Talk:Kamala Harris/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Comment by Sarge Baldy

This article takes a pretty blatant POV ("legal talents", "working creatively to improve the quality of life in our communities", "instilled in Kamala a strong commitment towards justice and public service", being on a first name basis, etc etc). Reads like a political campaign ad. Sarge Baldy 09:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Meth Dog Prosecution

Is it worth including something on the case that propelled Harris to fame as a prosecutor, the infamous Noel/Knoller dog mauling fatality?

71.141.228.16 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Steve P.

No, because she had nothing to do with that case. The Noel/Knoller case took place under Hallinan, and was handled by Jim Hammer and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

Minor edits and deletions

I changed some of the descriptive language to tone down POV, updated some news including her upcoming re-election, and eliminated the link to Hindu politicians. Harris is a member of Third Baptist Church in San Francisco. Mike Ege 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of continuity

In the second sentence, she's referred to as both African American and Indian American. This is understandable for a mixed race person, though kind of confusing (as well as offensive to some). However, more importantly, The second paragraph states her father is Jamaican American. This is a clear lack of continuity. Moreover, having seen Caribbean immigrants scoff at the "African American" title, I know this might be offensive to people. If you mean that their bloodline when from Africa through Jamaica to Oakland to justify calling her African American, then we might as well call EVERYONE in America "African American" as humankind began in Africa.

Curiously, she calls herself African American on her 2010 site. Which dovetails nicely with comments below about plagiarizing her press copy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.43.160 (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

This detail about the German tourist is of questionable notability. It seems to me by reading that article that at this point, the DA's office is doing due diligence. The entry is being written in a biased manner that isn't in keeping with the source. I also don't think this situation is notable in regards to Harris. Why should it be included at all? --Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the bit about the German tourist doesn't seem particularly notable in Harris' career. Perhaps once the event unfolds we'll see if the incident warrants inclusion in this article, but until then it should be excluded. Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Police Department Lab & Disclosure Failure

There needs to be some sort of compromise on this subject line. Prosecutorial Misconduct is simply not descriptive. I changed it to Disclosure Failure. Is that acceptable? Also, whoever else is editing this(99.136.100.62 and 71.139.26.170) keeps missing the final outcome and repeating the more salacious portions. Furthermore, the tone of the edits is biased, bringing in the author's opinion. --72.62.44.2 (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just glancing at it the section seems quite long and probably receives undue weight.   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

This article clearly needs some work. It looks like half of the text is from her website, and half from an attack ad. Neutrality is nowhere to be found. And over the past week or so, there appears to be an edit war brewing between several users without accounts. This article needs monitoring as the subject is running for public office. --LAbaseballFan (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an absurdly overwritten article, with attention to details that can hardly be of interest to any general encyclopedia reader interested in the career of the SF AG and now Calif AG-elect. I removed some details of one of the murder cases, but the rest of this article is clogged with nonsense--and I am the child of a lawyer. But Harris is not a world-renowned figure, and even if she were to achieve that status, the details of cases are not relevant. I wish someone would hack away the underbrush. I cleaned up the gibberish that was present to account for the concession of Steve Cooley in the Cal AG race. And tried to reduce the number of times in which this person is referred to be her first name. Actio (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DISPUTE - Claim of being first black female Atty Gen in U.S. is false

Last time I checked, Pamela Carter was a female African American attorney general for Indiana from 1993 - 1997 - beating Ms. Harris to the claim of "first" A/A or black female state Attorney General by 18 years. - Davodd (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I copy edited the last line of the 2010 election section to read thusly: "On January 1, 2011, Kamala Harris will become the second woman of African descent and the first person of Indian descent to serve as a state Attorney General in the United States." - Davodd (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim sourced is that she'll be the first black AG of California, not the U.S. The other claim is not sourced, so I will remove it. Hekerui (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Kamala Harris' number of votes

An unsourced text was inserted that alleged that Kamala Harris won the most votes of any African American candidate in a statewide election with her 4+ million result. In 2008, Obama won 8+ million votes statewide in California. See United States presidential election in California, 2008 Hekerui (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor probably meant "state" as opposed to "national". Regardless, wouldn't the percentage be more important than the total? California's population is growing, so it's not surprising that vote counts are higher now than they were 20 years ago. A more interesting comparison would be her percent of the vote vs. Tom Bradley's percent when he ran for governor. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

African American

Can someone explain why Harris is being described as African American in the news press? I removed mentions because I thought it was wrong, but the LA Times and San Jose Mercury Press say otherwise, so yeah. An Indian mother and a Jamaican father... hbdragon88 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It also seems odd that our article describes her as "black." Her complexion looks awfully light to me, even more so than Obama's. Such is life in a society where "white" is "normal," so just a touch of anything else makes you "the other." Tualha (Talk) 09:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm glad it's back to African American, because that's exactly the term that the newspapers use. But yeah does anyone know the answer? hbdragon88 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

African American is a term that generally refers to black Americans who trace their origins to Africa.Actio (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

ALL black people trace their origins to Africa, even those from Caribbean, Britain, Brazil, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.16.224 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Kamala Harris Official Attorney General Photo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Kamala Harris Official Attorney General Photo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

'Best-looking' AG

Please read WP:NOTNEWS. This is news in the current cycle, but it will not have any lasting impact. It was a dumb comment by Obama, an attempt at levity that was indeed sexist. It means nothing in the grand scheme of who Kamala Harris is. Simply being in the news does not mean it should be in Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Time, not Muboshgu, will determine the lasting impact. At this point, it is noteworthy, and it is what made the subject's name known to a far broader audience. Until the lasting impact is clear, this is material and should stay.--71.184.165.161 (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you clearly don't understand Wiki policy. Until lasting impact is determined, this cannot stay here. It's a BLP violation failing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. To turn what you said back on you, if I can't determine lasting impact, why do you decide this is noteworthy? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

To turn what you said back on you, YOU clearly don't understand Wiki policy. The immediate impact is abundantly clear: this episode brought Harris's name to national prominence, not just prominence within California. Solely as a result of the comment and subsequent controversy, Harris's national profile rose significantly, and that is highly relevant and therefore worthy of inclusion. It also helps demonstrate that her achievements are all the greater because of the sexism that she has had to overcome.--72.93.166.240 (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of assumptions you've made there, such as raising her national profile. It's a temporary spike, a blip, and nothing more. Check out how the page views are starting to come down. Obama said something dumb, he apologized, she accepted, now it's over. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just deleted it. The news cycle has turned over, and this is no longer getting coverage. There have been no further developments that would suggest lasting impact. I don't even think Republicans tried to fundraise off of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Masonic Fraternal Police Department

Should content regarding this alleged organization be included in this article, or be a stand alone article? It has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources (thus meeting WP:GNG), including Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, National Public Radio, among others.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Shielding of Ramos & The Murder of The Bologna Family

I don't want to get into an edit war here with 24.23.146.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but this section is a problem. The news articles cited don't connect Harris to this at all, and the conclusion being drawn here is WP:OR. I think it should be removed. Agtx (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This information is being removed to shield Harris from political criticism and is being removed based on pure political ideology and not objective objections. All sources back the contention that Harris shielded Ramos as district attorney of San Francisco under San Francisco's 'Sanctuary City' policy. The only reason Ramos was free was at the direction of Kamala Harris to shield illegal aliens from ICE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.146.196 (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As an initial matter, a couple of Wikipedia etiquette things. First, please remember to sign your talk posts with four tildes (~~~~). Second, remember that we always try to assume good faith here, and your statement that other editors are attempting to protect the target of the article does not really do that. I, for one, can assure you that I have no connection to Harris and don't even live in California.

For the substance of your comment, the articles that you cited do not mention Harris by name, nor do they mention her office. They do not connect Harris in any direct way to Ramos. I understand that you believe there to be a connection, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reports on secondary sources, not original research. If there were reliable sources that directly supported your statements, then they might merit inclusion (although I think there would still be more to discuss). However, absent such sources, I don't think it can come in. Agtx (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit removal is obviously not in 'good faith'. This is shown via the above text where you say " If there were reliable sources that directly supported your statements, then they might merit inclusion (although I think there would still be more to discuss).". You are clearly showing bias if you think that 3 people being murdered due to the actions of Kamala Harris does not warrant a section on the Wikipedia page.

The sources provided back my assertion. It has been fully sourced. As district attorney she facilitate the process of shielding illegal aliens from deportation with the Sheriff and the Mayor. This action directly lead to the death of a family. She had implicit involvement in allowing Ramos to go free and murder 3 people.

You explicit injection of politics into factual matters is disturbing in that it does not align with the goal of Wikipedia to be an unbiased source. 24.23.146.196 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This conversation is quickly becoming unproductive. I'm happy to discuss the merits of the section you'd like to add, but I would ask that you stop attacking me personally. As far as your sources go, one is that this one does not mention Harris at all. That means it doesn't support the conclusion you want to draw from it. The second problem is that what you're saying requires making inferences from the sources, which is original research. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Do you have a reliable source that directly supports the section you'd like to add? Agtx (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kamala Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100306214313/http://www.kamalaharris.org:80/issues/34 to http://kamalaharris.org/issues/34

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Bazelon story in NYT

Emily Bazelon, a legal reporter on the staff of the New York Times, wrote a long profile of Harris. A lot of it is fluff, but I think the most significant discussion is about Harris' response to prosecutorial misconduct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html

Kamala Harris, a ‘Top Cop’ in the Era of Black Lives Matter As she campaigns to become only the second black woman elected to the U.S. Senate, the California attorney general is trying to chart a middle course on the Democratic Party’s most contentious issue: criminal justice.

By EMILY BAZELON New York Times Magazine MAY 25, 2016

[...]

