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).

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)

@Gandydancer: If you wrote a rebuttal to this to be placed in the article, then I would hope that it meets the requirements of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. If there are no reliable secondary sources supporting the rebuttal, then it cannot be placed in the article.--Beneficii (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

@Jpgordon: I just looked at the article, and I don't see any mention of the romantic relationship at all, either in her personal life or in the section about her career. Wasn't the consensus that it be mentioned, but without a lot of detail and without characterization?--Beneficii (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I added it back in. I do ask if anyone else wants to remove or change it, to please discuss such changes here first.--Beneficii (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me there was no consensus at all. But whatever, someone will change it or not, with or without discussing it here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I saw that Bnguyen1114 and Gandydancer both agreed to its inclusion. Gandydancer was the one that objected to the more detailed inclusion, as well as objected to characterization, which I think is fair--Beneficii (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

On May 19, 2020 User SummerMoonGoddess stripped this article of most of its discussion of the Willie Brown-Kamala Harris relationship. See Article Revision History: "18:25, 19 May 2020‎ SummerMoonGoddess talk contribs‎ 222,523 bytes -2,765‎ →‎Early career (1990 - 2003): not impartial text edited due to sexist framing". This was a major removal of text that had been in the article for a long time. His/her justification for removal was poor. It is not "sexist framing" to include discussion about Harris's two-year romantic relationship with the California Assembly Speaker and San Francisco mayoral candidate. There was a "quid pro quo" aspect to the Brown-Harris relationship in which Brown appointed Harris, his girlfriend, to two well-paid posts on state commissions. This raised ethical concerns, which were discussed in contemporary newspaper articles. Those appointments to state commissions caused Harris's name to appear in many newspapers across California for the first time, in the context of Harris being Speaker Brown's girlfriend whom Speaker Brown appointed to state commissions. Reliable sources state that Harris gained access to a political/social network when she accompanied Brown at events as his girlfriend that aided her political career. I also believe that there needs to be an investigation into the legitimacy of User SummerMoonGoddess because I cannot find many Wikipedia edits by such user (but I might be searching the wrong way). Therefore, I intend to restore some of the text that User SummerMoonGoddess removed on May 19, 2020. Jab73 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that User SummerMoonGoddess should be investigated for possible abuse of WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Due to the WP:AUTOCONFIRM restriction, the "Kamala Harris" Wikipedia article cannot be edited unless the user has an account that is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits. User SummerMoonGoddess made his/her first edit anywhere on Wikipedia on 2020 May 14 and made exactly ten edits during the next four days to other Wikipedia articles, many of them minor. See the User Contributions History for User SummerMoonGoddess at the following link: [[2]]. Then after four days and ten edits (the bare minimum to gain WP:AUTOCONFIRM status in order to edit the "Kamala Harris" article), User SummerMoonGoddess removed most of the text from the "Kamala Harris" article concerning the Willie Brown-Kamala Harris romantic relationship (-2,765). See: "18:25, 19 May 2020 diff hist -2,765‎ Kamala Harris ‎ →‎Early career (1990 - 2003): not impartial text edited due to sexist framing." User SummerMoonGoddess has not revised any article anywhere else on Wikipedia since his/her "vandalism" to the Willie Brown-Kamala Harris section of the "Kamala Harris" article. Much of that text had been in the "Kamala Harris" Wikipedia article for a relatively long time before User SummerMoonGoddess removed it. There appears to have been a deliberate effort in recent weeks to scrub the "Kamala Harris" Wikipedia article of all references to her 1994-95 relationship with Willie Brown, which has been a source of public controversy for more than 25 years. On this basis, I have restored the exact text that User SummerMoonGoddess removed on 19 May 2020 and improved the citations. Jab73 (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss article content, not make allegations about editor conduct. Even so, your allegation seems to boil down to "I don't like this edit therefore the editor should be investigated." Please assume good faith WP:AGF. Getting back to the content, as you can see in this section, what to include about Harris' relationship with Brown has been the subject of ongoing debate. I certainly wouldn't characterize it as settled for a relatively long time. Knope7 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

On 12 July 2020, user Calton reverted text with this note in the Revision History: "23:22, 12 July 2020‎ Calton talk contribs‎ 179,744 bytes -3,534‎ Reverted to revision 967328529 by NedFausa (talk): Talk page, guy, talk page. No one died and left you in charge." User Calton did not discuss his reversion on this Talk page. I am not sure what Calton meant in Revision History by "Talk page, guy, talk page" because I had already explained my action on this Talk page. Calton offered no explanation for his/her reversion other than "No one died and left you in charge." As I have explained above, I am reverting back to text that had been in this article until User SummerMoonGoddess vandalized the article on 19 May 2020. I consider the conduct by User SummerMoonGoddess to violate Wikipedia's policy against "subtle vandalism" (WP:SNEAKY), specifically, "simultaneously using multiple accounts or IP addresses to vandalize." For these reasons, once again, I intend to restored the exact text that User SummerMoonGoddess removed on 19 May 2020 and improve the citations. As I have explained above, User SummerMoonGoddess did the bare minimum to attain WP:AUTOCONFIRM status with exactly ten edits over four days, vandalized the Willie Brown/Kamala Harris section of this page, and has made no edits on Wikipedia ever since the vandalism to this page. I cannot assume "good faith" of SummerMoonGoddess based on these facts. Jab73 (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change, and I would really really advise you to tone down the heated rhetoric. Stop making declarations of what you "intend" to do, as that is beginning to down like article ownership assertions. Stop attacking this user "Summermoongoddess" on the talk page for Kamala Harris. If a user has run afoul of project policy then you should pursue the proper disciplinary channels for that, don't harangue them, repeatedly, here. ValarianB (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ValarianB and others, please tell me the precise "proper disciplinary channels" for an investigation of conduct by User SummerMoonGoddess on this page, which can be characterized as "subtle vandalism" (WP:SNEAKY), as discussed above. There had been a general consensus on the Willie Brown/Kamala Harris relationship content until mid-May 2020 when User SummerMoonGoddess barely qualified for WP:AUTOCONFIRM by making the bare minimum ten edits over four days. Then User SummerMoonGoddess vandalized the Willie Brown/Kamala Harris section of this article and has not made another Wikipedia edit anywhere over the past two months. I am NOT making "article ownership" assertions. I am simply following Wikipedia's guidance to discuss changes on the "talk" page in attempt to reach consensus. "Consensus" is not reached by simply reverting text with a pithy note "Talk page, guy, talk page. No one died and left you in charge" In Revision History, with NO discussion on this Talk page, like Calton has done. Jab73 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, no one died and left you in charge. The onus for adding material is, has always been, and should be ON THE EDITOR ADDING IT. NO ONE needs your permission: quite the opposite, in fact. YOU need to gain consensus rather than simply declare you have it. --Calton | Talk 23:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with ValarianB. If there was a notable silence, and found yourself in the position as to assuming what the consensus was, I can see someone reasonably stating what they "intend" to edit, and letting it sit for a good 24 hours or so. That is nowhere near the case here. If you really need guidance on "proper disciplinary channels", refer to Resolving user conduct disputes. That is so incredibly premature here that it stuns me that Im even referring to it, but it's a reasonable question. Just because there was a consensus in the past does not mean that there is one now. In fact, thats usually how it works. This article has gotten a lot of attention, both on Wikipedia and in the media. A lot more eyes are on the article, increasing the likelihood of edits and consensus seeking. Rklahn (talk) 01:20, 16 July 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)

I think that West Indian American would be the most accurate description of her ethnicity. Black and Desi mixtures are quite common among West Indians. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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’s a reference to her sleeping with Willy Brown to get ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5FB1:620:21CE:F0BE:373A:E7CF (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

💯 – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It got noticed

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

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

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

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

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

The willful blindness required to still consider the NYT a reliable source makes me fearful for the future. Torriende (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Drmies, actually if you read the intercept article, you'd see what I said has to do with this topic, so don't make baseless attacks like that at me. I purposely based everything I said the Intercept article the sparked this section on the talk page. Capriaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.106.121 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

As it currently exists, this article is a propaganda piece written by a user with a vested interest in making Kamala Harris look as good as possible (a self-proclaimed Democratic activist who gets "sick" at misinformation about her should not be allowed to remove negative information from this article, full stop). Until every single edit from User:Bnguyen1114 is reverted, this article has zero basis for claiming to be even slightly encyclopedic. Allowing a "quarantine project" that is clearly an attempt to whitewash Kamala Harris to stand is utterly outrageous. This page is propaganda written by a Democratic party activist, nothing more. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is pretty bad. A lot of content has been removed, and I'm surprised it took this long to get noticed. Here's a net diff of all the changes made since the user in question started editing: Special:Diff/952562673/cur. Some are worth keeping, and other edits have been made, so it's not as easy as just reverting everything, but it may be easier to revert and add back in relevant changes. Across over 500 edits, it'd be a lot of work to vet each one individually vs just do it that way. There were numerous good edits, as well. The majority of edits by others were ultimately minor edits, so on balance, I think just reverting everything and readding the changes is a much faster option. Just to add, the user did make good edits, and a lot of the reorganisation is helpful, but since they made so many changes and removals it's hard to tell what's good and what isn't. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've made the revert, for the reasons in this statement and in Drmies'. Over 30k characters were added back in as a result. The revert I've done was rather far back (to the diff I listed in my prev comment). I compared changes from that to the revert Drmies did not too long ago, and even in that range a lot of content was removed and small changes made to remove criticism, so I felt that wasn't enough. I will add clearly legitimate contributions back in, mainly from other editors, but I probably don't have the time to vet each single change by Bnguyen1114. I suspect many were good, but I saw too many which removed legitimate content or criticism, and we cannot, especially in this time, have such an important page which has been puffered up sitting around on the wiki. This is a very bold and not-ideal solution, but it's ultimately necessary and the fastest solution to get back to a stable page. I hope other editors can help vet those other changes, so we can add some of those back in as well. I must also note the associated pages which must be checked, Political positions of Kamala Harris, for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You guys are really f*****g this all up. Shows Wikipedia for what it truly is, a Democratic Party mouthpiece. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you want to build an encylopedia. Kindly take your rage elsewhere. Cpotisch (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I re-added the info critical of Harris removed by Bnguyen weeks ago, though the promotional language remains. Then I requested that the article be bumped to EC protection. These editors are clearly affiliated with Harris, and are literally destroying the article. Cpotisch (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Strangely, Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge of Wikipedia.

