This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BattleshipGray (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 4 August 2019 (Added discussion section about Green New Deal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:14, 4 August 2019 by BattleshipGray (talk | contribs) (Added discussion section about Green New Deal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tesr1208 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bookerxv (article contribs).
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Archives | ||||||
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
And again
Found the text had been altered, apparently again since these notes show a history, to include references to Harris' crusade against "the epidemic of child prositution in the city" . Also removed several phrases which, as others have pointed out, seemed to have come from a staffer or political campaign ad.
-- J. Cornelius 02:13, 26 July 2006 (PST)
Typo: "presss" should be "press"
Book The Truths We Hold: An American Journey Penguin Presss, 2019 — 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)
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)
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 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
- 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 23 April 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
- "Democratic 2020 candidates promised to reject lobbyist donations, but many accepted the cash anyway". The Intercept. April 17, 2019. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
- "Where the 2020 Candidates Stand on Campaign Finance". Sludge. Retrieved April 17, 2019.
- "Democratic 2020 candidates promised to reject lobbyist donations, but many accepted the cash anyway". The Intercept. April 17, 2019. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
- Slodysko, Brian; Summers, Juana (March 20, 2019). "Hollywood power elite hosting Kamala Harris fundraiser". AP NEWS. Retrieved April 17, 2019.
- Goldmacher, Shane; Martin, Jonathan (March 30, 2019). "2020 Democrats Love Small Donors. But Some Really Love Big Donors, Too". Retrieved April 17, 2019 – via NYTimes.com.
- 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)
Miscommunication about smoking pot to Snoop Dogg records
The editor Capriaf has repeatedly added content about some faux controversy where it's implied that Harris lied about smoking pot while listening to Snoop Dogg records (she did not claim that). This content obviously does not belong in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, this seems WP:UNDUE. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. Leave it out.- MrX 🖋 12:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a fake controversy. It was non-stop in the news. I cited different sources and specifically added where both the interviewer and the campaign said it was miscommunication. Currently people make memes about that incident and by putting this in there, it is very much needed to clarify the situation. It in no way implies she is a liar. It says she was answering two different questions. People inferred it as if she was listening to Snoop and I purposely clarified that. When this stuff happened with Hillary Clinton and others, it was left up. Why not Kamala? --Capriaf
- You've just violated 1RR. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see it as that significant to the overall topic despite receiving mainstream media coverage for a week. Her overall presidential campaign is at present a relatively minor part of the article. And you should self-revert before someone reports you for 1RR. TFD (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a fake controversy. It was non-stop in the news. Non-sequitur there. Some "news" outlets pump fake controversy as a matter of course; it sells ads. --jpgordon 19:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans, TFD, I only did one revert, not a violation. --jpgordon, yes news do sell stuff for ads, but the fact that it was covered on MSNBC, FOX, CNN and others, not just tabloids, it should be included. If wording is a problem, lets work that out. But it is noteworthy and should be in. My non-sequitur is actually a reference to Snooganssnoogans saying its fake. I am specifically trying to clarify what happened because people are under the impression she smoked and listened to Tupac, when reality is she was answering two questions.-Capriaf
- But it's one of those things that gets less and less important every day. "Some people thought she told a trivial lie, but she actually didn't." --jpgordon 00:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- jpgordon, It's something that is still lingering, the memes are still being made, and the general public's consensus is she lied when I'm trying to show she did not. -Capriaf
- Show us a source for "the general public's consensus is she lied". --jpgordon 14:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I am basing it off interactions with people and what I see all over Facebook and Twitter, and also based on the coverage the news gave on the situation. Which is why I feel it is important to have something in here saying she was answering two different questions. Snoogs is suggesting I'm saying she lied when I have repeatedly said she did not and that I want to make it clear to the public as a whole that she was not lying. -Capriaf