Harris’s critics also charge that she has failed to take on prosecutorial misconduct — a responsibility that is “core to the attorney general’s job,” Simon says. In 2015, judges called out her office for defending convictions obtained by local prosecutors who inserted a false confession into the transcript of a police interrogation, lied under oath and withheld crucial evidence from the defense. “Talk to the attorney general and make sure she understands the gravity of the situation,” federal appellate Judge Alex Kozinski instructed one of Harris’s deputies in court last year. Harris says that as a career prosecutor, she takes allegations of misconduct very seriously. “My office evaluates each case based on the facts and the evidence,” she told me.

Harris has also been criticized for her response to accusations of misconduct by prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies in Orange County. Two years ago, Scott Sanders, an assistant public defender in Orange County, discovered hidden records showing that sheriff’s deputies in the local jails were placing coveted informants in cells next to inmates who were awaiting trial — and for decades maintaining a secret database about them. The district attorney’s office also appears to have repeatedly failed to disclose evidence from its own files on some informants. Defendants were convicted based on the testimony of informants whose credibility, the secret records showed, prosecutors and the police questioned, unknown to the judge and jury. One informant labeled “unreliable” helped convict a man who was executed in 1998 for a murder he insisted he did not commit. Last March, following the revelations about the database, a judge described the performance of the Orange County district attorney’s office, in the murder case before him, as “sadly deficient” and instructed Harris and her office to take over the case.

Harris could have conducted a far-­reaching inquiry. Instead, she appealed the judge’s order on behalf of Tony Rackauckas, Orange County’s controversial district attorney, while promising a narrower criminal investigation into the case at hand. When I asked about it in January, Harris said, “We’re not walking away.” But John Van de Kamp and Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, have effectively given up on Harris by asking for a federal investigation, in a letter to the Justice Department signed by roughly two dozen former prosecutors, law professors and advocates. “All the parts of the criminal-­justice system failed here, for a very long time,” Chemerinsky says. “As far as I know, she’s not doing anything about it.” In January, Rackauckas invited the Justice Department to investigate, saying there was no evidence of “sensational wrongdoing.”

--Nbauman (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kamala Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722063405/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Issues Section

Should the Issues section be split up? Right now, the section includes general stances on political issues and specific incidents that came up during her political career. I think things like 'Daniel Larsen case' should be under her time as Attorney General where as her general stances should stay in the issues section or possibly in the section renamed political positions (the Kristen Gillibrand article uses the heading political positions). Any thoughts? Knope7 (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Knope7: I agree. There should be a separate "Political positions" section. There is information in the "Issues" section that should go under "Political career". Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to reorganize. It looks like some material under "elections" also pertains to things she did as AG. I will try to get to reorganizing content in the next week or two. I would also encourage any editors who previously expanded the article to keep an eye towards "Good Article" status. A lot of work has gone into this article already and it is already more developed than many articles for existing senators. It would be great to see this article reach "Good Article" status. Knope7 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, so I reorganized. First, I got rid of the "Political career" heading as while it was accurate for most of her career, it also included her early career as an ADA, which is not a political position. I added a subheading for her time as San Francisco AG and included applicable information from the former 'Issues' section. The 'Issues" section is now 'Political positions' and has been pared down as some material was moved to the San Francisco AG and California AG sections. I did not delete anything, however, there probably are multiple subsections that could be significantly reduced. Knope7 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Mnuchin charges

Quite a few WP:RSs have reported this story, as you can tell with a Google search. Any reason why it shouldn't go into this entry?

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/312742-senate-democrat-defends-decision-not-to-charge-trump-treasury-pick-over
Dem defends decision not to charge Trump Treasury pick over foreclosures
By Sylvan Lane
01/04/17
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is defending a decision she made as California’s attorney general not to charge President-elect Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary nominee with violating state foreclosure laws.
Steven Mnuchin, from 2009 to 2015, ran OneWest, a California-based bank, where he oversaw more than 36,000 foreclosures. Harris was California’s attorney general from 2011 to 2017, when she joined the Senate.
A 2013 internal memo from the California attorney general’s office, first published by The Intercept, alleged Mnuchin violated state foreclosure laws and recommended filing charges against him. The memo, the result of a yearlong investigation, claims Mnuchin violated notice and waiting period laws, manipulated legal documents and rigged foreclosure auctions, but Harris declined to charge him....

--Nbauman (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the story is more about Mnchin and his conduct. I wouldn't be opposed to adding it to this article but it should probably be kept short to not give it undue weight, placed into context, include Harris' response, and it needs to be well sourced. Attorney General's make decisions not to prosecute all the time. That Harris has to answer for this particular reason may warrant it's inclusion, but that alone doesn't make it an important part of her career. Knope7 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Early life

I am in the process of trying to expand the "Early life" section for the time period before Harris' 2003 election as San Francisco DA. There understandably does not appear to be a lot of discussion of her 8 year tenure in Alameda County. This LA Times article at least discusses a little of the types of cases she prosecuted early in her career, although it does not specify Alameda or San Francisco. I am trying to move through the article section by section with the goal in mind of making this a Good Article, which will obviously be a long process. Any help in this would be greatly appreciated. Knope7 (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kamala Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115023007/http://www.jis.gov.jm/news/opm-news/26176-officePM-pm-golding-congratulates-kamala-harris-daughter-of-jamaican-on-appoint to http://www.jis.gov.jm/news/opm-news/26176-officePM-pm-golding-congratulates-kamala-harris-daughter-of-jamaican-on-appoint
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.howard.edu/newsroom/releases/2010/20101215HowardAlumnaTrailblazerBecomesFirstWomanElectedasCaliforniaAttorneyGeneral.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kamalaharris.org/issues/34

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Text is copied from Ms. Harris' website

When the article was originally created by Sevenam, the text was copied from Kamala Harris' website.

As you can easily see by visiting that site (http://www.kamalaharris.org/about/biography/), there's very little there that's different from what you see here.

Clearly Kamala Harris looks more African American than Asian Indian. Above individual seems disturbed about designating Ms Harris as African American. There is a reason, clearly, if I were to describe her, not knowing her, her African roots are more dominant. Looks are based not only on color But more importantly on facial characteristics and skeletal facial bone structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.137.167 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. She doesn't look at all black, not in skin color or bone structure. She's at most 25% black (her Jamaican father was clearly biracial), but at least 50% South Asian. Depending on her father's other race, she's 75% South Asian and 25% black, or 50% South Asian, 25% black, and 25% white or Northeast Asian.2604:2000:9046:800:2567:E3DB:A603:D6A9 (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Is she confused about her race - Why has the African AMerican community not calling her a coward. Being African AMerican you are ethnically a mixed race where Black racial features is predominantly the outlook. SHE CLEARLY LOOKS AFRICAN AMERICAN SIDEWAYS, FULL FACE AND THE AURORA SHE HAS ABOUT HER. In India she would not be classified as an Asian Indian!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.152.194 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

change "CNN pundit Justin Miller" to "CNN pundit Jason Miller" 107.2.89.33 (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How are her first and middle names pronounced? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like by now (June 12 2017) somebody has put pronunciation keys for her name, but those in the "american" and IPA notations contradict each other! The IPA version should translate to the "american" as KAh-muh-luh, but instead the "american" key says KA-muh-luh, (KA in [kæ] in IPA). Can somebody who knows the correct pronunciation please fix this? Thanks... 104.53.222.39 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ooops, I did respell bc not everybody knows IPA, and people all say her name wrong, Ka-muh-LUH. You're right, first syllable should be KAH and not KA. I fixed it. (Jake Tapper says it correctly here, the same way I've heard her say it.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

First biracial woman/women

I've seen a few edits on this topic recently. NPR called Harris the first biracial woman. The article also talks about Duckworth and Cortez Masto making history, so I think it was intentional to refer to Harris as the first biracial woman and not an oversight. I think we should reach consensus here on how to deal with this issue. Knope7 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• What would you propose? Duckworth (Chinese/Thai mom and caucasian dad) is definitely biracial, but I don't know about Cortez Mastro. Mexico has a lot of people who consider themselves white, as children and grandchildren of Spaniards/Italians/French etc., so they would not consider marrying an Italian to be an interracial relationship. She's definitely the first Latina for Senate though, so it seems like author of NPR article was trying to focus on what was unique to each person for the hook. Anyway, what do you think is best here? —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to ideas. We could try to find other sources that supports that both Harris and Duckworth (and maybe Mastro) are all biracial. I think what I'm leaning towards is taking it out of the lead altogether and maybe adding something later in the article that can deal with the topic of how Harris' ethnicity and gender fit in to the historic makeup of the Senate. The lead doesn't really allow for as much nuance or explanation. Knope7 (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The first what?

She was the first woman,[4] the first Jamaican American, the first Asian American, the first Indian American, and the first African American attorney general in California.

If the above was true, then she would be the first American-American? Maybe the first Mongrel-American? Oh I know, she's an typical American in her genetic makeup.