These editors are clearly affiliated with Harris That's a strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. You DO have the slightest shred of evidence for this claim, correct? --Calton | Talk 02:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident. The thread is Bnguyen1114 and Kamala Harris. --Pudeo (talk) 23:57, 7 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.[3] 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.[4] 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)

There is no mention of SESTA or sex workers or Backpage on the Political positions of Kamala Harris article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I did the Backpage article on the main one. Feel free to add the SESTA entry to her political positions page; be sure to include her history of protecting sex workers as DA (she was first to establish a safe house for former teenage sex workers with an anti-human trafficking advocates, declined to prosecute workers while aggressively going after johns, and very aggressively moved against human traffickers and sex traffickers as attorney general. I have some articles if you're interested. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your entire framing here is *exremely* biased! The claim that not prosecuting sex workers while at the same time aggressively going after "johns" (POV language, by the way) "protects" sex workers is the basis for the "End Demand" or "Nordic model", which is an extremely controversial approach to prostitution law and does not have the level of support you seem to think it does. It's an approach that's supported by some European governments, and in the US by some feminists, prosecutors, and parts of the law enforcement community. It has near-universal opposition among sex workers themselves and is increasingly rejected by the human rights, civil liberties, and public health community - Amnesty International has takin a position opposing the "Nordic model" and supporting full decriminalization.

I am interested in the articles you have in mind, as I want this section to be properly sourced. However, I think it absolutely needs to be properly balanced and adhere to WP:NPOV, so support for her End Demand policies should be noted along with criticism of them. What is not is OK is to make a claim that Harris "protected" sex workers by aggressively going after "johns" and then present this full stop as evidence of her support for sex workers. That's POV pushing, in my estimation. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

Following the facts and evidence like any other case

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

NedFausa, The Hill is a tabloid with a long history of publishing any old crap. Guy (help!) 23:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, thank you for your succinct explanation. I have removed the disputed content from the article space. We certainly don't want "any old crap" in there. NedFausa (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard this opinion of The Hill before... Natureium (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's why it's so helpful to have an administrator's guidance. There's really no substitute for the blunt instrument an admin brings to bear. NedFausa (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Natureium, seriously? Have you not? There are two serious issues with it.

One is the fact that it hired John Solomon, and put hi in a position effectively isolated from editorial oversight. Solomon is the guy who mainstreamed the Kremlin's Ukraine conspiracy theory. Finkelstein, the owner, is putting his thumb on the scales in favour of Trump, and his wife is reportedly friendly with Melania. So there's that.

But the more serious problem is that The Hill contains two different kinds of story, and we don't distinguish between them. One kind is the regular business of DC sports reporting - ball by ball commentary on the circus in Congress. That tends to elevate the trivial and contribute to the culture of permanent outrage. The other kind of content is op-eds, which are largely uncensored. It fulfils a valuable role in publishing the views of numerous partisans, but that publication should not be interpreted as imbuing those views with any factual merit.

So you have to handle with care. It's a reliable source for "X said Y", but only when it's a staff writer or X themselves. It's not a source for significance of anything, and unless it's the editorial staff and not John Solomon or someone nobbled by Finkelstein is also can't be taken as a source of fact. Guy (help!) 10:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Much to my chagrin, following this discussion I found no fewer than seven remaining references to The Hill in Kamala Harris.

• Kamala Harris: 'Make no mistake — this is a Muslim ban'
• Kamala Harris grills Homeland Security secretary on separating parents from kids at border
• Harris wants Barr to testify on Mueller report as 2020 Dems call for its release
• Harris: I believe Barr 'intended to mislead' on Mueller's report
• Harris calls for judicial nominee freeze during impeachment trial
• Kamala Harris on 2020 presidential bid: 'I'm not ruling it out'
• Clyburn urges Biden to pick black woman as running mate: 'African American women need to be rewarded' for loyalty

Naturally, adhering to the example of administrator JzG, I affixed a {better source} tag at the end of each such reference. We must not be satisfied with "any old crap" in this BLP of a prominent American politician. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am questioning the labeling of The Hill as unreliable. Ad Fontes Media has a different take than many of you. The have it in the Most Reliable sources, barely skewed to the right of center.

• "The Media Bias Chart". Ad Fontes Media. 2020-06-19. Retrieved 2020-07-04. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Peaceray (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am making my way through the citations you have listed above. Please explain what you find to be unreliable in them. Peaceray (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The first one is a blog, so fair game to remove. I see nothing that is not accurate in the other citations. Peaceray (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm afraid you're missing the point. A particular story does not have to be unreliable. After all, the quotation above where Harris said her decision was based on following "the facts and the evidence...like any other case" is entirely accurate. What makes these sources unacceptable is the fact that, as we have been advised by administrator JzG, The Hill is a tabloid with a long history of publishing any old crap. (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And I am challenging that. I do not know what the reputation the paper had, but the web site now has a different reputation. One administrator does not make policy. Please tell me what makes JzG's opinion better than Ad Fontes Media? @JzG:, please feel free to weigh in on sources that indicate that thehill.com is currently disreputable. They may have had some problems in the past, but I have been following them a lot when they are referenced out of Google News. I have found them balanced, & I tend to be leftist. Peaceray (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right manner or venue to be having this discussion, but FWIW while I've always thought of The Hill as being tabloid-esque and certainly not the best source, it's not unreliable for basic facts about what a politician said or similar. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

PrimaPrime, it is fine to establish what a politician said, but not to establish its significance - hence for any contentious BLP claim, I want another source that assesses the significance of the thing.

The Hill is, among other things, a blow-by-blow account of every spat in Washington. It is like toddler with no object permanence: things happen, and when they are shown to be trivial or misunderstood, The Hill has already moved on to the next drama. It can be entertaining and sometimes it can break real news but much more often it's just like the guy on Facebook telling you the latest thing the various warring factions said, with little or no analysis. Guy (help!) 09:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators do not get to decide what passes and doesn't pass Wikipedia sourcing muster by executive fiat - not that JzG was trying to that. I've never thought of the Hill as patently unreliable, and if that argument is going to be made it should be had on the reliable sources noticeboard before we disregard it here. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Peaceray, The Hill is not unreliable as such, but a huge chunk of what it publishes is partisan op-eds, and it has a tendency to both-sidesism. It's basically a DC gossip sheet, and I want a better source for anything even remotely contentious. Guy (help!) 09:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I object to the idea that Wikipedia should reject or downgrade a source simply because a single editor holds the opinion that it's unreliable or inadequate. The content of op-eds is not evidence of bias in news coverage. The Hill is well-regarded in the DC political community. JTRH (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

JTRH, so go with the fact that they hired John Solomon, gave him a p[latform for his conspiracist bullshit, and leant on the staff to skew stories in line wihtt he proprietor's preferences.

Or read what I actually wreote, and make a diostinction between staff pieces and contributor blogs. Guy (help!) 22:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. I would ask you to provide evidence, but apparently someone has unilaterally decided to remove it as a source for this article, so there's no point in arguing it further. JTRH (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

It's a WP:POINTY reaction to this. Leijurv (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Yes, I believe this demonstrates that my assessment ^^ is accurate :) Leijurv (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Attendance

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

Per WP policy you were correct to remove that edit. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. My addition meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. It has a "neutral point of view." It is not biased, it is accurate, it is sourced. Although there is "salvageable text," User Neutrality failed to improve it; instead Neutrality simply deleted the entire section. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. "Member participation" or "voting participation" (percentage of roll call votes for which a position is recorded) is a standard metric of performance of a member of Congress. "Congressional Quarterly" (CQ) regularly compiles and reports it. It is a neutral, objective benchmark that is highly relevant to understanding the performance of a U.S. senator. "CQ" has compiled and published this metric for every member of Congress for around 70 years. If I had access to the "CQ" database or access to a public library right now, I would cite to the "CQ" "member participation" statistic, but GovTrack.us is reputable and objective. Senator Harris has skipped nearly one-quarter of all votes since she entered the Senate. She has a 23% absentee rate. That fact merits inclusion in a Wikipedia article about a U.S. senator. It's neutral and objective. Any reasons why Senator Harris fails to show up for Senate roll call votes is a secondary issue. Users Neutrality and Gandydancer and anyone else should explain why this objective benchmark does not belong in this article, citing exact Wikipedia policies. After 24 hours, I intend to restore this section to what I originally posted or with substantially similar material. Jab73 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You are under the misapprehension that a source guarantees inclusion. But "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (WP:ONUS). And, of course, you must not "restore the section after 24 hours" since it has been challenged and you lack consensus. Neutrality^talk 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't see a consensus for this addition. Her attendance record would have to be particularly notable compared to other senators, as established by reliable secondary sources. Just because a random factoid is true doesn't mean it merits inclusion. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that is not worth mentioning in the article. As far as I can tell, her missed votes record is comparable to that of other presidential candidates. If we were to include this, I would want to see at least a couple of secondary sources that emphasize it. - MrX 🖋 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