- What you find on facebook and twitter represents confirmation bias, You and your friends hold a certain view of the world, so you exchange things that you agree are important and social media tailors what it shows you based on that. TFD (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- TFD, it wasn't based on my friends posts, it was based on NYTimes, CBS, etc., where the top comments were about Kamala smoking pot to Tupac/Snoop Dogg. Those people I am no way affiliated with. Also, I included news coverage in my previous comment, which you purposely ignored. So it isn't the confirmation bias from my friends, rather it is specifically the people I do not know who have top comments on posts from well known news outlets. That's why we should have something here that specifically says she was answering two different questions and people are less likely to think she is lying when she was not. -Capriaf
- I am basing it off interactions with people and what I see all over Facebook and Twitter, and also based on the coverage the news gave on the situation. Which is why I feel it is important to have something in here saying she was answering two different questions. Snoogs is suggesting I'm saying she lied when I have repeatedly said she did not and that I want to make it clear to the public as a whole that she was not lying. -Capriaf
- Show us a source for "the general public's consensus is she lied". --jpgordon 14:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- jpgordon, It's something that is still lingering, the memes are still being made, and the general public's consensus is she lied when I'm trying to show she did not. -Capriaf
- But it's one of those things that gets less and less important every day. "Some people thought she told a trivial lie, but she actually didn't." --jpgordon 00:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see it as that significant to the overall topic despite receiving mainstream media coverage for a week. Her overall presidential campaign is at present a relatively minor part of the article. And you should self-revert before someone reports you for 1RR. TFD (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I realize that. The story was in mainstream news for a week. But it probably registered more for you because of your interest in articles that make Democrats look bad. Sometimes slips like this have major consequences and sometimes they don't. The Dean Scream for example was seen as a defining moment of the Dean campaign, while similar or worse things are quickly forgotten. The Breakfast Television interview could become an issue in the campaign, in which case it might be right to put it back in.
I have a question for MrX and Snooganssnoogans though. In the Talk:Tulsi Gabbard you are arguing that a criticism that was published in a source that Misplaced Pages editors have no consensus was reliable has weight for inclusion, but a story about Kamala Harris that appeared across major media does not. Why should we have different rules for the two candidates?
TFD (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- @TFD: Russia taking exceptional interest in an American presidential candidate, who has publicly expressed views that are arguable favorable to Russia, is magnitudes more encyclopedic than a botched story about Harris smoking pot while listening to records. It's not different rules (we don't have hard rules anyway); it's simply editorial discretion. By the way, I don't personally favor Harris over Gabbard. I wanted to address that, since that's what's implied by your question.- MrX 🖋 02:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with MrX. This is a fleeting triviality based on solely on media confusion, laziness and bias. The "incident" received about a week of coverage in February and is no longer discussed by reliable sources. Including this in her biography would give the misunderstanding undue weight. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- In other words, you have made a subjective judgment, ignoring the degree of coverage in mainstream sources. The problem is that Capriaf may think the Harris story is very important because the honesty of a future president is magnitudes more important than whether the Kremlin prefers them. TFD (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- What you call "subjective judgment", The Four Deuces, I call sound editorial judgment informed by ten years of study of our most important content policies. This incident has absolutely nothing to do with the honesty of a future president since anyone who takes a close look at the facts of the matter knows with certainty that there was no dishonesty here. Red herrings, much? Cullen Let's discuss it 02:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was replying to MrX not you and in fact agreed that it would be undue weight to include this. TFD (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I am not interested in stuff that puts democrats in bad name. I have explicitly said over and over again, I want to make it clear she was NOT lying but was answering two questions, not saying she was smoking pot to Snoop and Tupac. So can you stop accusing me of such? I have not engaged in the Tulsi Gabbard's page concerning Russia, because I think the section is well done as it complies with WP:NPOV because it outlines the accusation and provided details as to the source of the accusation. Based on what I saw on RealClearPolitics, Kamala's polls started to fade a little after the incident. I do not know if it was because of that, or if that was when other candidates, notably Pete Buttigieg started to rise, but I still feel as if this should be included briefly in the article. It should be included in the Cannabis section because she does have a long record with Cannabis matters, so it would not be undue weight, especially when cannabis gets expanded on. I also have a feeling this may get brought up in a Democratic Debate, but that is speculative. --Capriaf