The above need to be deleted and if any is true, pick one. Only one can be true, if any. 73.181.225.112 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The text has been edited slightly: "She was the first woman, the first Jamaican American, the first Asian American, the first Indian American, and the first African American to serve as attorney general in California." All five claims in that sentence are true and fully sourced in the article. General Ization ^Talk 20:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

She's a Senator now. Being the first anything attorney general of California isn't relevant for the lede. I say delete the entire sentence. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that she now holds a different office does not change or diminish the significance of her having been the first member of several large demographic groups to serve as AG. I wouldn't insist on it remaining in the lede, but it is a defining and notable characteristic of the subject. General Ization ^Talk 21:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

To the IP editor's concern. Jamaica and India are countries. "Asian-American" and "African-American" are ethnicities. The rest of the details are moot, since the sentence is too wordy for the lede and has been removed. If you feel it isn't clear, please add additional explanatory text where it is discussed in the "Attorney General" section. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend adding back that she was the first woman to elected Attorney General of California. To me, that is more significant than one of the first three biracial women to serve U.S. Senators, a distinction that I don't think is completely sourced. Knope7 (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If she was the first woman to be an attorney general in any state, it would be notable enough for the lede. For her record, both those claims appear to be more puffery than merit. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

New Lede

I've re-written the lede, basically from scratch. There are certainly a few details that I've left out, but I feel like it's a much better starting point. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Referring to her as a potential presidential candidate in 2020 may be speculation/WP:CRYSTAL, but she is listed on every reliable source I can find that discusses potential candidates. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

NO Controversy Section

LOL Folks, this is why NO sane person takes Wikipedia seriously. This is not an encyclopedia article but a hagiography curated by her staff (or better, people that would LIKE to be on her staff.) They game the system to edit out any negative topic then accuse anyone who tries to print the truth about Crooked Kamala of 'not assuming good faith' or engaging in 'edit wars.' Does anybody think we all don't see this! haha Good luck running K.rooK.ed K.amala vs Pres Trump in 2020. You won't lose by...TOO much! 107.4.70.22 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

And what controversies are you referring to that are so notable they warrant their own section? Misogynist pundits calling her "hysterical" for doing her job? —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/262570-spending-under-scrutiny

The current article is hardly Neutral POV. The talk of deleting opposing viewpoints in Talk:Kamala_Harris#Relevance is also concerning. There is not a single critical comment on the Wiki page. NorthropB2 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Better source

Isn't there a better source for the claim that Kamala Harris was ranked one of California's top 100 lawyers than a news blog based in India? Isn't there a source from the newspaper than ranked her? (Googling this claim, I could only find numerous places using the same exact language as this Wikipedia article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.24.246 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Willie Brown relationship

The following is proposed to be removed in a pending change:

In 1994, she was appointed head of the California Medical Assistance Commission by then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, who was allegedly having an affair with her at the time .

References

I feel this change should be discussed on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss. As written, by placing the alleged affair next to the appointment it insinuates the affair was used to advance her career. That sort of insinuation needs more than the Daily Caller, which is a highly ideological source. At the very least, it would require the response of Harris or someone who supported her as this is a BLP issue. I do think that a more neutral source would also be helpful for this kind of contentious material. Knope7 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I personally agree with leaving discussion of it to the "Personal life" section. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless the allegation can be documented, I don't think it has any place here at all. JTRH (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"NPOV" reverts to "political positions"

I had two contributions reverted in a single edit. One was a new section about civil forfeitures and one was the reversal & expansion of a subheading about prosecution of Steve Mnuchin's bank. Both were properly sourced & I thought pretty neutral in tone. I don't see how this violates NPOV. @Power~enwiki:, could you help improving these sections as I believe the topics are worthy of coverage on this article. Jonathan Williams (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Civil Forfeiture" is only a political position (akin to gun control and education) because somebody wants to make it an issue. I'm not entirely sure who, or whether they support or oppose Harris. It's WP:UNDUE to list it there in any case. As far as it relates to her actions as attorney general, it can be discussed there. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Saying Harris did not prosecute somebody generally isn't notable, and DocumentCloud is not a reasonable source here (though based on the document there is likely a report by The Intercept which is possibly a reasonable source). The attempt to tie her to Mnuchin is WP:SYNTH and clearly an attempt to bias Democrats against her. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded and readded the section about OneWest, but have not reverted the civil forfeiture paragraph. What do you think about moving the deleted paragraph about civil forfeiture to a subsection of "as attorney general" until an article devoted to her tenure as attorney general is created? Is the National Review too ideological a source? Jonathan Williams (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to National Review personally, but I'm not sure everyone will agree with me. As far as civil forfeiture; your suggestion sounds good. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Michelle-Lael Norsworthy case

@Power~enwiki Please help me understand your reversion of my addition on grounds of WP:UNDUE. Is your objection based on the length of my contribution? KalHolmann (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm starting to think moving some of the Attorney General section to a separate article is a better solution here. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll keep on the lookout for a new Kamala Harris Attorney General article and, once that materializes, resubmit my contribution there. KalHolmann (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to re-add it for now, but I will definitely remove it from the article again once a sub-page exists. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

POV manipulations

if kamala harris were walking down the street and I had to describe her, most certainly I would describe her as a Black Individual. Looking Black is not just skin color but facial features; it doesn't matter what percentage of black she has in her dna. To me she look African American. Northern India is NOT homogeneous Indian in DNA; the entire population is 50 to 60 percent of Middle Eastern background mixed with indigenous Dravidian group which is the southern Indian community. There are many faces to the indian sub continent NOT one as in the other Asian group. By the way,Afghanistan is part of the So Asian divide!! -- 20:46, 28 February 2006‎ CagedRage (talk | contribs)

How you would describe her racially is not really relevant to the article. Best, Cesaravi (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Backpage cases

Is there any particular reason that Back Page has been left off? Her repeated attempts to prosecute them certainly seem notable.

e.g. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/kamala-harris-doubles-down-on-pimping-charges-against-the-backpage-three-despite-judges-dismissal-8933319 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section from the backpage wiki page. Harris prosecuted the backpage leadership for multiple crimes, she was condemned by a bunch of groups, and the charges were eventually dismissed. If no one objects I'll start adding some of this info here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Arrest_of_CEO_and_corporate_officers Bob drobbs (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Heads up! On 2 August 2017, I added 4,178 bytes under ‎Tenure as California Attorney General describing Harris's involvement with the Michelle-Lael Norsworthy case. Just two minutes later, Power~enwiki reverted my contribution in its entirety, citing WP:UNDUE. He then confirmed that his objection was based on disproportionate length, adding, "I'm starting to think moving some of the Attorney General section to a separate article is a better solution here."

I bring this to your attention because the "relevant" Backpage material you link to is quite lengthy, and I suggest you bear in mind that, as Power~enwiki informed me about the Norsworthy case, he will "definitely remove it from the article again once a sub-page exists." In an edit summary on 3 August 2017, he said, "I don't plan to edit the article for any reason in the next two weeks." Accordingly, I'd advise you to keep whatever you add relatively short to avoid extra work down the line. KalHolmann (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Her career as Attorney General was 6 years. She's only been a Senator for 6 months. And she's been a possible presidential candidate for only a couple of days. Looking forward putting emphasis on her terms as Attorney General will indeed be undue. But at this point, it seems very relevant in the main article. I'll add at least a short summation of the backpage cases when I have time to do a decent writeup of it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Position on Second Amendment

The Gun Control section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Gun_control) currently contains statements that are unsourced or rely on original research:

Unsourced: "Harris has been a vocal proponent for gun control her entire career"

Original research in the form of analysis of a primary source document: "Harris recruited other District Attorneys and filed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own firearms." NotOccam (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Relevance

The section 'Police department laboratory and disclosure failures' does not appear to focus on Harris' involvement in these cases. It mention's Harris' office but not Harris' role in the incident. Moreover, even if relevant the section is too long given the tenuous connection to Harris. Knope7 (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Knope7: I agree. Sorry nobody has responded to you in five months and that has been stuck here all this time. At the end of two paragraphs, it says Harris took responsibility but also pointed out it wasn't really her fault. It also is rather unclear how she is to blame for it - there's no evidence she knew what was going on. It seems more like she took responsibility bc it happened on her watch so ultimately it was her fault, but it's not like she's in the lab double checking all the results to make sure they're accurate. That's not her job. Maybe someone who knows better can explain how she actually screwed up. Otherwise, I would knock it down to two sentences. Should I be bold and do it? —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of cutting it back. I actually got rid of some of it a little while back but I didn't figure out a good way to summarize more succinctly. From reading the sources, it did look like something Harris had to deal with because her office prosecuted cases based on results from labs with issues and it came up as a knock on her in campaigns, but it's probably not a major part of her life or career. I would support any effort to scale it back further. Knope7 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It seems oddly out of place, and not relevant to the subject of the article. Cesaravi (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem relevant, I have removed it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. JTRH (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kamala Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316082529/http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_16702241 to http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_16702241
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211152014/http://www.desiclub.com/community/culture/culture_article.cfm?id=467 to http://www.desiclub.com/community/culture/culture_article.cfm?id=467
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118160154/http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-03-20/news/17287759_1_conviction-handling-of-criminal-cases-homicide/4 to http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-03-20/news/17287759_1_conviction-handling-of-criminal-cases-homicide/4
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/226664-villaraigosa-eschews-local-candidates-backs-harris-for-calif.-attorney-general
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171105215549/http://sfist.com/2016/03/21/former_trans_inmate_michelle-lael_n.php to http://sfist.com/2016/03/21/former_trans_inmate_michelle-lael_n.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/state-appellate-panel-strikes-down-sf-handgun-ban/nLFY9/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kamala Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110085154/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-27/politics/35442407_1_civil-division-civil-rights-associate-attorney to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-27/politics/35442407_1_civil-division-civil-rights-associate-attorney
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101184336/http://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/page.asp?id=49 to http://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/page.asp?id=49
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/under-the-dome/DAs-pet-project-is-now-statewide-example-64311037.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125112342/http://kamalaharris.org/MarriageEquality to http://kamalaharris.org/MarriageEquality
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ktvu.com/news/23840282/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141117045910/http://bettyyee.com/attorney-general-kamala-harris-endorses-betty-yee/ to http://bettyyee.com/attorney-general-kamala-harris-endorses-betty-yee/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to Trump...

