as it previously was. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comment:I agree with User:Bnguyen1114. The material is relevant, and documented, but a sentence or two might suffice. WP:UNDUE. JTRH (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Jab73's proposed copy is far too extensive and would be clearly an attempt to suggest that something improper took place. Plus, if our article clearly attempts to smear Harris, as this copy does, we must then write a rebuttal, adding even more copy to an already overly long section. For example read the following from the Vox article I mentioned above:

As Siders notes, suggesting that Brown had any influence over Harris’s professional ascent obscures the fact that he broadly exerted the same influence over numerous politicians in the region, given his wide-ranging position of power.

“It is difficult to find any successful politician in San Francisco who does not have history with Brown,” writes Siders. “Before being elected mayor of San Francisco the same year Harris ran for district attorney, Newsom owed his start in San Francisco politics to an appointment by Brown to the city’s Parking and Traffic Commission, and later, to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.” It also gives Brown outsized credit for successes that Harris worked to achieve herself. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me consensus is pretty clear; if the event is to be included in this article, it should be given due weight without characterizations. "Assembly speaker Willie Brown (with whom Harris had a romantic relationship) appointed Harris to two state commissions early in her career." Details can be in the future article about the Harris' early career. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's how their relationship is addressed in Willie Brown's bio:

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

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

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

References

I believe that it would be appropriate in the Personal Life section as well. Unless we want to imply that her position was improperly gained the relationship should not be mentioned in the same breath that we report it. Unless, of course, if we then get into explaining that Brown granted other positions, etc., etc., and so on. And we don't. Gandydancer (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

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

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article does not refer to Harris as African American. – Anne drew 22:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: The proper response would have been the "please cite reliable sources" option, FWIW. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The article does not state that she is African American. The request makes no sense regardless of sources. – Anne drew 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: Oh, my bad then for just looking at the silly request and not taking a look at the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Four paragraphs on VP speculation is excessive

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

Don't think it's the exact same cuts I would have made, but totally Agree with the intent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm cool with the edits, thanks Knope7Bnguyen1114 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Harris's record on wrongful convictions

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

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

Indeed The Intercept has reported on this. I wouldn't be surprised if Democratic operatives are editing this page. Kamala is likely to be Biden's VP, and criticism on Wikipedia is a no-no. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote all those sections. including the Mnuchin and Orange County prosecutors. I can add them back in if you like. But the editors asked me to trim it down. I'm not a Democratic operative, I do this for free because I'm sick of misinformation about Kamala Harris. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sick" is an interesting choice of word. It indicates that you are personally invested in defending the reputation of this woman. Despite how you may feel, Wikipedia articles are expected to be written neutrally. This entails the inclusion of criticism, provided it is well-sourced. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Accordingly, I have added the information pertaining to the Mnuchin and Orange County prosecutors to the page. I think you will find they are satisfactorily factual. Let me know if you'd like me to add other criticism she received, such as the Deborah Madden crime lab issue. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Incredibly Biased

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

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

It got noticed

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

I noticed an admin, Drmies, posted a little while back on Bnguyen1114's talk page. I haven't been following this page, but it appears there's been at least some scrutiny and reversions. Drmies, can you help catch us up about what's been going on here? Is this a case of the media trying to pretend there's conflict when it's actually being handled fine, or is there some potential cleanup that needs to be done? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing discussion of conduct rather than content