- So here's a prosecutor who claims to be smoking marijuana at the same time she is sending people to prison for long periods of time for doing the same thing. And when asked what music she listened to in school she mentions groups that had not yet recorded. Her supporters then say she was referring to when she was a prosecutor, not when she was a student. I can understand why you or any reasonable person may find that interesting but the criterion for inclusion is weight. And while you may think it may become an issue in the debates, it only acquires weight if it does. I am guessing however that it does not. The only thing that does have weight is that Harris said she has smoked marijuana in the past, which seems to be important for every candidate. TFD (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- What you call "subjective judgment", The Four Deuces, I call sound editorial judgment informed by ten years of study of our most important content policies. This incident has absolutely nothing to do with the honesty of a future president since anyone who takes a close look at the facts of the matter knows with certainty that there was no dishonesty here. Red herrings, much? Cullen Let's discuss it 02:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- In other words, you have made a subjective judgment, ignoring the degree of coverage in mainstream sources. The problem is that Capriaf may think the Harris story is very important because the honesty of a future president is magnitudes more important than whether the Kremlin prefers them. TFD (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hahaha! Was this article written by her campaign staffers? My god, this site has the objectivity of a undergrad poli sci paper. You idiots are truly embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4C01:4CBB:80F0:4E18:19E9:3B2B (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Instead of being uncivil to others here, why not edit the article and improve the content that you believe is injecting a point of view that isn't neutral and within policy... :-) ~Oshwah~ 20:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{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
- "KAMALA HARRIS' JAMAICAN HERITAGE – UPDATED – 14.01.2019".
- "KAMALA HARRIS' JAMAICAN HERITAGE – UPDATED – 14.01.2019".
- "Hamilton Brown Profile & Legacies Summary". University College London.
- "Uncovering Secrets In Brown's Town". The Jamaica Gleaner.
Typo: "stidents" should be "students"
Under 'Early Life and Education':
'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 stidents' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubyet (talk • contribs) 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. After the divorce, when Harris was 12,
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)
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
- ^ "Why some of Kamala Harris' biggest fans are in Canada". The Mercury News. 2019-05-07. Retrieved 2019-07-01.
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
extra-marital affair with https://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
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. Cullen 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
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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/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)
Campaign finance section
@Ecelon: You have violated the edit restrictions on this article, specifically "If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit." I'm assuming you somehow failed to notice the big warning when you were editing this article, so I haven't reported you, but you should self-revert immediately. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the added content is not supported by the cited source. JTRH (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are incorrect, the added content is supported by that source. Ecelon (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- In response to the accusation I violated the rules for this article page I only reverted once so I did not violate the 1RR policy. As far as discussing on the talk page I have no problem with that (was busy yesterday so that's why I didn't reply until now). Fox News is not an unreliable source, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it is a reliable source, and nothing is said about not being able to use Fox News for a democrat BLP or CNN for a republican BLP. Ecelon (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for joining the discussion. The CNN analogy is a strange one—CNN is highly regarded as news sources go when it comes to accuracy, whereas Fox News is notorious for "spin" and outright falsehoods. In any case, reliability depends on context, and Fox News is more reliable for straightforward news reporting than for controversial partisan claims. Here's a recent discussion where related issues came up. The article you cited is far from straightforward news reporting, and is more of an attack on various Democratic presidential candidates. (The fact that they're Democrats is relevant because Fox News is well known as a conservative source; if we were talking about a Republican this might be a less severe issue.)
- You also haven't addressed the other problem I raised, which is that the definition of "large donors" is unclear.