... is not exactly controversial. And it's well sourced so it shouldn't be removed. With regard to ICE we have this. Similarly we have this for Bernie Sanders. At this point, neither info is WP:DUE enough to include in the relevant articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. The opposition to Trump is reliably sourced and is an important piece of information about Harris's time in the senate so far. Capriaf's edit-warring is inappropriate and unfortunate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. JTRH (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Candidate for US President in 2020?

It is not clear whether KH is "running" but WP:RS report much speculation about her potential candidacy. Maybe the bio should include a section, based on reliable sources? It seems like a notable topic related to bio. Somebody recently added it to the lead. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

We can wait until she forms an exploratory committee to create a top-level section; I'd support "Presidential speculation" as a sub-heading of "U.S. Senate > Tenure" now. We also need to trim "Tenure as California Attorney General" significantly; I proposed a spin-off article last year but there wasn't enough support, nor an obvious title for such a spin-off article. Regarding the lead, I added similar content over a year ago; it's been in and out of the lead several times since then. It will be clear how to handle this in 6 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, power~enwiki, for your perspective. I have co-edited articles with you before, and am impressed with your experience (greater than mine.) I added a citation to lead only because sentence was in there, with a "Citation needed" (but nowhere else in the article.) This is clearly, as my grandmother would say, doing it "bass-ackwards." Do you want to create the section you mention? Much of the buzz about KH showing up in my Twitter etc, is generated by people who do NOT want her as a candidate in 2020. But there will surely be some NPOV way to share this with our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I won't have time to deal with the inevitable disagreements until next week. I'll look at the article then, and will add a subsection (there is a paragraph in the section I mentioned already, though it may be recently added). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Back, and adding a section now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh?

The second paragraph of the 2020 presidential bid speculation section ("Kamala Harris was named as part of the "Hell-No Caucus" by Politico in 2018...") lacks context to the point of being meaningless. What is this "caucus" supposed to refer to? What is being listed in it supposed to mean? Also, unless it is a reflection of some kind of measure of popular support/expectation that Harris will run, I don't see how this is notable. I can't be bothered reading the article and fixing this, but if anybody who wants to improve the article can, feel free. Thanks! 60.248.185.19 (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Article not impartial

Tell me again how to add an "Impartiality is Disputed" tag. Because this article seems to have been commandeered by an anti-Harris propagandist.Jamesdowallen (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean that you believe there are WP:NPOV issues in the article. Start a new section headed "NPOV issues" and be specific about the changes you want, then add a pov tag to the page, see Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Ping @Jamesdowallen:. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The article seems better now. Wow, lots of changes over the month! I did notice that one clause -- totally irrelevant except as a minor attempt at deprecation -- has been removed.Jamesdowallen (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hometown of Oakland, CA

Senator Harris has stated (via her presidential campaign) that her hometown is Oakland, California. This article states that she lived in Berkeley before moving to Montreal. Do we know if and when she lived in Oakland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.147.135 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Minor typo: "(mother" should be "(mother)"

In the info box source,

parents = [[Shyamala Gopalan]] (mother
Donald J. Harris (father) 

"(mother" should be "(mother)" Could someone authorized fix the page. Thanks --Javaweb2 (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Javaweb2

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kamala Harris Presidential Campaign Kick-Off.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2019

In section "Guns", replace

Believing that thoughts and prayers are inadequate answers to the shooting, she stated that "...we must also commit ourselves to action. Another moment of silence won't suffice."

with simply

She stated that "...we must also commit ourselves to action. Another moment of silence won't suffice."

The leading dependent clause contains editorial content not extant in the cited source. Convex climber (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Changed to In response to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Harris supported the call for more gun control. Saying that she believed that thoughts and prayers are inadequate answers to the shooting, she stated that "...we must also commit ourselves to action. Another moment of silence won't suffice." The Facebook comment is now directly sourced.[1] General Ization ^Talk 16:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I am in the process of drafting a criticism section as the issues relating to Kamala Harris have not been highlighted. If someone could proofread this and make sure it is neutral that would be greatly appreciated. Any imput is welcome.

Harris has been met with opposition by some members of the African American community, including singer K. Michelle, on account of her criminal justice record. In particular, her actions concerning police brutality against minorities under her tenure as Attorney General of California are of concern. In 2015, Harris opposed a bill requiring the Attorney General's office to investigate officer-involved shootings. She then objected to enforcing California law regulating the use of body cameras by law enforcement. These moves were criticized by many left-leaning reformers, including Democratic state senators, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a San Franciscan elected public defender. Civil rights activist Phelicia Jones went on to condemn Harris stating:

"How many more people need to die before she steps in?"

Harris also has a history of ostensible misconduct in alleged wrongful conviction cases. In 1999, George Gage, a former electrician with no prior criminal record, was convicted of sexually abusing his stepdaughter based on a testimony given by the stepdaughter. Later, the judge ruled that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence, including medical reports indicating that the stepdaughter had repeatedly lied to law enforcement. She was even described as being a “pathological liar” who “lives her lies” by her mother. When the case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in 2015, Harris’s deputy prosecutors continued to support the conviction on account of Gage having not properly raised the legal issue in the lower court, as the law required. Gage is currently imprisoned serving a seventy year sentence. Harris also pushed to uphold the sentence of Daniel Larsen for possession of a concealed weapon, in spite of the presence of compelling evidence of his innocence and that his public defender was supposedly incompetent. Larsen’s conviction was unsuccessfully upheld on account of a technicality that Larsen had failed to raise the issues in a timely manner. Additionally, there was the case Kevin Cooper, an inmate on death row whose legal proceedings were alleged to have been influenced by racism and corruption. Cooper sought advanced DNA testing in his defense, which was denied by Harris until an exposé by The New York Times on the case caught national attention. Also, there was the case of Johnny Baca, who had been convicted of murder until judges ruled a prosecutor presented a false testimony at the trial. Despite the revelations with his conviction, Harris supported it initially, reversing her course after a video of an oral argument in the prosecutor’s office received national attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed. Jishnu (talk • contribs)

Read WP:CRITS. Such sections attract excess. Your edit is a prime example. The article is not a WP:SOAPBOX for opinions, sourced or unsourced. Two editors have now objected to your edits. Don't create a separate section of criticism, and get consensus for your edits in this article. Also note that this article is under discretionary sanctions and is limited to one revert per every 24 hours. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Best practice is to weave any criticism among other biographical content. Keep in mind, a lot of excess detail has recently been trimmed from the article, and it seems that some of your proposed material is fairly detailed. The Gage material seems a bit much.- MrX 🖋 22:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

MrX is right: for US Senator pages (but not only), "criticism" does not have its own section (but is added among relevant biographical content). Ed. Jishnu, you can have a look at the List of members of the United States Senate. From there, you should be able to easily check the Wiki-pages of other US senators and see how such content is presented. Mcrt007 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Cegep?

The article notes that she graduated from Westmount High, and then went to University in the USA. However, as Quebec high schools end at Grade 11 (Secondary 5), one normally goes to CEGEP [college) for 2 years if attending university. Those leaving the province normally attend at least 1 year of CEGEP to have the equivalent of Grade 12. Presumably then, there's likely something missing in this article between high school and university? Nfitz (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Apparently she returned to the States after HS. Here's a profile of her in a Montreal newspaper, with interviews of her childhood friends. [2] -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Something is still missing then I'd think - with Westmount High School ending at Grade 11, wouldn't she have had to do Grade 12 then somewhere else, if she left the province after Grade 11? Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Universities have their own admission standards that are not codified in law. If Howard decided to accept her immediately after Westmount, that's their choice. We can't assume there was another school unless someone can come up with that in a reliable source. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm not suggesting adding even a comma. I'm just seeing a gap and pondering the implication, and perhaps where to look for further information. It's a long way from there to an edit! Yes - could have gone directly in theory, but having done PSBGM and Cegep in Montreal myself before leaving after about 1.5 years to do first year university outside the province, I know that's an unusual route. Both doing Grade 12 (and back then even 13) elsewhere, or not playing with a full DEC were more common. Or even getting a DEC and then entering first year university elsewhere. (aside - a DCS - I've never even heard that acronym before among Anglos). Nfitz (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not frequent but not rare for American universities to admit students with less than 4 years of high school, especially if high school is outside of the country. I'm familiar with numerous cases just in the university where I once served on the admissions committee. Most sources really don't consider it notable where she finished high school for someone with a law degree, so I doubt you'll find any confirmation that she attended school anywhere between Westmount and Howard. In fact, it is unsourced in the article that she attended Westmount. Since the article is semi-protected I can't tag it. Someone should do so. If no one is willing to source it over the next few weeks I think it should be deleted. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

She did finish high school at Westmount as far as I understand. Quebec high school is five years (equivalent of Grades 7 through 11). Then one does 2 years of college if going on to university, or three years if doing a trade or technical degree (similar to what one would do in a community college after Grade 12 in most of the rest of the nation). Looks like someone has already added that easy-to-find reference. Nothing else to add at this time. Nfitz (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything beyond her 1981 graduation from high school when she was 16. Added a second more recent reference confirming this, and tidied some text. Not sure defining Westmount as "suburb" really defines it well - particularly as the school is in lower Westmount near downtown (and surrounded on 3 sides by the city of Montreal); they literally tunnelled the subway under the high school between Atwater station and Lionel-Groulx station while she was a student - both of which are considered downtown Montreal stations. But hard to pinpoint better word. Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Willie Brown

The article notes that Kamala Harris dated noted California politician Willie Brown in the 1990s. I added the fact that Brown was married at the time, which was almost immediately reverted by someone who claimed it to be "irrelevant". A glance at the WP articles of other politicians finds that this matter is not "irrelevant". One may choose not to care about such things. But "irrelevant" would be if we included the color shoes she was wearing when she announced her campaign for president. (And yet I dare say that if she wore green shoes that day, it would nonetheless have earned a mention.) <BLP redacted> Shall we go around scrubbing all mentions of such things in every WP article? Because such mentions are everywhere, and not just in the case of politicians. Vcuttolo (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

But "irrelevant" would be if we included the color shoes she was wearing when she announced her campaign for president.