Look y'all, I'm just a constituent of Kamala Harris who volunteers for Democratic candidates. I've met Jill Biden, Josh Harder, Julian Castro, and Kamala Harris. I'm on lockdown like everyone else and took on this page as a project. There's nothing sinister about me. If you have questions, feel free to ask, I'll be happy to answer. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) You should probably recuse yourself from this topic, then. We can't have paid editors going around and changing articles on the subject that they are paid by. Jdcomix (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Do you have any proof Bnguyen1114 is being paid by Kamala Harris? PrimaPrime (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Oh, so you're admitting to being extensively politically involved in the constituency and party of this politician, and have also admitted to feeling "sick" at reading criticism of this politician, but we're to assume that this "project" you have undertaken in deleting said criticism is not sinister? You re-included the Mnuchin thing, but the way the Mnuchin thing is worded is terrible. It's highly one-sided and favourable to Harris, much more so than reliable sources have been.In general, you seem to lack an ability to write dispassionately. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC) This talk page should only be used for discussing changes to articles, not the conduct of other editors. If anyone has any concerns, they should discuss it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or file a report at ANI or ARBCOM. TFD (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Agreed. Neither Bnguyen1114's involvement in local politics nor their preference for editing specific pages are against Wikipedia policy, provided their contributions cite WP:RS and abide by WP:DUE with regard to factual criticism of Harris. I agree some of their initial editing was potentially disruptive, but the last time this was discussed in May, they agreed to reduce their activity on this page, and appear to have done so. I have no reason not to WP:AGF at this point; any issues at this point should be handled through the WP:BRD cycle, not by an Intercept writer looking for a controversy or the casting of vague WP:ASPERSIONS about paid campaign operatives. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Except this is clearly violating WP:DUE and WP:RS. Fair, properly-sourced criticism is being removed. This editing behaviour was so egregious that a reputable news organization reported on it. Moreover, it is also not enough for them to merely cease disruptively editing. Their disruptive edits must also be removed, and the criticisms re-instated. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Sir, I added both of the criticisms back to the page, as was previously requested. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) You did so after the article came out. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say The Intercept has a certain political lean -- we're not talking about the NYT here -- but setting that aside, you're free to edit the article if you have issues with its current state. Be the change you wish to see in the world. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

PrimaPrime The NYT also has a political leaning, but BOTH are considered by WP as reliable sources.TJD2 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Unlike the NYT, the Intercept did not support the Iraq War or any other, similarly fraudulent international crime based on fake and biased information from politicians. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is for discussing potential improvements to the article, not your opinions on the Iraq War. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bnguyen1114 is, as far as I'm concerned, a problematic editor--but I will say that CompactSpacez, with their limited experience and doubtful contributions, has little right to jump on them, just as brand-new User talk:GLIZZY GLADIATOR is highly suspicious. Bnguyen seemed to be a COI editor who's prime interest was the flooding of these articles with every bit of information, whether relevant, reasonable, well-sourced or not--not overly promotional stuff, or I would have blocked them, but just too much stuff. It's the kind of editing that turns articles into swamps. User:Sdkb, I quit looking at these articles and the editor's work a while ago, at a time when it seemed things had settled down a bit. But I will say that I was less concerned with their supposed deletions than I was with their additions (I hate fluff); the article seems a bit overblown to me, and I'm sad they didn't give my username when they cited me, haha. You, Sdkb, seem like an editor with some experience and common sense. Shoot, I see now that the article has 160k, with half the content and over half of the text contributed by Bnguyen. Sometimes drastic times call for drastic measures, and if there are a few editors willing to do the work, then restore the earlier version of the article, go through those walls of text added by Bnguyen, and turn this into a decent article. Or go the slow route and start pruning. Either way--this article needs something. (TFD, article talk pages should allow for this kind of discussion too: the article itself is directly a subject of discussion.) Drmies (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the motion to recuse - Bnguyen1114 needs to recuse himself from editing the Kamala Harris page, any further edits will have to be scrutinized for POV issues. TJD2 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. No need for a motion. I'll voluntarily recuse myself until some editors go through it. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I created this account to ask the following. TJD2 and others have called for you to recuse yourself from editing this page, yet your reply here implies that you will only temporarily recuse yourself. Is it your intention to resume editing this page, after it has gone through review? Assuming you do return to editing, would you agree to your edits being scrutinized for POV issues? Thank you for your time. - A fellow Californian Democrat (Firepengu) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I will abide by the judgment of the group. I genuinely enjoy researching and writing about politicians I admire but if the editors think it inappropriate, I don't have an issue stepping aside. If I am permitted to continue contributing after the whole article has been reviewed for bias subject to further scrutiny for POV issues, I don't have a problem with it. Thanks for your question. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, Good practices for talk pages says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." Of course there can be exceptions, but I think we've already reached the point where the discussion should continue elsewhere if at all. TFD (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You should not be lecturing a WP:Administrator on the rules of the website. I'm sure Drmies is well versed in this area.TJD2 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That's the argument from authority. Being an administrator does not necessarily mean that one is always right. Tell me, if yo disagree with an administrator on content policy, do you always adhere to their judgment? TFD (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but TFD is also well versed--and while I agree, usually, with the sentiment, with COI editing it's a slightly different kettle of fish. We have two issues of concern here, and they're intimately connected: one is the possibly/likely COI editing (paid or not, that's irrelevant), second is the resulting article, which (the Interceptor suggests, albeit not very clearly) is allegedly partial, and is certainly a bloated bag of factoids. So while I'm interested in what editors think of Bnguyen, it's true that such discussions are frequently held at COIN or whatever--TFD, if you want to start this up at COIN, that's fine with me, but I am hoping we don't lose track of what IMO is really at stake here: the neutrality, readability, and quality of the article. It is my belief that Bnguyen withdrawing from the article will likely improve article quality, in case there was any doubt on where I stand. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Going over this page is more of a heavy lift than I'm willing to take on currently, but I've tagged it for a {{POV check}} in light of the discussion here so far, and I'd suggest that, given its importance, it might be good to go to some more widely watched noticeboard to find experienced editors willing to do the check. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Any discussion that's about Bnguyen1114 should just be closed here. If someone thinks Bnguyen1114 has run afoul of Wikipedia policy, take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. And no, admitting to being a democrat or being a constituent does not run against any policy. It's not appropriate for the article talk page to focus on the user rather than the content. Receiving a bunch of "attention" off-wiki like this sucks, whether or not it's warranted. If there's an issue, the Intercept piece did its job in drawing attention to it. No need to get bogged down in ad hominem irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Close this discussion, bring Bnguyen1114 to a noticeboard if necessary, and focus on content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• the discussion about Bnguyen1114 is highly relevant to staying in the talk page, as the talk page is the first place wiki readers like me go to when an article seems like not an article but an AstroTurf attempt. further, if we use rhododendrites logic, the talk page is not the place to tell people not to have nguyen114 discussion in the talk page Flynnwasframed (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am deeply disgusted with the fact that much of this page has been scrubbed. There was more about her not prosecuting Steve Mnuchin and taking campaign donations from him. It was up here as of last month. Her history with the death penalty was also scrubbed, where she defended it before the 9th Circuit. She also opposed parole reform and that was scrubbed. Lastly, the marijuana position is disingenuous. She opposed legalizing marijuana until 2018, but the wording makes it seem her change in position is unknown as to when she changed. Capriaf (talk)
  • Capriaf, you've been a Wikipedia editor for a while; you should know that shooting from the hip about content in a section that's not about that at all is only going to water everything down.

