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)

I don’t see a solid WP justification for the removal of any of this information. I would concur with its restoration. (Just my disinterested drive-by consensus contribution) —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs)  17:54, 28 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)

Attendance has made its way back in to the article via Revision 968895981. No attempt to address the concerns brought here by jpgordon, ValarianB, and myself. No consensus was proposed or discussed. Adding more citations, in no way, addresses the concerns. I will, in a few moments, undo to restore the status quo. Rklahn (talk) 05:37, 22 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) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis. Harris's missed votes included an April 1st vote on H.R. 268, a disaster aid package to help California rebuild after wildfires." I challenge anyone to dispute the neutrality of these two sentences. They are well-documented facts, supported by official and reliable sources. As the "2019" section now is written, it focuses almost exclusively on Harris's criticism of the presidential administration (undue weight) and says little or nothing about Harris's official activities on the Senate floor. Other editors above have not attempted to reach a good-faith consensus about the well-documented fact that Harris skipped more than three-fifths of roll call votes in 2019. Any explanation for his chronic absenteeism from her fundamental duty as a member of Congress is a secondary matter, that could be further explained without deleting the fact that she missed 62% of votes that year. Concerning Harris's missed vote for California wildfire disaster aid on April 1, 2019, "Politico" reported on her absence at the time. "Politico" is cited as a reliable source elsewhere in this article, including the "2019" section, so if any editor decides to "scrub" discussion about her absence on that vote, then that editor first should give an acceptable justification on this "Talk" page. Jab73 (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

if any editor decides to "scrub" discussion about her absence on that vote, then that editor first should give an acceptable justification on this "Talk" page.'

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Also: wrong. You're not in a position to issue orders. Once again: the burden of proof or justification lies with the editor ADDING THE MATERIAL. You do not have consensus. Nobody here works for you and nobody here is required to meet with your personal approval for ANYTHING.

At this point, it's becoming pure disruption, and a topic ban/page block for you is perfectly justified. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Calton managed to undo before I did. I think the only consensus on this topic at this point is that there is no consensus. You must discuss and propose on the talk page BEFORE you edit on this topic. You must also give those us who have contrary thoughts time to address your proposal. This is beginning to look like Disruptive editing, and on a page that is under Semi-protection and active arbitration remedies, troubling. Rklahn (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Jab73's argument, in large part, seems to rely in on an 4/1/2019 vote on H.R. 268. To be totally accurate (again, the edit is missing context), there were two Senate cloture votes that day, one on an amendment, one on the bill itself. Cloture is a procedural motion, to end debate. Cloture requires a three-fifths vote, normally these days, 60 votes. Neither vote was close. 44 - 49 and 46 - 48. Harris' presence would not have made a difference, one way or another, regardless of how she voted. "Harris's missed votes included an April 1st vote on H.R. 268, a disaster aid package to help California rebuild after wildfires." carries with it an implication that it was a non-procedural vote, and that her vote would have made a difference, neither of which is true. [3]

If we had prose on a particular important piece of legislation that did not pass because she was absent, or something that passed that should not have, I would be for that edit. If Im reading this right, "Politico" seemed to be prejudicial here, and the quality of their being a source elsewhere is interesting, but unimportant. Simply stating statistics on her voting record without context is also not right. Most Senate votes are procedural, most don't pass, most are not even close. Rklahn (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As I noted much earlier in this discussion, this is a perennial topic that hits every Congressperson who runs for higher office. The idea that "missed votes", when nearly every outcome of a Congressional vote is known ahead of time (exceptions are rare these days), as an actual measure of of member of Congress doing or not doing their job is rather naïve. ValarianB (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think information about how a representative votes is arguably the most relevant information about them, as that is their primary function?

This information should simply be presented as information, without critical editorial nor defensive explanation.