- You're correct that you haven't violated 1RR, but you've violated the other portion of the edit restriction, which I quoted above. Please do not restore the disputed content without first gaining consensus. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- In response to the accusation I violated the rules for this article page I only reverted once so I did not violate the 1RR policy. As far as discussing on the talk page I have no problem with that (was busy yesterday so that's why I didn't reply until now). Fox News is not an unreliable source, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it is a reliable source, and nothing is said about not being able to use Fox News for a democrat BLP or CNN for a republican BLP. Ecelon (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are incorrect, the added content is supported by that source. Ecelon (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Granger I am genuinely confused. If I'm reading the rules correctly they state "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit". I'm not seeing any language that says "Please do not restore the disputed content without first gaining consensus". If I am wrong on this please point out where the rules say what you claim they say. As far as calling the article an "attack" I didn't read it that way at all. I read it more as a straight-forward article showing how many democrats are taking money from wealthy donors and large corporations/tech industry, etc. Get back to me, thanks Ecelon (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the bureaucratic stuff about 1RR, etc., my guess is that "large donors" refers to donors contributing above $200 — typically it's contrasted with small-dollar donors, defined as those giving less than $200. Here's a similar article from Reuters that defines it as such: . By their numbers, 37% of Harris's $12 million haul was from small-dollar donors, which would mean 63% was from large ones, which is roughly what we'd expect from the Fox numbers (which are from 2015 on, not just her presidential campaign like the Reuters numbers, to be clear). I don't really see the issue with the Fox source, but perhaps we could cite the Reuters article as well or instead if others agree it's a problem. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Including the information from the Reuters article is fine with me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) "Please do not restore the disputed content without first gaining consensus" is nothing to do with 1RR, but based on one of the guiding principles of how Misplaced Pages operates; see WP:Consensus.
- As for the source, just look at the headline: "2020 Democratic candidates publicly blast the rich while privately taking their donations". The point of the piece is to make the candidates look like hypocrites who are funded by the ultra-wealthy. It is written in a manner that plays up the wealth of the donors and the candidates' schmoozing, and, importantly, doesn't indicate how it is defining "large donors".
- I doubt either of us is going to convince the other on this. We currently have two editors who oppose adding the information and one (you) who supports it. Maybe someone else will weigh in too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Granger I'm counting one editor who opposes (you) and two (me and cmonghost) who support including. If you still think the FoxNews source isn't usable, do you think the Reuters article showing 63% from large donors is OK to use? I can't see any reason for keeping the data out since it is from a RS (reuters) and the info is just basic math and numbers. Ecelon (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- That comment was written before Cmonghost posted and took into account your, my, and User:JTRH's comments. As I said above, I'm fine with including information sourced from the Reuters article, which says "Senator Kamala Harris had the second-largest Democratic fundraising haul, with 37 percent of her $12 million coming from small-dollar donors." —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Added. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Granger you left out the numbers from large donors but only added small donors, so I added that data from the Reuters article for balance. Ecelon (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Reuters article does not mention the number 63%, so I don't think that it makes sense for us to add it. Better to stick to the source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Granger the Reuters article actually does reference the 63% number (100 - 37 = 63) but I think your most recent edit is fine (as long as the 63% is included in the text for balance) so there is no reason to discuss this issue further unless you want to remove the reliably sourced 63% number and only selectively include the small donor number. Ecelon (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The source does not present it as 63% but rather as 37%. We should follow suit, and the current sentence is unnecessarily wordy. But since this is a fairly minor problem I won't press the issue if no one else objects. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Granger the Reuters article actually does reference the 63% number (100 - 37 = 63) but I think your most recent edit is fine (as long as the 63% is included in the text for balance) so there is no reason to discuss this issue further unless you want to remove the reliably sourced 63% number and only selectively include the small donor number. Ecelon (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Reuters article does not mention the number 63%, so I don't think that it makes sense for us to add it. Better to stick to the source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Granger you left out the numbers from large donors but only added small donors, so I added that data from the Reuters article for balance. Ecelon (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Added. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- That comment was written before Cmonghost posted and took into account your, my, and User:JTRH's comments. As I said above, I'm fine with including information sourced from the Reuters article, which says "Senator Kamala Harris had the second-largest Democratic fundraising haul, with 37 percent of her $12 million coming from small-dollar donors." —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Granger I'm counting one editor who opposes (you) and two (me and cmonghost) who support including. If you still think the FoxNews source isn't usable, do you think the Reuters article showing 63% from large donors is OK to use? I can't see any reason for keeping the data out since it is from a RS (reuters) and the info is just basic math and numbers. Ecelon (talk) 01:21, 26 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 , and her ethnicity is now becoming a partisan talking point . 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. Misplaced Pages 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. . Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