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

• SawdustForBrains, thanks, but I think we can handle it. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Note, that in my role as an uninvolved administrator, I have closed the conduct discussion below and collapsed a part of the discussion in this thread that had veered towards conduct. My intent was to leave content stuff alone which does mean that the discussion collapsing is a bit awkward which I acknowledge. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Harris' views on sex work

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

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

@Iamcuriousblue: A really large section might be undue, but I agree that Harris's views on sex work should be included. Maybe start small? There's currently not even a mention of SESTA, which she co-sponsored and was criticized for making sex work more dangerous.[2] In her February 2019 interview with The Root she said that she supported the decriminalization of consensual sex work when no one is being harmed or exploited.[3] gobonobo ^{+ c} 07:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there might be a section on that in her "Political Positions" page, which I separated as to cover her work in the Senate more comprehensively. I did less work on that section (I prepared the table and some foreign policy work mostly), but if it's not there, I encourage you to add it. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The Root interview was very ambiguous and many sex worker rights activists have questioned what she meant by "decriminalizaation". (I can provide references.) I don't think her statement there is the last word on the topic. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bnguyen114

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

---

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

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

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

The accusation of doxxing is baseless. This individual is not being doxed. Any personal information about him, he revealed himself on his own accord. As for "incivility", well, is it really "incivility" to criticize someone's obviously disruptive editing? The chief goal of editors here should be contributing in good faith to the encyclopedia. If this is not done, they should be criticized. CompactSpacez (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sir, before I took on this quarantine project, this page was devoid of sourced content. Please do not cast aspersions about my motivations for editing the page - I am stuck at home, with a wealth of knowledge that I wanted to contribute to the page. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell the user in question has not done so. I suggest you re-read the page I linked more closely, particularly this sentence: "The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of 'opposition research'." PrimaPrime (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly erasing well-sourced content with the purpose of airbrushing a politician's image, against how he or she is portrayed in reliable sources, is disruptive editing and thoroughly unencyclopaedic in spirit. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The editors asked me to cut down the size of the page, sir. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

None of what you just said is an excuse for doxing. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal Life

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

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

News article: There’s a War Going On Over Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia Page, with Unflattering Elements Vanishing

• There’s a War Going On Over Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia Page, with Unflattering Elements Vanishing OneOffUserName (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)