We should omit it unless it has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I see it differently. Every article about every hamlet in the world includes basic information about population, area, climate, etc. We don't exclude that data unless it is outside the norms and specifically covered as such. I think attendance record is almost as basic a data item as age, term and political party. We should be working to include it for every elected official. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Our inclusion criteria are significantly more relaxed for geographical articles (see WP:GAZ) than for biographical articles. - MrX 🖋 15:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia articles about hamlets should contain the basic information available in tertiary sources such as gazetteers. As the policy I linked to explains, tertiary sources may be helpful in evaluating due weight. Their authors decide the key facts that are important about each hamlet. But there is lots of basic information that they omit which nonetheless there may be figures for, such as number of nail salons, people who have masters' degrees, people who have cable tv. While all this information may be important to some people, the authors have decided that it lacks relevance for the average reader. You would have to show that directories of politicians routinely list attendance records in order to include it. I would guess that while most articles about hamlets have the information you mention, most articles about politicians do not list attendance records. The article on Mike Pence for example does not mention his Senate attendance record, although he is President of the Senate. And it's probably much lower than Harris. TFD (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added this text to the "U.S. Senate" section of the article:

"Attendance Record

Harris has one of the worst attendance records among sitting U.S. senators. As of July 2020, Harris missed 23.2 percent of roll call votes (269 of 1,157 roll call votes) since her Senate tenure began, according to GovTrack: "This is much worse than the median of 1.7% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving."[273] As of July 2020, ProPublica found that Harris had missed 47.8 percent of votes during the 116th Congress, making her "the 4th most absent member of the Senate."[274]

[reference 273] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678 Retrieved July 7, 2020.

[reference 274] https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/H001075/votes-missed/116 Retrieved July 7, 2020."

This section discusses a standard, objective benchmark used to evaluate performance of members of Congress across time: "voting participation"/"missed votes," calculated as a percentage of missed votes over a certain time period. The claims are verifiable, accurate, and not from original research, but rather analyses by two reputable sources: GovTrack.us and ProPublica. As discussed above, ideally "Congressional Quarterly" statistics on "voting participation" (a times series for members of Congress that extends back to the 1940s) would be cited, but I am not a "CQ" data subscriber and I cannot access "CQ" reference books at a public library at this time due to their COVID-19 closures. This particular "missed votes"/"voting participation" benchmark has salience with Senator Harris because of her chronic absenteeism. The facts that a senator has missed nearly half of all roll call votes during the current Congress and nearly one-quarter of all roll call votes since that senator entered the Senate belong in a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Excuses for absences might require additional explanation, but that is not an acceptable reason to strike entirely from a Wikipedia article all evidence about a standard benchmark used to evaluate current and former members of Congress. Attendance/Missed Votes/Voting Participation is as important to understanding a senator as "Committee Assignments" are, especially when a senator has skipped nearly one-fourth of all roll call votes during her Senate tenure. Jab73 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the prior discussion, the WP:ONUS is still on you to develop consensus for this change before implementing it. You have yet to substantiate why Harris's attendance record is particularly noteworthy compared to other senators, based on coverage in reliable secondary sources. That she is guilty of "chronic absenteeism" is your personal opinion, and mere aggregators of primary data like GovTrack do not impute notability. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Neutrality needs to explain why he/she removed this entire section in its entirety, pouncing a mere 14 minutes after it was posted and without offering any justification for a 100% reversion on this Talk page. PrimaPrime needs to explain why GovTrack.us and ProPublica are not reliable sources. Attendance/Voting Participation/Missed Votes is a standard performance metric of a member of Congress. A Wikipedia article about a city should exclude data about population density or racial composition or average income just because another Wikipedia editor objects? In order to state the height of Mount Denali in feet/meters, must a Wikipedia editor cite not only U.S. Geological Survey reports, but also "reliable secondary sources" like the "Anchorage News" and the "Fairbanks Miner" newspapers? "Voting Participation"/"Missed Votes" is a standard benchmark and is salient because Senator Harris has low voting participation and a high percentage of missed votes. I suspect that 99 out of 100 American political science professors would agree that "voting participation/missed votes" belongs in a Wikipedia article, especially one about a U.S. senator who has skipped nearly one-fourth of all roll call votes during his/her Senate career. I have not proposed the term "chronic absenteeism" for inclusion in the text of the article, but it's a fair assessment when a senator has missed nearly one-quarter of all roll call votes during his or her entire tenure in Congress. Jab73 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You're free to disagree, but the policies and guidelines are clear. Take WP:BRD. You were bold and added information on Harris's attendance record, which you were allowed to do. Neutrality disagreed and reverted your edit, which they were also allowed to do, and asked instead for a discussion on the talk page. A discussion was held and a consensus developed against inclusion. Consensus can change, but the WP:ONUS is on you to seek that out before re-adding the edits in question.

As for your analogy about geographical data, this has also been addressed above; see WP:GAZ. The problem is not that GovTrack is an unreliable source, it's that reliability is different from notability. There are lots of facts that can be verified, but it doesn't mean all of them belong on a page. What you are being asked to do is provide secondary sources (such as news articles) which discuss her attendance record as being particularly noteworthy compared to other senators. Your opinion on its importance, or the imagined opinions of experts, are not relevant. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

PrimaPrime requests "secondary sources (such as news articles) which discuss her attendance record as being particularly noteworthy compared to other senators." Here are several:

(1) San Francisco Chronicle: "Kamala Harris among three 2020 candidates who have missed half of Senate votes": https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-among-three-2020-candidates-who-14501334.php

(2) San Francisco Chronicle: "Kamala Harris has missed plenty of votes while campaigning. She’s not alone": https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-has-missed-plenty-of-votes-while-14301072.php

(3) Bay Area News Group (San Jose Mercury News): "Kamala Harris is skipping Senate votes while running for president — and she’s not the only one": https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/18/kamala-harris-cory-booker-president-missed-votes/

(4) Associated Press: "Harris, Booker miss most votes of senators running in 2020": https://apnews.com/99dfefcf794b40fe8fe94ec239ce388f

(5) Politico: "Harris skips vote on California disaster aid to campaign for president": https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/04/harris-skips-disaster-relief-vote-to-campaign-1253798

(6) Washington Examiner: "Kamala Harris, who clamped down on truancy in California, missed half her Senate votes": https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kamala-harris-who-clamped-down-on-truancy-in-california-missed-half-her-senate-votes

I intend to restore the "Attendance" subsection after 24 hours to allow a consensus possibly to develop. User Neutrality and other users should not be deleting material without providing a justification on this Talk page. Jab73 (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a start; however, as you have been reverted twice now, you should not unilaterally make these edits again without seeking a consensus first. PrimaPrime (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Jab73, I’ve already explained by reasoning above, so please don’t make mischaracterizations. As for the news articles, they all appear to be very similar to the Mercury News article I identified above. I don’t think it’s noteworthy in the context of an encyclopedia article. They basically boil down to “senators running for presidency, including Harris, miss a bunch of votes, but their absence did not affect the outcome of any measure.” Neutrality^talk 13:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a perennial and pithy critique leveled at pretty much every Senator that runs for president, D and R alike, rarely rising to a noteworthy criticism. Leave it out, imo. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I am restoring the text, "Harris was absent from the Senate for most of 2019. She missed 62 percent of all votes (265 of 428 votes), making her the "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators."". The fact is that Senator Harris skipped 62% of votes in 2019. This single fact arguably is the best summary of her role in the U.S. Senate in 2019. She simply was not present for the Senate's essential business for the vast majority of 2019. This fact merits inclusion in the section about Harris's work as a U.S. Senator in 2019. Any explanation for her missing 62% of votes in 2019 can be added in a second sentence or in a clause, which ValarianB is welcome to do. Missing a couple of votes is minor; unexcused absence for more than three-fifths of all votes in an entire year is noteworthy. Harris's absence from the Senate for most of 2019 was noted in contemporary reliable sources, including this Stanford University analysis from August 2019: https://www.hoover.org/research/misses-almost-45-votes-and-still-earns-full-salary-why-would-kamala-harris-ever-want-leave As the "2019" section currently is written, it focuses almost exclusively on Harris's public demands that presidential administration officials should resign, giving them undue weight. The reader ought to know that she skipped 62% of Senate votes that year. Jab73 (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop trying to turn this article into an attack page, and please make an effort at getting consensus for any of your changes. Volunteer Marek 08:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Jab73, please stop repeatedly adding disputed content to the article against consensus. PrimaPrime (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I request that User Volunteer Marek immediately explain why he/she removed this text in its entirety: "Harris was absent from the Senate for most of 2019. She missed 62 percent of all votes (265 of 428 votes), making her the "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators." User "Volunteer Marek" offered no explanation and no good-faith effort to reach consensus, but instead posted this threat in Revision History: "Naw. Your edits do not have consensus and you’re very close to violating BLP at this point". I request that User "Volunteer Marek" explain how I'm "very close to violating BLP" as I am doing my best to reach consensus. User "Volunteer Marek" states above on this Talk page section, "Please stop trying to turn this article into an attack page." I demand that "Volunteer Marek" explain how this true, relevant statement, corroborated by several reliable sources, "Harris was absent from the Senate for most of 2019. She missed 62 percent of all votes (265 of 428 votes), making her the "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators" is unjustified. I intend to restore this text and references and add a sentence explaining how Sen. Harris skipped a major vote concerning California disaster aid in 2019, with this reliable source as a reference: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/04/harris-skips-disaster-relief-vote-to-campaign-1253798. As written right now, the "2019" section of this article gives undue weight to Harris's demands that various presidential administration officials should resign. The fact that Harris skipped 62% of Senate votes in 2019 is more meritorious of inclusion in a Wikipedia article about Senator Harris. Editors do not have a right to scrub from an article about a U.S. senator the established fact the senator skipped 62% of votes in a particular year. I'm willing to escalate this through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Jab73 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