French info
Not sure why this is a controversial mention, it's interesting to note that she can conversationally speak French.The lorax (talk)
- Additional information needed: We can only "note" that in the article if we have a reliable source that supports it. Do you? General Ization 21:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's mentioned in this New Yorker profile.The lorax (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Uh, what I see there is "She speaks some French." That likely describes a significant segment of the US population, including many who speak some French badly and also like cooking and puns, and is a long way from "she can conversationally speak French." Want to try again? General Ization 22:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree. A very small segment of the US population speaks French, according to the 2010 census, it's only 2.07 million Americans or approximately 0.6% of all Americans. I think it's a unique trait about her, which isn't mentioned that often, in addition to her time living in Canada. What if we re-add it to her Personal Life section saying, "From her time living in Quebec during her childhood, she knows how to speak some French."The lorax (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- First, we have no information that her knowledge of French stems from her time living in Quebec during her childhood (where, pray tell, did you come up with that?), and the Census does not ask whether a respondent speaks some French; it asks what language(s) they regularly use at home. Nearly every high school student in America has the opportunity to learn (some) French, though few will ever be conversational speakers of the language. This observation about Harris verges on trivia, and does not belong in the article based on that single source. The source clearly did not mention it to show that Harris is exceptional in that respect; in fact, quite the opposite: it was mentioned, in a paragraph which also said she enjoys cooking and likes puns, to humanize the subject.General Ization 03:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- What do you mean "we have no information"? Easy enough to find “While my sister Maya and I made great friends and even learned some French, we were happy to return home to California,” she said through a spokesperson.. --jpgordon 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was referring to the information at the source provided above by the OP. This source also doesn't indicate that's where she first learned, or learned most of, whatever French she knows (only that she "learned some French" there); nor that she can conversationally speak the language, which was the initial assertion above. Lastly, even Harris seems to discount the significance of her experiences in Quebec, so it would be a stretch to use this statement to suggest that her knowledge of French is a unique characteristic that should be mentioned in her biography here. General Ization 03:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- What do you mean "we have no information"? Easy enough to find “While my sister Maya and I made great friends and even learned some French, we were happy to return home to California,” she said through a spokesperson.. --jpgordon 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- First, we have no information that her knowledge of French stems from her time living in Quebec during her childhood (where, pray tell, did you come up with that?), and the Census does not ask whether a respondent speaks some French; it asks what language(s) they regularly use at home. Nearly every high school student in America has the opportunity to learn (some) French, though few will ever be conversational speakers of the language. This observation about Harris verges on trivia, and does not belong in the article based on that single source. The source clearly did not mention it to show that Harris is exceptional in that respect; in fact, quite the opposite: it was mentioned, in a paragraph which also said she enjoys cooking and likes puns, to humanize the subject.General Ization 03:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree. A very small segment of the US population speaks French, according to the 2010 census, it's only 2.07 million Americans or approximately 0.6% of all Americans. I think it's a unique trait about her, which isn't mentioned that often, in addition to her time living in Canada. What if we re-add it to her Personal Life section saying, "From her time living in Quebec during her childhood, she knows how to speak some French."The lorax (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Uh, what I see there is "She speaks some French." That likely describes a significant segment of the US population, including many who speak some French badly and also like cooking and puns, and is a long way from "she can conversationally speak French." Want to try again? General Ization 22:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's mentioned in this New Yorker profile.The lorax (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- "She speaks some French" is too vague a comment to use. TFD (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Green New Deal
The huge cost of implementing the Green New Deal proposed by Harris is important and relevant information that should be included in the article. BattleshipGray (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Categories:- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class California articles
- Mid-importance California articles
- B-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Mid-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- B-Class Montreal articles
- Low-importance Montreal articles
- WikiProject Montreal articles
- B-Class Law enforcement articles
- Unknown-importance Law enforcement articles
- WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
- B-Class India articles
- Low-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
- B-Class Asian Americans articles
- Low-importance Asian Americans articles
- WikiProject Asian Americans articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class African diaspora articles
- Mid-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- B-Class Women writers articles
- Unknown-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles
- B-Class U.S. Congress articles
- Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report