You know, it's possible for multiple things that have nothing to do with each other to be irrelevant. Crazy, I know.

Now, did you have any other reason than "because I said so" to argue for relevancy -- or your BLP-violating characterization of said edit? Remember, BLP policy applies EVERYWHERE on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 09:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem briefly mentioning that she dated Willie Brown while he was still married to his long-estranged wife in the mid-1990s. It's interesting biographical detail that has been reported in reliable sources.[3][4][5][6] - MrX 🖋 11:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: The fact that Brown was still married is a biographical detail about Brown, not about Harris. I would concur with Calton that an argument could be made for it being a violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It's is not remotely a violation of policy to include it, and it is about both Harris and Brown. That said, I'm not going to defend its inclusion, because it's not especially important unless it could be combined with material about her political rise.- MrX 🖋 13:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem we need to watch out for is the subtext. I assume good faith and I am not going to guess the motives of individual editors. I do think we need to be aware that this will be a loaded topic because it is reminiscent of common digs at successful women. I would rather mention the relationship with Brown be in personal life, as who she dated was part of her personal life. I think a slightly fuller explanation of the situation, if done in a way that includes Harris' response to the relationship, could be acceptable. I also think expanding personal life in general could also help with balance and context. Knope7 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if this is included, it should be properly contextualized.- MrX 🖋 14:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It's is not remotely a violation of policy to include it...

Go back and use the edit history to read what I redacted from Vcuttolo, and then try to say that with a straight face. Because what Vcuttolo wrote explicitly is what you think is okay to include implicitly. --Calton | Talk 05:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Link? I don't see a redaction in the recent article edit history, so I have no idea what you're referring to.- MrX 🖋 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

'I redacted" should be a clue. If you can't find it, I can't help you. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I also think that we should not include this - it is not particularly relevant to Harris. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I do think it is relevant that she dated Willie Brown; it wasn't a secret in any way, and Brown was a major influence on her political career. The characterization of him as "married" without any elaboration is the problem, and appears as (even if it isn't) an attempt to criticize or even smear Harris and/or Brown. How should we phrase it? He indeed was married; all reports are that he and his wife separated somewhere between 1976 and 1981, and that they've maintained an amicable relationship ever since, especially as they headed toward their 80s. So this was not a "cheating on his wife" scenario; this was a "married in name only" scenario. To refer to him simply as "married" is inappropriate. You could say "married, but separated for at least a decade". Or something like that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Unlike other editors here who are tiptoeing around this issue, I think the "married" part, as it was originally written in the article, is an attempt to make a thinly veiled suggestion that she is a "loose woman". I don't say that from any political point of view. It would be true regardless of where she is on the political spectrum. The Brown relationship was nothing like the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky relationship, or Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels. Those could be considered seriously scandalous. Since Brown had been long estranged from his wife, I think it's best to leave out his marital status altogether. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Having twice reverted the Brown "while married" comment as irrelevant, I agree with Scjessey, Knope7, jpgordon, and IP 183 that including the statement is conspicuous misogyny and political sexism having the intent to portray Harris with early-life loose behavior; it does not succeed with people looking at Harris' personal life with non-partisan eyes. The original source by Brown himself here made no issue ("so what?"), and the Vox ref used presently here gives balance to the personal and political interactions of mid-1990s San Francisco politics between a mayor 10+ years estranged from his wife and a rising star attorney. --Zefr (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The Vox source looks useful, particularly because it gives some quotes from Harris that can help with balance. I would support adding one of those quotes to the article. I think one option for the way to deal with the "married" debate is to put that in a footnote along with the explanation that he had been separated from his wife for 10 years before the relationship. The possible advantage to addressing the issue that he was married is this: if allows curious readers to get the information in a fair and accurate way without putting too much of a spotlight on it. I see some value in readers being able to find a fair version of what happened here, rather than only reading about it on fringe websites that are unconcerned with accuracy. Knope7 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

...is an attempt to make a thinly veiled suggestion...

Go through the history of this page and find the bit I redacted: it wasn't "veiled", thinly or otherwise. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Calton: It's you who should go through the history of the page and find the "married" edit, specifically this edit. It has nothing to do with what you redacted. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You are incompetent or dishonest, neither of which is my requirement to fix for you. --Calton | Talk 17:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Calton: My response to your personal attack is on your talk page. If you have additional personal comments make them on my talk page. This is not the venue for such comments. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Spare me the unctuous ass-covering. Your comment had fuck-all to do with anything I wrote, at all -- the word "redaction" should be a clue -- so either you were unable to do something as simple as read the edit history properly or you were attempting to obscure the issue. If you think this gives you some sort of moral high ground, you're sadly mistaken. No, did you have a comment on what I ACTUALLY wrote, or did you want to blow more smoke? --Calton | Talk 18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Chinese name

At least put a note stating why a Chinese name has to do with this person. -- Tofeiku^Chat 14:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This does not belong in the lead.- MrX 🖋 15:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. Unless there's some evidence that her name in Chinese is in some way significant, it's just random trivia. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Y'all, see Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand also. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The portion of sources using this name is too small for it to be due in the lead. -sche (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Israel?

The article needs to include a discussion of her positions on Israel and the issues relating to the Israel - Palestinian conflict. ---Dagme (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is important to note that she is supportive of a two-state solution, supported the Iran nuclear deal, and co-sponsored a Senate resolution in early 2017 that essentially rebuked the Obama administration for allowing through a U.S. Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s settlement policies. Not sure where this would fit in the article at the moment. It could be an important issue during her presidential campaign. Bluewolverine123 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Affluent suburb

I modified the statement that Harris graduated from Westmount High School in "the Westmount suburb" to add the adjective "affluent." Scjessey reverted my edited with the comment, "why is that biographically relevant?"[7] The type of neighbourhood one grows up in is of course relevant to their biography, just as is their parentage and education. If Harris had lived in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, it might not be necessary to describe them. But why mention Westmount at all if it has no meaning to readers? TFD (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the article is Harris, not the suburb of Westmount. If people want to know about the suburb, they can read about it at its own article. It was probably not your intention, but it could be seen as a roundabout way of saying Harris was privileged in some way, which we don't have a source for. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Her mother was a prominent scientist who taught at university while her father was a university professor. Those are generally considered middle class occupations. And why mention Westmount at all? TFD (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see how that is relevant. Perhaps we need a third opinion? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Westmount is linked in the Harris article, as are several other locations where she spent time. I agree that this article is about Harris, not those locations. We don't need such additional descriptors here, whether for Westmount or other locations such as Howard University or the University of California. Interested readers can find them by clicking the links. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Soeaking of Howard University, the source used says, "As an undergraduate, Harris attended Howard University, an historically black institution in the nation's capital." (Donna Owens, NBC, "Meet Kamala Harris, the Second Black Woman Elected to the U.S. Senate".) Reliable sources do typically provide brief descriptions of schools and neighborhoods that may be unfamiliar to readers. TFD (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

True, but since Wikipedia has a separate article on both the school and the neighborhood we don't need to do that, and it may give the wrong impression of the subject if we do. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"Tenure as California Attorney General" redux

Now that Harris has declared for president, I feel it is the proper time to move this discussion.

The section on "Tenure as California Attorney General" is far too much detail for this article. I count about 2000 words (over 12KB of readable prose) in that section. If all of the material is notable, it should be spun-off to a different article. If the material is unimportant, it should simply be removed from this article. I expect some of these news stories are promoted by her political supporters, and others by her political opponents. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the section should be trimmed or spun-off. One suggestion for trimming is to remove the Supreme Court speculation and the U.S. Attorney General speculation. Neither appointment ever materialized. Maybe one sentence, at most, could cover that she was considered for appointments in the Obama administration but nothing came of it. Knope7 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be trimmed significantly.- MrX 🖋 13:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Knope7 that the Supreme Court and US AG speculation could be reduced to a single sentence, since neither materialized. -sche (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly trimmed it. The sentence about how Obama nominated Lynch to replace Holder was particularly irrelevant to an article about Harris. -sche (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see so many editors weigh in. I'll add that I'm getting rid of the paragraph on the Daniel Larsen case (he convicted under the 3 strikes law, a judge later declared him innocent, but he remained in prison pending state's appeal). The final straw for me was that the paragraph said Harris ordered his release and the source cited didn't mention Harris at all. I'll leave a link Los Angeles Times editorial here as it does mention Harris.[8] At most, this case could be a sentence, but I don't think it warrants that. Knope7 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

Just the opposite of the body, I feel the lead section deserves a sentence on Harris's tenure as California AG, perhaps briefly mentioning her most noteworthy accomplishments. Just a drive-by observation. R2 (bleep) 19:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The disambiguation page links Daniel Larsen to this page but Larsen is not mentioned. I don't see a discussion about removing a reference to Larsen. EdEveridge (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I explained why I removed the Daniel Larsen on this page. It's just a couple of paragraphs up. The case maybe significant and may merit mention somewhere on Wikipedia, but as written it was a stretch to include it in an article about Harris' life. Knope7 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Knope7, it's been readded. I reverted the addition, and another account (that had been inactive for almost three years) reverted me. So that I don't violate 1RR, I can't take it back out. I do agree that it's just one case and doesn't merit inclusion here. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank's for pointing out it's been added again. In an abundance of caution, I am not removing it now at the moment. I think we need to open some sort of dispute resolution on this, although I'm not quite sure what method is most appropriate. Knope7 (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Knope7, WP:RFC? (Thanks to Drmies for removing it.) – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it bothersome when editors who haven't been here in years come by and without so much as a by your leave create problems in a 1R article. Very bothersome. And the previous revert was also by someone who hadn't been active in the area at all and couldn't be arsed to discuss on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Danial Larsen...