With some hesitation, Im going to jump in here. In full disclosure, Im involved in a talk section with both Jab73 and Volunteer Marek on another section on this same page. I would like to make my comment without reference to particular editors, but I find I must. Jab73 you are making edits to sections under active discussion on the talk page, and flirting close to the edge of WP:5P4. You should avoid making edits on subjects that are seeking or have achieved consensus. I think making demands of other editors at this point is unprovoked and unreasonable. You are, of course, free to go to the dispute resolution process, but I think thats premature. Volunteer Marek clearly you are provoking a reaction, intentionally or not. I don't have any objection to the two edits I have seen, but it might be better to avoid this area until cooler heads prevail. Rklahn (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for this content. The reason why it's undue weight has been explained extensively here, by about six editors. That you have continuously inserted this against consensus is disruption. That you have made "demands" of other editors is similarly disruptive. Both behaviors violate the encyclopedia's policies on user conduct. Neutrality^talk 22:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the WP policy WP:WEIGHT,

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

The disputed text is, "Harris was absent from the Senate for most of 2019. She missed 62 percent of all votes (265 of 428 votes), making her the "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators."

User:Jab73 gave 6 WP:RSs that discuss Harris' attendance. I did a Google search for "Kamala Harris Senate attendance" and found many more.

It's not a critique aimed at every Senator who runs for office, because Harris had missed more votes than most of the other Senators. The WP:RSs point that out, which gives it WP:WEIGHT and makes it notable.

According to WP:CONSENSUS, Consensus is not a majority vote:

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

It seems clear to me that the disputed text meets WP:WEIGHT, and therefore, following WP policy, belongs in the article. It seems to me that it meets Consensus, even if it doesn't have a majority vote, because we have attempted to address all editors' legitimate concerns, and it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I'm mainly concerned with the integrity of the WP editing process. It seems that, in this and other candidate pages, a group of editors who favor a candidate could easily get a majority of editors on a page to delete negative information about the candidate, even though that information is well-represented in WP:RSs.

You could say that Jab73 doesn't have consensus to include it, or you could say that the other editors don't have consensus to delete it. I think Jab73's 6 citations should weigh more heavily in the consensus than the argument, "You don't have consensus because 6 of us voted against consensus" (which seems to be the main argument against it). WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't count in consensus votes.

Could someone explain to me why WP:WEIGHT doesn't apply in this case? --Nbauman (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

When it is one against many, the onus is on the one to make their case. Thus far, this user has not done so. This is a routine criticism levied at every Senator who runs for president... Marco Rubio, 2016, Rubio again, but also covers Obama and Clinton McCain 2008, Sanders and Cruz, 2016, and so on. Routine political cycles. ValarianB (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's more than one among many. Several people want it in. Several WP:RS have reported it.

I'm making the case. I think the policy WP:WEIGHT applies. What Wikipedia policies or guidelines can you give to argue that it doesn't apply? --Nbauman (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines, you say? That a consensus Wikipedia editors feel it gives undue weight to a minor, trivial, and routine criticism. The proposer of this addition frequently invokes the language "Restoring X" or "I intend to restore X", and acting as a one-man army looks like a battleground approach to editing, which can, if prolonged, be viewed as disruptive. ValarianB (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added this text to the "2019" section of the article, with citations to reliable sources: "In 2019, Harris missed 61.9 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes), as she prioritized her presidential campaign above her official Senate duties." As I have stated above, "voting participation" / "missed votes" is an objective performance benchmark of a member of Congress. See, e.g., the "Congressional Quarterly" "voting participation" metrics that "CQ" has compiled for every member of Congress since the late 1940s (data time series covering thousands of members of Congress and extending over 70 years). Harris missed three out of every five votes in 2019. That is a fact. Other Wikipedia editors simply want to conceal this pertinent, well-documented, and relevant fact. Please add an explanation or a clarification, but don't remove this relevant fact for some unstated or bogus reason. It is not "a minor, trivial, and routine criticism." If you were paid for 52 weeks of work, but showed up for work just 20 weeks, and then said, "You should pay me for the 32 weeks that I was absent without leave because I was out looking for a better job," isn't that noteworthy? I added the second clause because other editors said that Harris' high absence rate require explanation. As it currently is written the entire "2019" section gives undue weight, with excessive detail, to instances wherein Harris criticized members of the presidential administration. I believe that I am following Wikipedia best practices in explaining my reasoning, which is well-grounded in reliable sources and scholarly practices for evaluating performance of members of Congress. Jab73 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What reliable source says "she prioritized her presidential campaign above her official Senate duties"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, removed. There is no support for what is essentially a piece of trivial errata. ValarianB (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with ValarianB. Prejudicial when brought up out of context. This is common among members of both parties in both houses when running for higher office. Procedures exist in both houses to minimize its impact. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, opinion page, or attack piece. Rklahn (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Marijuana

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

It says, in total:

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

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

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

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

Harris oversaw more than 1,900 marijuana convictions in San Francisco, previously unreported records from the DA’s office show. Her prosecutors appear to have convicted people on marijuana charges at a higher rate than under her predecessor, based on data about marijuana arrests in the city.

But former lawyers in Harris’ office and defense attorneys who worked on drug cases say most defendants arrested for low-level pot possession were never locked up. And only a few dozen people were sent to state prison for marijuana convictions under Harris’ tenure....

Still, advocates wonder why it took so long for the California senator to come out in support of marijuana legalization. She actively fought a ballot measure for recreational pot in 2010...

Harris publicly came out for legalizing marijuana only in May 2018, after she was widely considered a likely presidential contender....

When it came to the fight for legalization, “she was nowhere, zilch, nada, no help,” said Tom Ammiano, a former San Francisco supervisor and assemblyman who has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for president....

“Kamala Harris and I disagreed on a lot of criminal justice issues, but I have to admit, she was probably the most progressive prosecutor in the state at the time when it came to marijuana,” Solis said.

Not all defense attorneys agree. J. David Nick...

“Just because you didn’t rot your life away in prison doesn’t mean it wasn’t a big deal to get a conviction,” said Dale Sky Jones, a Bay Area marijuana activist. “Your ability to keep your job, get another job or get housing with that conviction on your record is all hurt by that.”

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

The issues of exculpatory evidence are written in precise legal language that describes what happened in court proceedings. I know this because I reviewed all of them in detail. If accuracy is your concern, you should probably question why Professor Bazelon felt the need to embellish her criticisms with respect to the wrongful conviction cases, such as the 2014 Carney appeal or the Gage case. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, could you give your 2-3 best examples of this article's "news stories that are essentially press releases"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I changed "never charged with a crime" to "not sent to prison,"[5] since the source says "never locked up." Defendants are by definition people charged with crimes. Unfortunately the source is not clear whether that decision was made by Harris' staff or the courts. TFD (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

All due respect, NBauman, it is important to be precise and accurate in describing what happened in certain cases. What you deem irrelevant may not be factual. And I took exquisite pains to ensure everything I wrote was legally and factually accurate, every time. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Lots of people think that their work is legally and factually accurate, but since they often come to different conclusions, they can't all be right. Bazelon is a law professor and NYT contributor, and her work is reviewed by editors, which makes her a WP:RS. You are, like the rest of us, an anonymous Wikipedia contributor, which makes your efforts WP:OR. According to Wikipedia guidelines, we should take Bazelon's opinions over yours. Sorry.

And on the merits of it, I don't think your description of Harrison's critics is good legal writing, because you mention Bazelon but don't include her supporting arguments. --Nbauman (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I just read the case. (BTW, in Wikipedia, you should add your comments to the end of a section, not the middle.)