—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs)  18:05, 28 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)
• Revert and re-add. - This article seems to have become a battlefield, with certain editors pushing strongly against any language that might show Harris in a bad light. This ranges from small edits like adding "while" and "only" to make criticisms of Harris sound less significant, to large things, like the structure of the article (just compare the table of contents between April and today, where the old table of contents reflects the controversy behind some of Harris's track record more accurately). The article has been tampered with beyond repair and the best way forward seems to revert to a state before these nefarious edits happened and then add the missing information with a NPOV in mind. Mirek2 (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• ’’’Revert to April’’’, re-add any info modularly, in the sunshine.

—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs)  18:12, 28 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)

It’s relevant, it’s true, it’s of minor but nonzero importance. Seems like a run of the mill, perhaps vaguely unflattering fact? I don’t believe that is a valid justification for removing it from an encyclopedia. —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs)  18:19, 28 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)

Im not entirely comfortable with the VP speculation section, but I gotta say, consensus has been reached on this, and editors should bring their proposals here before before touching it in the article. WP:CRYSTALBALL, as TFD noted, is pretty clear on this being encyclopedic. Rklahn (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I echo the reservations of everyone else - CRYSTAL + inherently speculative + WEASEL of "widely considered" - by whom? Presumably sources that don't agree are going to tend to keep quiet + promotional - why on earth does it need to be framed thus? She is a contender is all that is really verifiable. Pincrete (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to add that 1) One of the three sources does not support the text at all - it simply records that Harris is the 'betting favourite' 2) Given the ups and downs of any political campaign, are we going to alter this text every time Harris goes up or down a point or two, ditto the other contenders - NOTNEWS applies. At the very least IMO this kind of speculation should not be in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No need for speculation in the lede, not least because this will be a moot question within a couple of weeks. Either she'll be the VP nominee or she won't. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Then it should be removed, as this is something that can't be known. It's like if you asked a bunch of random Democrats in 2018 who will be the 2020 presidential nominee. Just wait until the vp nominee is decided.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not about just speculation but it is whether it is the most notable aspect of. If she does not become the VP nominee would you still include it? If so why not as nothing has changed in her notability. The only change is if she becomes the VP nominee.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 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)

I think a tagging of claims which would benefit from additional sourcing would be more conductive to improving the article. —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs)  18:22, 28 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)

Is "Children's rights" an appropriate NPOV heading for her "Bureau of Children's Justice" section?

I propose changing the heading of that section to just "Bureau of Children's Justice". I really can't speak for anybody else, but I would imagine that most people wouldn't describe criminalizing poor school attendance as a "children's rights" initiative. I'm not sure how NPOV claims are handled, to be honest. So do with this what you may. But I felt it might be worth bringing up. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

...I would imagine that most people wouldn't describe criminalizing poor school attendance as a "children's rights"

Sure, that's the narrative some people -- like you, clearly -- have been trying to frame it as. I would advise you not to try to force that POV into this article, though. --Calton | Talk 06:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Mirek's NPOV wording changes

I really think the usage of "while" and "although" carries an excusing tone, and separating the sentences without these transition words makes the wording sound more neutral. 2601:482:8000:C470:D153:B56C:4DF7:CF5F (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you — I was just about to start this thread. For reference, these are the edits in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&oldid=prev&diff=969203136.

I would very much like it if @Calton: could explain their reasoning for why they find "While Harris oversaw more than 1900 convictions for marijuana possession, lawyers working in her office stated that most defendants for low-level possession were not sent to prison, consistent with the city and county's law enforcement priorities." to be more neutral than "Harris oversaw more than 1900 convictions for marijuana possession. Lawyers working in her office stated that most defendants for low-level possession were not sent to prison, consistent with the city and county's law enforcement priorities." Mirek2 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calton: I would very much appreciate a reply. If I don't receive one in the next 24 hours, I will re-add my edits, as per Wikipedia rules. I still strongly believe that my changes helped contribute to a neutral point of view. Mirek2 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong going on here, but this all feels a touch aggressive. Also "strongly believe [...] neutral point of view" seems suspect. Maybe Im reading too much into it. Perhaps the best thing here is to give Calton a little more time, perhaps a 24 hour extension. Rklahn (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rklahn: Sure thing — July 28th it is. :) Mirek2 (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful consideration. Rklahn (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)