I recently heard about the controversy surrounding Daniel Larsen and Kamala Harris, as California attorney general, fighting in the appeals courts to keep him incarcerated.

I Googled to get more information about this, and one of the first results which came up was the Daniel Larsen disambiguation page, which, in turn, linked to a section of this article: Kamala Harris#Daniel Larsen case.

When I clicked that link though, I found that not only was that section no longer present, but the Daniel Larsen case wasn't even mentioned in the article at all!

Now I won't speculate as to what the intentions may have been of whatever person, or people, decided to remove this information, but, if nothing else, this certainly creates at least the impression of a coverup - i.e. that one or more editors here are biased and are therefore trying to sanitize Kamala's article to remove an embarrassing controversy.

...Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but that's certainly the impression one gets!

Furthermore, I would argue that this content should be included because it's already a controversy for her candidacy in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, and it's only likely to become even more of an issue as the primary campaign revs up.

Kamala has branded herself as a "progressive," and as an African American woman who's an ally of the Black Lives Matter movement and the cause of criminal justice reform, so the fact that she battled in the appeals courts to keep an innocent man locked up is certainly significant.

Now, to be clear, Wikipedia should absolutely cover this issue in as neutral and NPOV of a way as possible, and include any relevant statements from both Harris and her campaign and from her critics...In fact that's why I came looking here in the first place - to try to find a more objective and non-biased analysis of this case. I heard about it from an activist opposed to Kamala, and wanted to see both sides of the story and if any relevant info had been omitted from the activist's account.

I also understand the issue of "undue weight," and not wanting to see a giant section here at this article which get into all of the nuances of the case. So I'd be totally fine with it being spun off as a separate article about the case and the controversy surrounding it. But it should at least be mentioned on this page, with a link to that article then. -2003:CA:873C:91F6:A8F9:F2A5:3AFB:2CDF (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Don't people get tired of shouting "cover up! censorship!" every time they can't find something in the place in which they wished they'd find it? Personally, I think Wikipedia is censoring my beautiful collection of Pinewood Derby cars; it doesn't have a redirect. (To the IP: YES, I don't take this seriously, with the little narrative attached to it. You could have searched for "Larsen" on this very page, or in the archive.) Drmies (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies - Your sarcasm aside, there's no good reason for it not to be mentioned on this page. As I mentioned, the disambig page links to a section of this article which is no longer there. I don't think the same can be said for your "derby cars." Again, this is a notable controversy for her candidacy, and you haven't articulated a good reason for its exclusion from the article. Like my original comment noted, I'm not wanting to speculate about any editor's motives, but this conspicuous absence certainly creates the impression of bias. -2003:CA:873C:91F6:A8F9:F2A5:3AFB:2CDF (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll put the sarcasm aside if you put the act aside. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

2003:CA:873C:91F6:A8F9:F2A5:3AFB:2CDF, a good reason not to mention it is WP:UNDUE. Articles I've read on Daniel Larsen's case (like this one or this one) mention Harris in passing rather than in any depth (notwithstanding the NYT opinion piece, which is an opinion piece). This was one case among the many that she served on and it doesn't merit an entire section on her bio page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu - If you read my original comment again, you'll see that I already addressed the "undue" issue. Like I said then, it's totally fine if somebody wants to spin off more nuanced information about that case to a separate article, but it should certainly be mentioned here. Also, I just did a search now, and found a good number of recent articles mentioning this controversy for Kamala as a presidential candidate, and they come from a variety of sources - conservative, progressive, and libertarian: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/kamala-harris-bad-on-criminal-justice/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/31/kamala-harris-and-the-myth-of-a-progressive-cop/ http://www.sonomastatestar.com/opinion/2019/1/29/kamala-harris-may-not-be-as-progressive-as-she-claims https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/12/kamala-harris-is-not-smart-on-crime http://www.sonomastatestar.com/opinion/2019/1/29/kamala-harris-may-not-be-as-progressive-as-she-claims https://www.foxnews.com/politics/criminal-justice-record-for-sen-kamala-harris-comes-under-scrutiny https://californiaglobe.com/local/san-francisco/kamala-is-in/ -2003:CA:873C:91F6:A8F9:F2A5:3AFB:2CDF (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

2003:CA:873C:91F6:A8F9:F2A5:3AFB:2CDF, a separate article would also be undue. It's not such a notable case that it meets criteria for its own article. Those "variety of sources" you presented all seem to be pushing their POVs, which we do our best to avoid. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu - Again, it's a controversy for her campaign, so naturally people with various POVs will be giving their opinions about it. Wikipedia strives for NPOV, which means that it should report notable opinions and commentary about a candidate - from critics, supporters, the candidate and their campaign, etc. - but not assert a POV of its own. So again, that's my position. Include relevant info from older articles about the case itself, and also more recent notable commentary from major publications like NYT, The Intercept, Reason, and National Review, about this case as it relates directly to Kamala. It's clear to me though that you're determined to not see such info included, so I won't comment more at this time, but will wait for others to weigh in, maybe starting an RFC process in the coming days if someone else doesn't do that. -2003:CA:873C:91F6:A8F9:F2A5:3AFB:2CDF (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

2003:CA:873C:91F6:A8F9:F2A5:3AFB:2CDF, I don't see evidence that it's a "controversy", just that some on the left and some on the right are trying to make it into a controversy. We have WP:NODEADLINE here and can readd it if it does turn out to be a major campaign story down the road. You can start an RfC if you like. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with the argument that this would be a pretty clear violation of WP:UNDUE, and a spin off article would have issues with WP:GNG. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to propose more appropriate language for re-adding Larsen to this article, by all means, make a proposal here on the talk page. The previous language was a violation of WP:undue. It referred to Harris twice: one of those mentions was actually about her office (not clear she was actually involved in the office's decision) and the second said Harris ordered his release, which did not reflect the source material (the judge ordered release). What we had was a long paragraph explaining the case with no clear connection to Harris herself. I actually think the Larsen case might merit its own article, although I'm not sure. It would also have to make it clear who took what actions rather than assigning all actions by the state of California to Harris personally. Knope7 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Finance

Kamala Harris has a complicated history with campaign finance, and it is one sided to only have "she rejects most corporate donations" but leave out Trump and Mnuchin donating to her campaign and that she met with prominent Democratic donors in the summer of 2017. I would like this included in an impartial way so readers do not think "She is a corrupt corporate pawn" or "she hates corporate America". Capriaf January 30, 2019 15:39 UTC

Corporate PAC money is not the only means that corporations use to donate to politicians. Kamala has only disavowed corporate PAC money, not all corporate money. She still has corporate donations. WarnerMedia is one of Kamala's top donors, so the notion she rejects most or all corporate donations is wrong. I would like it to be more than a vague one sentence remark, however, each time I edit it, it gets taken down. Capriaf February 18, 2019 21:07 UTC

The text that you are edit-warring into the article (despite notifications of the 1RR rule and DS)[9] is a sloppy piece of WP:SYNTH that attempts to show that Harris is lying about her pledge not to accept most corporate donations in her 2020 campaign or that there is something wrong about her past in terms of campaign finance: (1) "Prior to running for president, Harris had a complicated history with donations" is your WP:OR and it suggests wrong-doing. (2) The text misleadingly suggests that she's lying about corporate donations by (a) conflating what she did in 2017 with her declaration in 2018/2019 not to accept most corporate donations and (b) suggesting that meeting with Democratic Party donors is a violation or complication of her pledge. (3) An op-ed in the Washington Examiner is not a WP:RS. (4) That two of the Trumps donated to the 2014 Harris campaign is WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, there's nothing on Ivanaka donating. That's unsourced. (5) That HuffPo piece is a contributor op-ed (not a RS). (6) The sentence "Her biggest donor in 2018 was WarnerMedia" suggests that the company itself donated to Harris, which is not what the source shows. The source clearly states, "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." Furthermore, editors should not be digging through primary sources such as OpenSecrets to add random donations of unclear relevance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans the article specifically said she had a complicated history. I also wrote that it was prior to her run for President. It’s not misleading and it is objectively true. Dismissing her past comes off as favoritism for a candidate. I have see. Such comments on Hillary Clinton’s and Cory Booker’s Wikipedia article. It is disingenuous to completely dismiss her record. I am making a good faith effort and am getting frustrated that it’s getting deleted rather than revised to better comply. Stop. Being a jerk about it. It should include her record not a mere pledge she said. Primary sources are the best because it is more objective which is what Wikipedia wants to be. WarnerMedia owns CNN, which gave her a town hall but has not given other candidates such. It is genuine to put there. I also specifically included an edit that she rejects Super PACs. I am presenting the facts neutrally. If you have a problem, I encourage you to make edits to better comply rather than a mere deletion which omits her record. Capriaf