You're right. It doesn't matter what you think or what I think. What matters is what Bazelon, a WP:RS thinks. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html She wrote "that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence," and that Gage couldn't bring it up again because, while acting as his own lawyer, he hadn't raised the issue in lower court. Bazelon is a defense attorney. She thinks that, whatever the court decided, it's an injustice to convict Gage when the prosecutor withheld evidence. That's what a WP:RS says in support of her position and I think it should have been included in the article. And I think it's bad legal writing not to include it. --Nbauman (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The quality of opinion pieces published in the NYT is generally very good, but it is still Bazelon's opinion and not the only RS that matters. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Here's another press release. https://www.drugpolicy.org/press-release/2017/07/senator-cory-booker-introduces-marijuana-legalization-bill-focused-racial The problem with press releases is that they are inherently one-sided and flattering. Which is the problem with this entire Wikipedia article.--Nbauman (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are .gov/WP:PRIMARY sources and a fairly gushing article. Sources to be used with caution, but not necessarily useless, it depends on how they are used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:PrimaPrime, Bazelon is a WP:RS, and her opinions are one of the viewpoints we should include under WP:NPOV. I would be happy to include Bazelon's opinion of Harris, along with another WP:RS legal scholar who disagrees. I don't want to see Bazelon's opinion truncated to the point where the reader doesn't know the meaningful point she was getting at. And I don't want to see a Wikipedia editor's WP:OR summary of a court case. --Nbauman (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I have added the NPOV tag because well-sourced negative information has been removed from this article by a Democratic activist (likely in order to whitewash Kamala Harris' image) and traces of said activists' edits remain through the lengthy, expository defenses of Harris' positions. Example: a one-sentence mention of her defending the death penalty in court in 2014, contrasted with extensive discussions of alternatives to the death penalty mentioned in her press relases. There is a clear agenda to make Kamala Harris look good in preparation for a potential running mate announcement, as evidenced by the editor saying "misinformation" about Harris made him "sick". The NPOV tag should be kept until the article is reverted to its pre-whitewash state.PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'm somewhat tempted to roll the article completely back to before one editor with very strong political ties to the subject started a massive series of changes. This would bring us back to April of this year. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose rollback. @Jpgordon: I for one (and I'm by no means alone) have worked very hard to repair damage caused by the activist and to otherwise improve this BLP since he recused himself from active editing. Your proposed rollback would take a meat cleaver to a page that is undergoing reconstructive surgery. Please resist your temptation unless there is clear consensus endorsing your draconian approach. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry; I've been editing here long enough to know that such an act without consensus would be a terrible thing to do. I'm just expressing frustration. This was a pretty good article before a loyalist supporter decided to turn it into a campaign biography. (For what it's worth, I'm a big supporter too, which is why I haven't done much on the article itself.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Intercept article made a lot of damaging insinuations unsupported by facts. Not everyone removing information from a politician's biography is conflicted or working on that politician's behalf. Political biographies tend to have a lot of excessive details added by editors who care strongly about political issues. This article has suffered from that problem for years (and you can find many past talk page discussions about that in the archives). The article does need to be trimmed down. That process will sometimes involve editors removing information that others find significant. When that happens, we should calmly discuss on the talk page rather than looking to conspiracy theories. It's bad enough that the Intercept misunderstood Wikipedia and didn't bother to get all the facts. We here on Wikipedia should know better.

If there are specific facts that should be added back to the article, we can discuss. This article is the product of the work of many editors, not just one. Knope7 (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that User:NedFausa has done, but when I review the article (I was just checking the Marijuana section), there is so much detail that would take so long to fact-check that I don't think an incremental approach is possible. The section misses the main point -- the debates over marijuana and which side Harris was on -- and instead is filled with trivia of efforts that sound good but really didn't get anywhere. The critical question is, when Harris could have made a difference in marijuana prosecutions, did she do it? (And is she a hypocrite for smoking marijuana herself while she prosecuted others?) he best way to edit it would be to blank the whole Marijuana section and start over, with just a few good sources.

I remember when I was working for a science publication, and I wrote a story. My editor read it, and said, "Rewrite it. Don't just touch it up. Rewrite it from scratch." And I did. That was good advice.

That's how I think this entry should be rewritten. Blank it and start again from scratch. And I think it would be easier than trying to copy edit it. But that's just what I would do. I'm not pushing for it. --Nbauman (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are absolutely the wrong questions for the subsection. It falls under political positions and so that is what that subsection needs to stick to: presenting Harris' political position on cannabis. Knope7 (talk)

In any case, remember that that the "Political positions" page also exists, following the standard procedure for politicians' pages that get too long. It was rewritten by the same user to move content from that section to Harris' biography when it seemed more relevant or redundant with information already there, but anyone suspecting bias in the main page should also look over the secondary pages as well. 2601:482:8000:C470:D1B7:5187:6B96:63E5 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(User talk:2601:482:8000:C470:D1B7:5187:6B96:63E5) You seem to be a single-purpose account with only 3 contributions, all to the Kamala Harris page. What gives? Are you a new editor, with only 3 contributions? If so, how do you know about "Political positions" pages? If not, are you also editing under another name? --Nbauman (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The "it's POV complaint" seems to boil down to "this is the attack page I was looking for! Therefore it's POV!". I'm removing the tag as spurious. Volunteer Marek 06:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I hate writing "me too" comments, but I agree with User:Volunteer Marek on this. Dare I say it? The page has become political, in a high profile way. I think there should be consensus before adding the POV tag in the future. Rklahn (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you, but I'm also not really willing to die on this hill. Honestly I just hope we can get this page back to where it was and wish everyone the best in improving it. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Article is coming off as merely a "Puff piece" than anything encyclopedic

Just read through the entire article and it is far too long with far too many recent edits added which appear to be by mostly one "editor". Wikipedia can do much better than this. Would it be too much to ask just to revert the article to what it was two years ago with a few exceptions for Senator Harris' run for the Democratic nomination, and then have some balanced and reasonable edits going forward by more than just one prolific editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:97D3:F5D1:25AC:1EB2:E932 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward with NPOV issues

Re. It got noticed, I can only see two options going forward: vet all changes made, and modify the article from the state it was left in to address neutrality and content removal concerns; or revert to the pre-changes state and add in changes as appropriate. I'm starting this discussion to see which people would prefer. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Revert and re-add: I feel it's better to revert to Special:Diff/952562673/cur and re-add changes as necessary. The issue isn't just the blanking of complete sections. There's smaller changes, as well, which aid in puffery, remove critical statements, and even small critical words. I think there are serious NPOV issues here that are going to be an incredible amount of work to address in any other way. The issue extends to the Political positions of Kamala Harris article as well, where the political positions section of this article was selectively moved. I did boldly attempt to make this change, but in hindsight I agree with NedFausa for pointing out there should probably be a consensus on which option to go for before making such a large alteration. I appreciate that work has already been done on the vet and modify option, but I don't see how each change can be properly addressed with this, and ultimately I think it'd be a greater waste of everyone's time if following through with this option takes more time than the alternative. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Revert and re-add: I agree with the comment above. We need to maintain NPOV.—Beneficii (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Revert and re-add: for all the reasons stated above. This isn't a page or website meant to promote only the good and safe versions of people, especially politicians.TropicAces (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