"Primary sources are the best because it is more objective which is what Wikipedia wants to be. WarnerMedia owns CNN, which gave her a town hall but has not given other candidates such. It is genuine to put there." This exemplifies the problem: you stitching together primary sources, op-eds and unrelated factoids to suggest various acts of wrong-doing, including what you now suggest is a conspiracy theory of CNN and Harris working in cahoots somehow. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I did not suggest acts of wrong doing. Stating her her record is objective and the people should know her whole record. Steve Mnuchin donating to her campaign is on his page. I did not suggest CNN and Harris are colliding together. At most it would suggest CNN has an interest in Harris. That’s it. Also, I cited her donors, which proves she has a MIXED record. It is mixed, not negative or positive. I mentioned her opposition and rejection of Super PACs which may be considered more negative than simple corporate PAC money. Her record is MIXED and you are only having a part of it, which can be seen as making it more biased, which Wikipedia opposes. So please cut the accusations. I’m trying to make it fair in good faith. If you have issues, it is preferable to make a revision rather than a deletion. Her record is mixed and we need to address that. It’s not bias, it’s called objectivity. Capriaf

<Rolls eyes>. Yeah, right. Even if we bought what you're selling, the whole "no original research" policy means you shouldn't be doing. --Calton | Talk 17:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Calton if you think what I’m doing is wrong, feel free to revise to better comply. I welcome that but deletion is frustrating. We should strive to better inform everyone. Leaving out her mixed record recklessly is not acceptable. When every other politicians have explanations of their mixed record, it stays up. For instance, Hillary Clinton, once opposed policies like DACA but campaigned to keep it. It is on her page. So why not have Kamala’s mixed record on campaign finance? Capriaf

I've removed the second paragraph entirely, as (despite careful wording) it implies some shadowy connection between certain donations and investigations. This is deeply troubling to me. This material should not be restored in any form unless/until a consensus is formed here for inclusion. Be mindful of the discretionary sanctions in operation on this article before attempting to restore it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate such critique. You kept the Hampton meeting which arguably more important. As that one sentence remained, I am happy to let further discussion occur. I do believe her past record on campaign finance should be I. There and further explained, but I’ll wait for the consensus to see how such proceedings shall occur. Capriaf

Descended from slave owners

Her father admitted her family was slave owners, "My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town)". That seems like something that should be mentioned in the article, because she's made it an issue, as she believes in reparations for slavery, and claims to be descended from Africans. Since I don't know how to comply with all the rules of writing an entry, I wanted to put it here, for other editors to put it in the right tone/format, and so I could learn from that. https://www.jamaicaglobalonline.com/kamala-harris-jamaican-heritage/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.146.147 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not reliably sourced. Mr. Harris is not a genealogist. It also fails weight, since it has received no coverage in secondary sources. Note too that probably most African Americans are descended from slave owners. If the story gains traction, then I would reconsider. TFD (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, do not include this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2019

"Since becoming a Senator, Harris has supported Medicare-for-all, legalization of recreational marijuana, sanctuary cities, passing a DREAM Act, and lowering taxes for the working and middle classes while raising taxes on corporations and the wealthiest top 1% of Americans."

By opening the paragraph with "Since becoming a Senator", readers are provided with a deceptive half-truth. No context is provided regarding her recent past actions/stances as a District Attorney. For example, she was against recreational marijuana (even laughed at a journalist when asked about her support in the past), and as District Attorney for San Francisco she supported hostile immigration policies which empowered ICE. Though these positions may be apart of her platform now as a Senator/Presidential candidate, her history suggests that her adoption of these positions are motivated by political convenience.

The paragraph should either be removed or rephrased to not be a half-truth, and at the very least should have citations/sources. These pages shouldn't act as marketing extensions for one's campaign/supporters, they should act as objective/neutral sources of information. Leave news outlets to provide their biases, not encyclopedias. Throwaway743 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Throwaway743, your comment about what "her history suggests" appears to be original research. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kamala Harris announcing her candidacy for presidency.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

In the 2020 Election section, ADD that Kamala Harris told Jimmy Kimmel in March 2019: "I fully intend to win." Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/kamala-harris-talks-presidential-race-i-fully-intend-win-1195785 Truthfixer (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: That is not at all worth including. What is she going to say? That she intends to lose? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2019

Remove the reference to True Pundit. They are A) actually fake news; and B) the reference does not accurately state what was written in the article. 38.105.241.66 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed. I don't see the slightest evidence that "True Pundit" is a reliable source. I can't even find an "About" page for them. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sanctuary City/Illegal Immigration - Edwin Ramos

Senator Harris has a controversy around her shielding of Edwin Ramos who was a known illegal alien and MS13 gang member who had been previously released after multiple arrests including weapons charges under Harris lead resulting in the murder of 3 people. It was a big controversy at the beginning of her career, relevant, and such controversies should be included in all political figures pages equitably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this a reference to her refusal to go for the death penalty because she opposes capital punishment and to ask for life without parole instead? That's not shielding. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Its a reference to a family being murdered as a direct result of her support and enforcement of sanctuary city policies by shielding illegal aliens from DHS while District Attorney of San Francisco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sanctuary city policies are designed to "improve immigration controls", not to prevent crime. The judge who threw out the Bologna's suit said so in 2010. Harris got him convicted and he's serving life in prison. There's no controversy here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

C'mon Muboshgu, please stop feeding trolls. Look at their contributions.- MrX 🖋 23:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I always strive to WP:AGF even in the likely case of a right-wing troll. I think it's best to try to shut it down with the facts once, but then yes, don't continue feeding after that. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I know you do. I've seen way too much of this far right trolling in the past couple of weeks years.- MrX 🖋 23:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It certainly seems to have increased since the Barr Letter. We'll see what the release of the Mueller Report changes, if it ever comes out. Facts are our best ally. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Who is trolling? It is a factual event that occurred which was a large part of her early career in San Francisco. Wikipedia is suppose to not be bias how public figures are presented. This article is clearly bias and being locked based on her and 'power users' politics.11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think you're trolling. I think you spend so much time in the right wing bubble you lose sight of which way is up. Please present some mainstream sources that suggest this case is a major event in her career. It seems like one of many prosecutions to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide a source that there is a controversy. I have not been able to find any, even in conspiracy theory webaites. Harris was the district attorney of San Francisco in 2004 when Ramos was sentenced to juvenile detention for a number of offenses. Following his release he committed homicide. The family of the murder victims unsuccessfully sued San Francisco on the basis that their policies prevented police from reporting Ramos to immigration authorities which would have led to his deportation and prevented him from committing murder in the U.S. There is no evidence that Harris was aware of the case in 2004 and even in non-sanctuary cities, it is the role of police and prisons to report immigration violations, not prosecutors. Of course in politics facts don't matter and her opponents may decide to use this against her at which time we can report the controversy. TFD (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation with Kamala (Jim Harris)

Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&type=revision&diff=873518500&oldid=873344882

Either something is notable on Wikipedia or it isn't - Wikipedia has no concept of "notable enough." Jim "Kamala" Harris was a big enough star in his day for many people over about 30 to be put in mind of him whenever Ms HArris's name crops up.

I prefer to assume good faith but cannot help but suspect that one of Ms Harris' "people" removed the disambig as it was seen as bad for her image. As a lifelong wrestling fan, I find this irritating to say the least. Given that the current Administrator of the Small Business Administration infamously once participated in a professional wrestling angle where she watched in "drugged stupor" as her husband (Mr Jim Harris's real life former employer) frolicked with a far younger woman. I sincerely doubt much damage can come to Kamala Harris from the mental association with Kamala.62.190.148.115 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of edit with repeated, totally unfounded claims of “tabloid” sourcing

Edit was made to provide context to the board appointments made in the early 1990s. Sourcing included respected local newspaper The San Francisco Chronicle reporting from 2003, a direct quote from Senator Harris and modern citing from other news sources discussing the context. 2 editors have unilaterally reversed the edit with no discussion, no recommendations for changes to wording and no talk other then a inflammatory accusation of “tabloid nonsense” despite none of the sources being tabloid news and the edit specifically tailored to only include facts from the time. DoesPolitics (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

DoesPolitics: WP:HTRIV and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Zefr (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

Add to the Campaign Contributions section the sentences as such or similar:

She has received the most registered lobbyist donations of any Democratic presidential campaign that has said it would not take the cash. Companies who's lobbyists contributed include Google, Pfizer, Verizon, AT&T, Visa, Airbnb, IBM, Cigna, and HCA health care.

My suggestion is to place it like here:

Harris' 2020 campaign has disavowed most corporate donations, and has committed to rejecting money from corporate political action committees for her presidential campaign. Harris, along with candidates Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Marianne Williamson, has explicitly discouraged single-candidate super PACs from operating on her behalf, though she cannot prevent them from doing so. She has received the most registered lobbyist donations of any Democratic presidential campaign that has said it would not take the cash. Companies who's lobbyists contributed include Google, Pfizer, Verizon, AT&T, Visa, Airbnb, IBM, Cigna, and HCA health care. Hollywood celebrities, including J. J. Abrams, hosted a big fundraiser for Senator Harris. For Harris' 2020 campaign, she is relying on both small and large individual donors. Gravitative (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: I used the exact quotation from The Intercept and attributed it to them, as well as placing it in context of the FEC disclosure. I did not see a reason to comment on the specifics of the lobbying groups, which I would see as undue weight. Izno (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Typo: "presss" should be "press"

Book The Truths We Hold: An American Journey Penguin Presss, 2019 [204] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macthelist (talk • contribs) 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by MrX, thanks. –84.46.52.177 (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicity, race and religion

Based on what I have seen, she was clearly raised as a Black in Berkeley by her mother, however she acknowldges the Indian roots of her mother. Clearly multi-racial: African and European from her Jamaican father, and Indian ("Aryan" and "Dravidian") Tamil Brahmin Iyer from her mother, both scholars of some distinction. Raised mainly a Baptist, she did visit Hindu temples as a child, and is married to a Jewish person.Malaiya (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