• OPPOSE Revert and re-add: ProcrastinatingReader presents us with a false dichotomy—either "vet all changes made and modify the article from the state it was left in" or destroy the countless good faith contributions by me and numerous other editors to mitigate damage done by a fanboy. A third option (and there are likely others as well) is to continue repairing this BLP as we have done since 2 July 2020, when The Intercept exposé dropped. That does not require vetting all changes made by the fanboy. Rather, it involves closely scrutinizing our article as it now stands and making changes as justified by WP policies/guidelines and with consensus by interested editors. As I wrote here earlier today, a draconian rollback would take a meat cleaver to a page that is undergoing reconstructive surgery. Please, let's not succumb to impatience in some mad rush to mollify The Intercept. NedFausa (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  This isn't about The Intercept. Anyone looking at the revision history of this article could've seen this. They just happened to realise before one of us did, apparently. That third option is the second option, you're just stating that you're already in the process of doing said option hence we shouldn't revert. That's a fine statement, but there is no "false dichotomy" here. But, this article is 70k characters of readable prose in size, not including the text moved to Political positions of Kamala Harris. Including that, we're talking about 90k characters. It's an enormous article. GA/FA reviews of articles of this size take long enough, how are we going to vet each sentence across 90k characters for neutrality? How long will that take? Meanwhile, are readers going to see this scrubbed version? There are little edits made as well, removing things like "Harris was criticised for her view in ___" changed to "Harris was reported to be ___". The undertaking required to fix this article will be huge. I appreciate you've invested time in this already, but given that almost all of the content edits over the last few months were made by this one user, reverting it would've been more practical to do without excessive loss of content, and doing it now may be the overall greater time saver and result in a better outcome, even despite the time you've already invested in fixing this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Just as a point of curiosity, let me ask why it took four days following The Intercept exposé to bring your meat cleaver to Kamala Harris, which you had never before edited? You could have saved me and numerous other editors a great deal of effort simply by coming here in a timely manner. NedFausa (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about any person's effort -- if it were, we'd simply honor the vast amount of work that has caused the problem. This is about the quality of the article; no reason to personalize the argument. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is a thorny problem, but it is also important to note that POV on high-profile political figures typically comes from both pro- and anti- directions, so that a blanket reversion can end up reintroducing content that really does not belong in the article. Can we get a listing here on the talk page of the most significant specific points that have either been added or removed from the article, and which bear attention? BD2412 T 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Revert and re-add. Too much damage was done to incrementally remove it; it will be much easier to incrementally re-add it. We shouldn't have let it get this far, but I'm not sure there were clear policy-based reasons to get it to stop without the COI being raised externally. Sad thing is, these are good edits done in good faith, just with not enough understanding of what constitutes WP:NPOV and WP:COI. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mount an investigation of prolific user / Revert and re-add: We know that there is a prolific user who has been editing this page. We know that this person almost definitely works for the Kamala Harris campaign. Action should be taken to revert and re-add but we should also call on Wikipedia moderators to mount an investigation into the user. As someone who edits a lot of politicians' pages myself, I know how critical it is that campaigns do not interfere in these matters. We need to send a message that this work by campaigns, the same done by Sarah Palin in 2008 and Tim Kaine in 2016, is unacceptable. Revert and re-add, and mount an investigation. PickleG13 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I personally have no interest in a dramatic 'investigation' here, this is about moving forward with the content issues. The editor in question said they're a regular citizen who had some extra time in lockdown and wanted to spend time building this article, for a candidate they like. I'm happy to AGF unless there's more evidence that comes to light. I feel bad that I'm petitioning to scrap their work (I hope the good parts will be added back in), but it's just necessary at this point. This editor had no ill-intent as far as I can see, it's just an unfortunate series of events. We don't expect new users to read 30 policy pages of 50 paragraphs each, this is why we give talk page warnings, and we tend to give multiple before blocking. Yet, not a single talk page warning for COI/NPOV was given, no attempt to explain to him what he was doing wrong before he spent so much time on this. 300+ editors watchlist this page, almost 200 have viewed recent changes recently, and multiple experienced editors and admins have been involved over 3 months. He was flooding the history of this page, so it's not like it was discreet editing. That editor isn't alone to blame here. That nobody took the time to at least leave a template NPOV/COI warning I view as our collective failure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with you here but apparently to the opposite conclusion. Without a clear reason not to AGF and the fact that the edits were being made openly and generally without objection until The Intercept chose to make a story out of it, I feel that people suddenly jumping in with a desire to to take extreme action is inappropriate. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  This isn't about whether they're 'officially connected', regardless of official connection we have in front of us scrubbing of controversial content and rewording of issues to make them appear less problematic. I'm sorry that we're at this stage, but the content of this article matters more than any other issue. We feasibly cannot fix this at "the current pace of change" or even many times the current pace. There's people here who wish to fix this version, but nobody is going to read every sentence of 90k char prose, compare to previous, alter for NPOV. Even if there were, it'd take weeks at least, and we cannot keep this version live that long, especially not at this critical time in US politics. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think Wikipedia should pay heed to outside media speculation, not least because Harris isn't currently on a presidential ticket. And I think there is the potential for a large revert to simply produce the opposite problem of an article littered with overzealous NPOV/UNDUE criticism of Harris. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  The article was relatively stable for a long period of time. No editors other than this one have made major changes since, so any NPOV concerns with that version were addressed solely by this editor, whose edits have NPOV issues of their own, so I don't think that concern is logical. Logically, this version has at least, likely far more, NPOV issues than the old revision. Obviously, we still vet the changes they made and re-add them. It's just much faster to do it this way, rather than try to fix the current version. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this drastic and binary approach being presented after several days of editors working quietly to correct the NPOV issues with this article, and the recusal of the prolific editor in question. Without any proof they are officially connected to Harris, I see no reason not to continue with the current pace of change. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

By all means, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater. NedFausa (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Revert: A large portion of the argument to revert is based on speed. What is unstated, but could be reasonably inferred, is a concern about what state the article would be in when a potential upcoming political announcement is made. I think forgoing the standard revision process to present a particular set of facts at a particular time would be in itself a political move that Wikipedia should have no part in. -- Norvy (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Revert and Readd NPOV must be maintained.XavierGreen (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the fanboy's last edit, and as of 00:17, 7 July 2020‎, 44 unique editors have made a cumulative 162 good-faith contributions to Kamala Harris. (Both totals exclude the aptly named ProcrastinatingReader.) Option Two in effect gives each of us the middle-finger salute. NedFausa (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really; most of the work you have done will probably go right back into the article first thing; why shouldn't it? And please stop personalizing this; it doesn't matter where or why people are now more interested in this article; it also doesn't matter a bean whether your edits, the edits of the other guy, or anyone elses go into the article. It's not about you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- Edit (and discuss when necessary) details that were added or removed that contribute to NPOV allegations instead of taking a sledgehammer to the problem. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose- I don't see much of a defense of the article as it was in April just fear stoked by the Intercept. The article has long had a POV problem in that every criticism that could be lobbed at anyone connected with the California AG's office during Harris tenure would make its way into the article. Unless someone actually wants to investigate and find facts to support actual misconduct, I say let's focus on fixing this article rather than bringing back old problems. Knope7 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Dozens of editors have been working for days to improve this article and the editor who has been criticized in the press has stepped aside for now. Let the normal editing process continue, in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose by my count we are 220 or so edits past Bnguyen's last batch of largest edits around June 12. Lots of good editors have had eyes on it since and continue to do so. Reverting does not make sense at this point; the ship is righted and on course.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Revert and re-add. I don't mind any of the edits I've made being undone. The corresponding original content was even more detailed with a better wording. I disagree with the principle that dates and visibility shouldn't matter when addressing large amounts of edits, because then every corporate PR person looking to push an image of a product on its release date or promotion at an expo will be secure in knowing the edits will be treated like any other edit, but that's a matter for Wikipedia policy. All that matters is in this case the content will be improved. Serpentinite (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - considerable effort has been made by several users to improve the article. Also it has never actually been successfully articulated how and why some of these supposed changes were in violation of policy (it seems they weren't, which is why some editors focused on attacking who made them). Even putting that aside, it makes no sense to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Volunteer Marek 06:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Revert and Re-add - It's quite clear that this article was edited in a severely biased manner and that much material that belonged in the article was removed without good reason. I also support putting on an NPOV tag on the article until some semblance of a consensus version emerges. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

change "(with whom Harris was in a relationship)" to (with whom Harris was in a relationship while he was still married)"

In "Early Career" Kamala was in a relationship with Willie Brown. It should be noted that Mr. Brown was married to Blanche Vitero at the time. He may have been separated from his wife but he was still married.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Brown_(politician) Dynamiteservice (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This has been discussed and rejected before. Please review the previous discussion and seek consensus for this change. - MrX 🖋 00:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicative content added by User:Cpotisch

Cpotisch has, with a single stroke, added 10,201 bytes to Kamala Harris, apparently without even bothering to look at the page to see if that content was already present. This has resulted in duplicative coverage of, for instance, the National Mortgage Settlement, Brown v. Plata, the Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest, Michelle-Lael Norsworthy, and how many other topics I can't bear to count. I've already made one massive reversion today, so I can't undo this mess. But I urge another editor to consider it. NedFausa (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll fix it now. Cpotisch (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You should also probably revert to a prior version while you're identifying the content that's already in the main body of the article, while respecting the removals in the edit history unless you bring them up here. Thank you for your effort. 2601:482:8000:C470:D1B7:5187:6B96:63E5 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what happens when newly arrived editors rush to short-cuts. Oh, yeah, says ProcrastinatingReader, let's add 31,589 bytes. Oh, yeah, says Cpotisch, let's add 10,201‎ bytes. And off they go off to watch from the sidelines, leaving the rest of us to clean up after them. NedFausa (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: "Newly arrived?" I think I've been editing WP for about four years. Anyway, I'm sorry for the mess I made, but I cleaned it all up just now. That said, the (non-duplicate) content I added had been removed without community consensus, so I think the article is now better for it. Cpotisch (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I meant newly arrived to Kamala Harris. That undiscussed addition of 10,201 bytes was your first edit of this article. NedFausa (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Extreme Bias, Orwell-esque excuses, source elitism

1. The Intercept is read by millions. It is a legitimate source who has uncovered some of the most SIGNIFICANT stories since their founding. Those that think commercial enterprises are more trustworthy or significant are forcing wikipedia to reproduce the party line of the very few majority shareholders interest to guide the content of its articles. This makes wikipedia worse.
2. The Hill is a somewhat rightwing news site. But, again, it is read by millions and thus is significant and while its news side pushes click-baity headlines, generally from a rightwing perspective, its news coverage, as opposed to opinion articles are generally considered trustworthy.
3. Kamala Harris' husband's job is absolutely relevant. He is by far the largest income in their household, thus finances much of the Harris' lifestyle, which has been reported widely as extravagant is absolutely relevant to whether Harris has conflicts of interests. To pretend otherwise because "this article is about Kamala," or "its not significant," is to live in the delusional world where politicians family's income streams don't influence them. The public cannot know if a conflict of interest is the reason for any given action that is why is absolutely NECESSARY that they have the information to make the judgement for themselves. If politicians don't like that then don't get involved in financial entanglements where it is not readily obvious to the public whether there is conflict or not.