What's your point in basically repeating what's in the article? Are you asking that the article should be changed? If so, what are your reliable sources? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"CNN's April Ryan has suggested that due to the history of slavery in Jamaica, Harris may indeed be of partially African descent." Boy, April Ryan must really be a scholar of history! It would be extraordinary--particularly given the pictures of his grandmothers shown in the article referenced in footnote 11--if Harris's father is not primarily of African descent, but likely with some white "admixture" (i.e., rape). Can we delete Ms. Ryan's bold [that's sarcasm] speculation and allow the reader to work out the obvious?Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

At the moment the article explains Indian and Jamaican roots in #Early life and education, but offers Jamaican or Indian ancestry in the lede. Maybe it's not only me, and is clearer than or. While at it, WaPo is a non-free url-access=subscription source, I cannot check if the or was their idea. –84.46.52.177 (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the lede is phrased that way because 1) California has never before had a Senator of Indian ancestry, and 2) California has never before had a Senator of Jamaican ancestry. Harris is therefore the first of each group[, one "or" the other. The first of "Jamaican and Indian" ancestry would mean the first of that particular combination, meaning there might have been a Jamaican before, there might have been an Indian before, but never someone of both. "Or" gives a greater sense of the historical nature of the achievement. Does that make sense? JTRH (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

ACK, I missed that point and read or as TBD. Something like "the first of Jamaican, and the first of Indian ancestry" would have worked for me. –84.46.52.177 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

{{subst:trim|1=

Hi, I'm disturbed by a right-wing propaganda effort to frame Kamala as the descendant of a slave owner without context explaining how that happened. The background on her ancestry is extremely important to detail because Kamala's ancestor was likely the slave of the slave owner, Hamilton Brown, not a slaveowner herself. Like many slaveowners, married or not (Hamilton was not), they held relationships with and raped their female slaves. To assume that Kamala's ancestor was involved in the slave trader's business ignores commonly known history. I did research and suggest the following additional content:

"According to Kamala Harris’ father (Donald J. Harris) the Democratic presidential hopeful’s great-grandmother (Christiana Brown) was a descendant of Hamilton Brown, a Jamaican slave plantation owner who founded the city of Brown’s Town, Jamaica. According to Donald J. Harris, Christiana was born in 1889, 46 years after Hamilton Brown died in 1843. Logically, Hamilton Brown is not Christiana's father. He is potentially Christiana's great grandfather, but it is unclear how she became his descendant given that Hamilton Brown has many black descendants in Brown's Town, St Ann, Jamaica. According to one elderly local in 2010; "A good amount of Brown live here, you know," he said. "People what name Brown pack up the place. It all coming from Hamilton Brown who the town name after. Yes man, dem teach it in school."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmbdigs (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We can only report what reliable sources say.and so far I have not seen any that qualify her ancestry. If you have any other sources they would be helpful. TFD (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

As an elementary school student, she benefited from school integration. --61.192.2.217 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)According to Harris, hers was only the second year when children of Indian and Jamaican graduate students at University of California, Berkeley like herself were allowed to study along with white students.[16] After the divorce, when Harris was 12,[17]

The middle line really should be deleted / rewritten / moved to a different location. As the flow is like 61.192.2.217 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Please correct

"hers was only the second year when children of Indian and Jamaican graduate students at University of California, Berkeley like herself were allowed to study along with white students." Prior to busing, Harris's elementary school had African-American students. It's incorrect to say they weren't "allowed" to study along with white students. It also makes no sense to say "children of Indian and Jamaican graduate students", as if that's a relevant class. The correct statement: "hers was the second year when African-American children made up a significant percentage of the elementary school's students."

(User talk:BrianC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New birtherism

I think we have to grimace and put a section here and in the campaign article about the "new birtherism." I just read a crap piece on some rightwing site, for example, claiming that she was an "anchor baby" and that because her parents were not citizens, she is not eligible to be POTUS. Total nonsense and bad law, but this was a conspiracist website. Like the original birtherism, this is picking and choosing for partisan and racist reasons. Any thoughts? --165.189.255.44 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

We need to wait until reliable sources cover it, even if just to debunk it. We don't report what random crackpots say, even if gets retweeted a lot. EEng 21:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Early life section

I thought this was an interesting thing about her that I think we should add back:

In their last year of high school, Kagan recalled, Harris helped organize a large group of girls to go together to prom "in an attempt to prevent others from feeling left out."

"She wanted to make sure girls weren’t outcasts, and didn’t feel that pressure if they never got asked to go by a guy," Kagan said. The lorax (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC) And can we add back the bit about her protesting her Montreal building preventing children from playing in the courtyard? Her early life feels a little truncated otherwise.The lorax (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References

• IMHO no and no. Girls went to the prom together so feelings didn't get hurt -- is that unusual? The source doesn't say. As for the no-playing protest, my edit summary explains clearly. EEng 02:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: Is it not? Don't the vast majority of people just go to prom with their prom date and not care about the other people who didn't get invited? It stood out to me as a unique anecdote from her childhood that gave some light to what her personality was like as a young person. Regarding the story about her protest to allow kids to play in the courtyard, it was also mentioned in her memoir and there aren't many stories out there about what she was like as a child, except for that one. The lorax (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Don't the vast majority of people just go to prom with their prom date and not care about the other people who didn't get invited? – I don't know. Do you have a source answering this question in the context of what Harris did, and explaining why this shines light on her as a person?
• It stood out to me as a unique anecdote from her childhood that gave some light to what her personality was like as a young person – It needs to stand out to reliable, independent sources.
• it was also mentioned in her memoir and there aren't many stories out there about what she was like as a child, except for that one – Unfortunately, until there are such sources we're not going to be able to say much about what she was like as a child, because in the absence of such sources we're certainly not going to simply repeat nice things from her memoir.

I just want to say that I think the subject is an extraordinary person and I wish her success. But our desire to present a fuller background about her can't override our sourcing requirements. EEng 18:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bear in mind too that this was in Montreal, so it may not have been the same as a prom in U.S. high schools. TFD (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

She's a cop

There doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the article. This seems to be a common criticism of her from progressives and I think it should be mentioned in the section about her run for president. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/23/18184192/kamala-harris-president-campaign-criminal-justice-record https://reason.com/2019/06/03/kamala-harris-is-a-cop-who-wants-to-be-president/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.188.51 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

She is not literally a cop. TFD (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Complete baloney. "Cop" is slang for police officer. Harris has never been a police officer. A highly opinionated opinion piece in a highly partisan publication like Reason is not appropriate as a source for this blatant falsehood. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/19/kamala-harris-2020-election-top-cop-prosecutor https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html So vox, the ny times and the gaurdian are not reliable sources. In this context cop doesn't mean a cop but a prosecutor who's tough on crime. This article has no mention of progresive criticism of in the election which i felt was needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.188.51 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

So propose some progressive criticism to be added to the article. "She's a cop" is not going to be added to the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019

extra-marital affair with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Brown_(politician): [...] Mayor Willie Brown took his Mistress Kamala Harris to his birthday party where his wife was present.

source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/27/willie-brown-kamala-harris-san-francisco-chronicle-letter/2695143002/ LivingOffgridInAZ (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

She dated Willie Brown, yes. But he and his wife were separated at the time. And your allegation that Brown "abused his position" to appoint someone as qualified as Harris is baseless. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed a few things that were obvious lies, statements made in Brown's voice, perhaps, as if they were factual. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Forgive me if I do something wrong, I'm a total newb to wikipedia edits.

The sentence "Harris was enrolled at a neighborhood school for native French speakers" should be removed, it's simply inacurate. The footnote (24)is a book I haven't read, so can't look up & explain where the mistake was made, but I know it's wrong. Westmount High is the local school for English speakers - not a school for French speakers.

I'm close to her age, lived 2 blocks away from Westmount High at the time, but because I speak French, had to take the subway 3 stops to Ecole Secondaire St-Luc, the neighbourhood school for French speakers.

A bunch of my friends went to Westmount High; they're all English. It's actually sort of difficult to get into, due to the language laws in Quebec; if you're even a bit bilingual, you get shoved into a French school, lest you become assimilated anglo.

But don't take my word for it; wikipedia's page on Westmount High clearly states it's part of the ENGLISH school board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmount_High_School

Looks like this has been taken care of, so I'm marking as answered. Highway 89 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"African-American"

IntelligentName has twice removed List of African-American United States Senators from the article, claiming BLP. Harris has been quoted as identifying as "black," but the African-American part is less clear. In any case, IntelligentName's notion that this is a BLP violation is a stretch. There has been a certain amount of debate concerning how her ethnicity fits in with what is normally regarded as African-American [10] [11], and her ethnicity is now becoming a partisan talking point [12]. I've restored the list for now. I leave it to other editors to parse the difference between "black" and "African-American." Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

IntelligentName's notion that this is a BLP violation is a stretch

IntelligentName added this to Joe Biden, so I consider IntelligentName's assessment of what is or isn't a BLP violation to be suspect, to say the least. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And I've warned them for the second time that using BLP as a club isn't OK. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris is not African American

African American, per Oxford Dictionary:

a person from America who is a member of a race of people who have dark skin, originally from Africa

Kamala Harris is not from Africa. Her ancestors are not known to be from Africa. Her mother is Indian and her father is Jamaican. Therefore claiming "African American" heritage is factually incorrect. There are reliable sources which confirm these statements. Wikipedia should not label Kamala Harris as "African American". — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelligentName (talk • contribs)

You might wish to carefully read our article on Jamaicans. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, editors don't research family trees or look at DNA results to determine what ethnicity people have but rely on the conclusions reported by reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this has a lot to do with Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump, Jr. [13]. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)