I am a scientist and I actually used wikipedia a lot in university for chemistry calculations. Seeing how ridiculous the editors are stretching to cover up for Harris' obvious bad acts and questionable decisions here is a real eye opener on how the adage, "don't use wikipedia," is still true. Its sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:527F:8DC0:D9E5:74C4:C2DC:C1F6 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem pretty biased, and therefore probably shouldn’t be editing the page. If there is some sort of political issue with Harris’s husband’s job, income, or her spending, then that’s for journalists to Investigate and write about...it doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia article. Likewise, the page is for a synopsis, not to offer opinions on “questionable decisions.” Davey1107 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This article reads like a campaign site. It needs to honestly demonstrate both positives and negatives or has no value. For example, no Controversy section is listed, and now is even stripped from the talk section. Can you honestly say that as a former Prosecutor and AG, as well as former presidential candidate, she has no issues that are "controversies"? If that is the approach, then the bias in her favor is clear.Bobbysev (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy to avoid Controversy sections. See WP:CRITS. Knope7 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Not policy, but it's generally a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bobbysev: The controversy section that you say has been "stripped" from this talk page dates back three years and was routinely archived after it became stale. It may still be viewed with a single click here. NedFausa (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As a scientist you should realize that when you write an overview of a topic for undergraduates, you summarize the information about the topic that is most typically found in reliable sources. You don't say that the journal of the University of Pig's Knuckle, Iowa is a reliable source therefore we need to add what what Professor X said about quasars. If and when cable news starts reporting on Harris' husband, we'll put it front and center. But we can't provide a different emphasis than they do. Readers come here to read a summary of what they would find if they searched articles about Harris in CNN. If they want the dirt they ignore, they can look elsewhere.

However, if you think this article is more positive about Harris than mainstream media, then explain how and we can try to change it.

TFD (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

May we change the archive period to 15 days?

This page is over 100kB. May we change the archive period to 15 days? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: It's been less than 12 hours since I added auto archiving. The bot hasn't gotten here yet. Please, let's wait and see what happens in the next 12 hours. NedFausa (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Two swipes at the Bar

There have been some recent edits around Sen. Harris not passing the bar on the first attempt. I don't think its WP:NPOV or even WP:WIAE. Many people don't pass the Bar on their first attempt. In California, the pass rate is something like 40%. Both Pete Wilson (Former US Senator) and Jerry Brown (former CA AG) did not pass the bar on their first attempt. Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama did not pass the bar on the first attempt. FDR did not. Its mentioned on all but FDR's page, but I still don't think that makes it relevant. I would revert the edits and not even mention it. Rklahn (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I am restoring the text concerning Harris's failure to pass the California Bar Exam that user Calton removed at 01:10, 10 July 2020. This "Talk" page item "Two swipes at the Bar" was already in existence when Calton made his/her removal, yet Calton failed to discuss his/her removal of the text on this Talk page before eliminating the text. Calton offered no justification for removing the text other than "rm undue detail." That is inadequate. I agree with the comment in the Revision History at 19:45, 9 July 2020‎ by Dchaid : "Re-added failed bar exam as it is not "useless" trivia, this person is a former prosecutor and United States Senator. Furthermore, this fact is encouraging to those who have also failed the bar exam" The assertion is supported by a reputable source, the American Bar Association. See: https://abaforlawstudents.com/2017/06/20/success-after-failing-the-bar-exam/ Jab73 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s undue, as has already been explained. Volunteer Marek 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I intend to restore this text ("After graduating in 1989 Harris failed to pass the California Bar Exam, retrying and succeeding in 1990") after 24 hours with the same three or substantially similar references. In the past few hours, User "Volunteer Marek" has given inadequate justification before he/she deleted this text. A simple statement of "undue" in Revision History is inadequate. User Calton eliminated identical text as "undue detail," with no additional explanation. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight It is not "undue weight" to make a short factual assertion: "After graduating in 1989 Harris failed to pass the California Bar Exam, retrying and succeeding in 1990." This short, seventeen word sentence is not a "viewpoint." It is a concise statement of relevant fact, substantiated by reliable sources including the American Bar Association and New York Times Magazine. This short factual assertion is highly relevant to Harris's career because membership in the State Bar of California was essential to her hiring as Alameda County prosecutor and her eligibility to serve as San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General (a mandatory prerequisite for the political office). Attorney General Jerry Brown was Harris's immediate predecessor. His Wikipedia articles states, "Returning to California, Brown took the state bar exam and passed on his second attempt." What justifies including this relevant fact in the Wikipedia article about Attorney General Jerry Brown, but deliberately excluding it from the Wikipedia article about Attorney General Kamala Harris, his immediate successor? U.S. Senator Pete Wilson from California also failed the California Bar Exam, as stated in his Wikipedia article. Yet Wikipedia is scrubbing Harris's Bar Exam failure from her profile -- what justifies suppression of this relevant fact? Why is Harris's failure of the California Bar Exam judged by a different standard than men who preceded her in the exact same political offices (California Attorney General and California U.S. Senator)? Why give disparate treatment to Senator Harris that is favorable to her? Users Calton and Volunteer Marek do not appear to be engaging in good faith efforts to build consensus. Exclusion of the relevant, undisputed fact that Harris failed the California Bar Exam not only contravenes the basic principles of Wikipedia, but also undermines public credibility of Wikipedia as a neutral, reliable source of information. Therefore, I intend to escalate this to the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process.Jab73 (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the restoration of the text was unwarranted and breaks WP:CON. My recollection, and I could be wrong, is that Calton's edit and my creating of this section were nearly simultaneous. I think Calton's edit is legitimately the status quo. Others commented in this section, and did not feel so moved to restore the bar exam text. Countless others read it and took no action. I don't think the existence of a similar section in others pages is justification for it to be in this page. It's very much a "would you jump off the bridge if everyone else did" argument. I would edit it in the other pages, but lack WP:NPOV. Jerry Brown is a former employer, and my negative views on Pete Wilson make me question my objectivity. I will leave the editing of those pages to others. I get the point that there are strong views here, but isn't reconciling those views the entire point of WP:CON, along with avoiding WP:EW. Dispute Resolution Process if you must, but I think it's premature. Rklahn (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the articles about Hillary Clinton and others. But it is not inherently significant, it depends on the prominence reliable sources give it. So far I don't see that, but it might become important if Harris is nominated for the vice presidency and the media focuses more clearly on her history. Then we we'll have lots of news stories about whether it encourages others or how the hell did she become a prosecutor. It is not up to us to raise these issues in readers' minds, just to report what reliable sources say about what it means. TFD (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is it relevant that she passed on the second try rather than the first? JTRH (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It isn't relevant, unless reliable secondary sources make a point of noting it. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant under most every circumstance. To do so is to point out a prejudicial fact without any context that it's common. Not every fact that can be sourced is WP:WIAE. Im trying to think of exceptions where it might be relevant, and am hard pressed. Maybe multiple failures and becoming Chief Justice or a prominent Associate Justice. In other words, a very high bar. Rklahn (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. She is a person of note and all details related to her professional career are relevant. I am fine with adding context as California had a notoriously difficult bar exam until very recently. Harris has not hid this fact and has actively encouraged burgeoning law graduates to persevere if they fail the bar. Dchaid (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

all details related to her professional career are relevant -- no, that's not at all how it works on Wikipedia. We are not transcribers, we are editors; Wikipedia articles consist of sourced that consensus determines are both relevant and important enough to include. We do not include every detail of anyone's life. How important is it that it took her a couple tries to pass the bar? Not at all; it's a commonplace and says nothing whatsoever about anything. Otherwise, we'd include all sorts of things, every case she was ever on (how many did she lose? How many did she win?), all her professional affiliations, all the speeches she'd given, where she'd given them...No. We pick and choose, and I agree that this particular detail has no special significance. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Dchaid raises a good point, but we will find ourselves in disagreement on some of the details. Context changes everything here, but the actual pass rate of the California bar is not as relevant as the fact that intelligent, qualified, well known people regularly don't pass the bar the first time. As I said before, its prejudicial stated simply on its own. It's as relevant as someone's score on the SAT the first time you take it. A distinction with Harris in particular is her encouragement of law school graduates who find themselves in the same situation. Thats sourceable, relevant, and WP:WIAE. Rklahn (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right, that makes it relevant. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case we would write something like, "Harris frequently speaks to law students who have failed the bar exam, encouraging them to retake it, noting that most lawyers including herself did not pass on her first attempt and many of them went on to become distinguished lawyers, judges and law professors." TFD (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Boiled down, that's "famous attorney encourages law students", and so what? Relevant, yes, but of not much importance. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove lead crystal ball about running mate

We need to remove the last sentence of the lead: "She is widely considered the top contender to be chosen by Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate." as it violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. At least, it should be removed to the article body instead of the lead, as it is mere speculation. This was brought up somewhere earlier but it got lost in another discussion.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that she’s being mentioned in that capacity can be easily documented. JTRH (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALLBALL says, " It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses."

IOW we should report widely reported speculation about the future, but should not include our personal predictions. If Harris becomes the nominee, especially if she is elected, it will become the most notable thing about her until she becomes president.

TFD (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue seems to be in "widely considered" which is wp:weasel and prompts a question: by whom? This can be seen in the NPR source cited: But Harris is often the first name mentioned by Democrats inside and on the edge of the Biden campaign's orbit. She topped a recent multi-state survey asking respondents for their preferred Biden running mate. And, for what it's worth, she's the runaway favorite on online betting sites.

I don't think this is sufficient to identify Harris as such in the lead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL cautions against "creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." That's not the case here and the source concludes "Harris is seen as the consensus front-runner to become Democrats' vice presidential nominee." While you may think that what Democrats, Biden campaign staff and speculators think is of marginal importance, they are taken very seriously in the NPR article. Maybe its methodology is all wrong. Do you know if they have published a retraction or disciplined the author? Do you have any alternative sources that say something else?

In any case, we rely on conclusions reached in reliable sources, rather than the analysis of editors.

TFD (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Forbes.com/sites

In re: this revert, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes.com_contributors. RSNP distinguishes between Forbes.com editorial content and Forbes.com/sites contributor content. This can be seen in the two links: WP:FORBES (editorial) vs WP:FORBESCON (contributors). Forbes.com/sites is specifically called out in the latter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ping @NedFausa:. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes – Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. (Emphases added.) Jack Brewster, author of the reference you deleted, is a Forbes staff reporter, not an outside contributor. The disputed reference is acceptable and should not be removed on the basis you claim. Please await consensus before again deleting it. NedFausa (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the staff position. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Violations [WP:AB and WP:AUTO]: "Facts" Substantiated Only By Harris's Autobiography

I intend to begin removing and rewriting all "facts" asserted in this article that include Harris's autobiographies as their only source. Citations to autobiography appear to violate [Wikipedia policy]. See the numerous references to "(Harris, 2019)" in the footnotes. An autobiography published during a presidential campaign "(Harris, 2019)" certainly does not have NPOV. To import claims from the autobiography into this article certainly violates the Wikipedia policy concerning Autobiography. "Her refusal to budge caused JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to call her office in a rage, accusing her of stealing from his shareholders ... Harris yelled back that he was ripping off her constituents ..." The only source cited for "refusal to budge" and "Harris yelled back" is Harris's autobiography. I encourage other users to investigate how this extremely biased text was placed into this article. It clearly violates the Wikipedia Autobiography policy and must be removed if it is not otherwise substantiated. Furthermore, the citations to "(Harris, 2019)" are confusing and unacceptably ambiguous because Harris apparently published two books in 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jab73 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to fact-tag them, but you shouldn’t remove unless you can affirmatively demonstrate that they’re not true. JTRH (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

JTRH, I have to disagree. Self-serving claims made in one's own autobiography need to be substantiated by independent sources as per WP:ABOUTSELF. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

May His Shadow Fall Upon You That's what I meant by fact-tagging. And immediately below this is a demand to remove material for which I found independent sources in about 30 seconds of Googling.JTRH (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

JTRH, That demand is right, though. You found sources stating that she was a possible replacement for Holder. However, the sourced material is much more than that. You would need to find independent sources which stated that Holder called Harris and discussed the matters which Harris claimed were discussed. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

May His Shadow Fall Upon You It's accurate that Harris's autobiography claims these things. It's documented that she was discussed as a replacement for Holder. The issue could also be addressed by making it clearer that the details of the conversation are her own assertions. JTRH (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

JTRH, As per WP:ABOUTSELF, self-serving claims made in one's own autobiography need to be substantiated by independent sources. The claim that she was a potential replacement for Holder can be substantiated using independent sources, so that's fine. Harris' own narrative about the call is not substantiated by anyone but Harris. Since the content of this conversation obviously fails WP:ABOUTSELF, it is considered a self-published source (as per policy) and should not be used. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

May His Shadow Fall Upon You What if it were all preceded by, "Harris asserts that..." JTRH (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

JTRH, I believe the relevant policy is WP:BLPSELFPUB, which states that "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..." and then lists five criteria, all of which need to be satisfied in order to use the source. I think this would fail points 1 and 2 at the very least, which are "it is not unduly self-serving" and "it does not involve claims about third parties." The material is extremely self-serving, and it involves claims about a third party (Eric Holder.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

These poorly sourced sentences should be removed from the "Obama Appointment Speculation" section because the sole source is Harris's 2019 autobiography: "In her memoir, The Truths We Hold, Harris recounts a moment in 2014 when she answered a call from Eric Holder, informing her he was stepping down and asking if she wanted to take his place.[205] Harris informed Holder that if there were a budget at the Department of Justice to fund and create incentives for local re-entry initiatives, she would be interested. Holder explained no budget existed and any new spending would have to be approved by a Republican-controlled Congress.[206]" These sentences have verification problems. No reliable secondary source confirms that such a "call" occurred. Harris attributes words to Holder that do not have independent confirmation. Moreover, this is "undue weight." There should be serious consideration is to striking this "Obama Appointment Speculation" entirely because all of its contents are admittedly "speculation," with no citation to any source proving that President Obama seriously considered her for an appointment. Jab73 (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A quick Google search brings up multiple journalistic sources stating that she was mentioned as a possible replacement for Holder.JTRH (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, only very limited use can be made of Harris' autobiography. However, the same information in a reliable secondary source is fine, provided that source states it as a fact. Authors in reliable sources have the expertise to sort facts from fiction, while Wikipedia editors do not. In cases where they attribute the claims inline (e.g., "According to Harris"), so should we. Note too that per biographies of living persons, we cannot leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in the article. That's not a problem, because if it doesn't get picked up in reliable source, it fails weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020

In the first paragraph, the sentence reading

"Harris is the first Asian-American woman and the first African Anerican"

should have the word "Anerican" corrected to "American". Additionally, the hyphenation should be consistent with "Asian-American". Krajcevski (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Clarifcation. With this edit Larry Hockett fixed the spelling and rightly removed a hyphen. But as I read it, Krajcevski requested that African American be hyphenated. Per MOS:HYPHEN, we must never insert a hyphen into a proper name, not even when used as a compound modifier. Thus, the sentence is correct as Larry changed it, with neither Asian American nor African American hyphenated. NedFausa (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion in general about the appropriateness of apostrophes hyphens in terms such as these. Apparently, it can be a point of controversy. JTRH (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@JTRH: This edit request did not mention apostrophes. NedFausa (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I meant hyphens. Sorry for the confusion. JTRH (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The convention that I've seen generally adopted in other Wikipedia articles, which also is consistent with my understanding of English grammar (which I'll explain below), is that, while one should not hyphenate "Asian American" when it is an adjective-noun combo as in "Harris is an Asian American," the term should be hyphenated when such combo modifies a noun (such as in "Harris is an Asian-American woman." This is consistent with proper hyphenation in other contexts.

When one writes the phrase "I read a short story," "short" is an adjective that modifies the noun "story," and hyphenation should not be used. However, when one writes "Edgar Allan Poe was a short-story writer," one must hyphenate "short-story" to make clear that "short" is an adjective that is modifying "story," not writer; leaving out the hyphen would imply that Poe was a short writer of stories instead of a writer of short stories.

It should be noted that such hyphenation is limited to two-word combinations in which the lead word is or could be adjectives, but that adverb-adjective combinations should not be hyphenated because an adverb could not possibly modify a noun (adverbs may only modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs). Thus, "a poorly written essay" is not hyphenated, given that there could be no such thing as a "poorly essay" ("poorly" could never be an adjective and may only be an adverb).

Returning to "Asian American" and "African American," when the terms are used as an adjective-noun combo that creates a compound noun (such as in "Harris is an African American," where "African" modifies "American" to signify "an American who descends fully or partially from black Africans," it is like "short story" and no hyphenation is necessary nor should be used. By contrast, if one wrote "Harris is an African-American senator," the hyphen is needed to clarify that the adjective "African" is modifying "American" and not "senator." Harris is a senator who is African American, not an American senator who is African. Thus, the hyphen is necessary in "African-American prosecutor" and "Asian-American woman." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

AuH2ORepublican: Thanks for the lesson in English grammar. But unless I missed it in those four paragraphs, you neglected to mention MOS:HYPHEN, which as I quoted above, tells us to never insert a hyphen into a proper name, not even when used as a compound modifier. NedFausa (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:NedFausa, thanks for pointing that out for me. I'm honestly surprised to learn that Wikipedia guidelines state that proper names should not be hyphenated when it modifies a noun, particularly since it's not generally followed by editors in other articles. I've probably run into ten editors who write "Cory Booker is an African-American" (which is both grammatically incorrect and against Wikipedia guidelines) for every one who writes "Cory Booker is an African American senator." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

Change African American to Black. Me norris (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Black redirects to African-American. Anyways, the terms are interchangeable -- it would not be necessary to do that. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

P,TO 19104, The terms are not interchangeable. Nelson Mandela is black, but not African-American. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Nelson Mandela did not live in the US, if he did then he would be an African-American and Black. Correction: the terms are interchangeable when you are referring to people of African descent (or "black" people) who are living in the United States. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

P,TO 19104, This is a world-wide encyclopedia, the fact that some people act as if it were an American encyclopedia is offensive. (And no, your correction is not correct.) S Philbrick(Talk) 23:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Offensive" is too strong a word, perhaps "inappropriate" would be better. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Ok, since there is disagreement on whether this COI edit request should be accepted, I have newly marked it as not answered. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

P,TO 19104, FTR, I have expressed no opinion on the edit request. My narrow concern was the suggestion that the two terms are interchangeable. I'm old enough to remember when the term came into widespread use, and it is always struck me as a flawed decision. Personally, I hope to live long enough to see all such terms go away but I don't think that's likely. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This template should be used for non-controversial edits or where consensus has been reached but the page is protected. It alerts administrators to make a change. If no consensus has been reached, the template should not be used, but you are free to discuss the issue. Once consensus has been achieved since the article is not protected, any editor can change it. TFD (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)