Jump to content

Talk:Kamala Harris: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 308: Line 308:
:::You and your ''logic''. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
:::You and your ''logic''. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
:::Sandboxes, draft-space, article talk pages. Prove that they're here for valid reasons with measurable contributions to discussions and non-live articles. If that's too severe, then at least default every BLP to this status. But I didn't mean to get this far afield from this the topic of Kamala Harris, apologies. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 17:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
:::Sandboxes, draft-space, article talk pages. Prove that they're here for valid reasons with measurable contributions to discussions and non-live articles. If that's too severe, then at least default every BLP to this status. But I didn't mean to get this far afield from this the topic of Kamala Harris, apologies. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 17:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
::::I hereby propose "overextended-confirmed protection" under which you can only edit after proving that you have other things to do and really should be spending your time somewhere other than Wikipedia. Would cut down on a lot of nonsense, I think. Cheers! [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 03:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:44, 13 September 2020

Improvement efforts

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).

RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead?

Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead? - MrX 🖋 11:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]


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


This may be technically true, it looks like the spread of sources that use this this phrasing is pretty daggum sparse. GMGtalk 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
As to whether to substitute the less American-English-specific "black", I'm not sure it matters much and WP:MoS doesn't address our apropos style usage generally.
However, strictly, in the context of vice-presidential firsts, we should use whichever of the two terms a plurality of the reliable sources on the topic of VP nominees use, or failing that, whichever is more common in written registers of English to describe an American who would self-identify colloquially as 'coloured'/'black'.
Whereas, strictly, per WP:BLP, elsewhere in this and other articles, especially when providing a description of the senator, whichever term more (or a plurality) of reliable sources have reported Harris use to describe herself.
Llew Mawr (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I agree, and have good news for you as what you are describing is exactly and wholly the article's status quo (with no ethnic descriptions outside of "first X" and no description of her family's origins outside of a minor factual note in the relevant section). Llew Mawr (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Neutrality Actually Guy Harvey was used as an example to show that not all Jamaicans are African Americans. Speaking of, in this article, her father is described as "British Jamaican" not "African American", so yes she can be called Bi-racial and rightfully so. By the way, you've made the same argument three times on this RFC, three people have disagreed, I realize because I'm one of the three people, I can't say it's consensus, and I won't, but if three people disagree with you, seperately, there may be something to it, just saying! W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 00:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Here is a picture of her father, which should put to rest the absurd suggestion that her father might not be African American: https://www.nytimes.com/article/kamala-harris-dad-don-harris.html If you hit a paywall, you can go google him yourself. Furthermore, this entire discussion is gross. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[]
See, for example:
  • Reuters (2020): "Harris, one of the chamber’s two African-American Democrats..."
  • The Times of London (2020): "The leading African-American contender for the vice-presidential slot is Kamala Harris"
  • Associated Press (2019): "Harris would be the first woman to hold the presidency and the second African-American"
  • Wall Street Journal (2019): "Harris said Monday she will seek the Democratic nomination for president, launching a campaign to become the nation’s first woman and second African-American to win the White House."
  • LA Times (2016): "Harris — simultaneously the first woman and African American to be elected to the statewide post"
  • The Guardian (2019): "Harris and Cory Booker, two African American senators"
  • NBC News (2016): "Harris was elected California's first African American and Asian American Attorney General in 2010."
  • San Francisco Chronicle (2010): "Harris made history Wednesday, becoming the first woman, the first African American and first Indian American in California history to be elected state attorney general."
  • Los Angeles Times (2008): "Harris was elected district attorney in December 2003, becoming the first woman to win the post and the first African American in California to become a district attorney."
--Neutralitytalk 21:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
  • NO. As per Wikipedia's own entry on Jamaicans, Jamaica consists of people from various different background, not only African. Those who are saying Kamala's father is African just because he's from Jamaica and is black, frankly, are edging the line into racism similar to assuming that all asians are Chinese... In fact, the editors of the article have provided no concrete evidence to suggest Donald Harris' ancestry is of African heritage at all. In fact, Donald Harris' mother (Beryl Finnegan) was British, and his father has no information publicly available whatsoever. It is therefore important, as an encyclopedia, that Wikipedia only present information which is factually citable. And the idea that Kamala is African-American is wholly unverifiable. It is entirely possible that Donald Harris' father also came from India. There is absolutely no way of knowing without somebody digging up birth certificates or other official records, and providing them. Further, those defending the choice of naming her African-American are only saying "reliable sources". Not everybody agrees on what a reliable source is. Nobody has even mentioned which "reliable sources" are saying this to provide greater context or to achieve a better informed consensus. I have seen the sources which Wikipedia refers to as "reliable", and in many cases, these sources have long histories of posting false information, and of being prosecuted over it. The term "reliable sources" without backing it up, has to be the most ambiguous argument ever, and achieves nothing to resolve a dispute. Grez868 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]
That wording was not in the original RS for that statement. The RSs following that statement have changed over time. The RSs for that statement are now her own campaign's website (sort of like a sales website; not typically considered RS) and an article in which she is referred to as "Black" except when quoting others. News outlets appear to be updating their terminology as time goes on to "woman of color," "Black," and/or "biracial" and including a statement about where her parents are from. Check it out yourself. Stoney1976 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]
None of what you said erases the fact that she is also "African-American," and in case you hadn't noticed, the wiki article DOES explain where her parents are from in the body. Persistent Corvid (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I don't object to including her ancestral history in the article. I just don't think it should all go in the lead. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]
She is not technically "Jamaican" as that is a country of origin and not a racial descriptor. She was born in America. Her father is Afro-Jamaican. Therefore she is partially African-American. Also, when someone is either biracial or mixed that doesn't somehow make the specific races disappear. Persistent Corvid (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[]
"technically "Jamaican" as that is a country of origin and not a racial descriptor" - as opposed to African, which is not a continent but a "racial descriptor"? Str1977 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Related:
--Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[]
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Why would you think they are racist? They seem to be noting that although some (but not all) RS refer to her as African American, all we really know is that her father is from Jamaica. That much is verifiable. Her heritage beyond that is unknown. The RS calling her African American don't mention tracing her lineage. They may be making assumptions. Stoney1976 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[]
  • yes or black would be appropriate since she most often refers to herself that way but there are several RS that report both.
NBC News[4]Meet Kamala Harris, the Second Black Woman Elected to the U.S. Senate
NPR[5]
Roll Call[6]State attorney general could be second ever African-American woman in Senate
LA Times[7]and Harris will become only the second black woman in the nation’s history to serve in Congress’ upper chamber.
Vox[8] has an entire story on this and why it's problematic to be dissecting her identity like this
And for the pièce de résistance, her own website [9] where she says: the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history. Kamala was elected as the first African-American and first woman to serve as California's Attorney General. Praxidicae (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[]
You're too far down the rabbit hole. Praxidicae (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Absolutely not. Neither one of her parents . Both non Americans in America on foreign student visas at the time of her birth were born in America. African American means you are a descendent of a slave from Africa who was forced to come to America as a Slave to serve as a Slave in the United States. Unless Jamaica becomes the 51 state she is not African American. Its highly insulting to real African Americans which i am one of to call someone from Jamacia an African American they are not and Never will be. No Jamacian i have ever talked to claimed to be an African American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Yes Couple of things here. Im not sure of your fact "Both non Americans in America on foreign student visas at the time of her birth were born in America.", please provide citation. Second of all, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), says exactly the opposite, birthright citizenship extends to children of foreigners. Sen. Harris is American in every sense of the word. Third, the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans are of African origin. It is fair to claim that Sen. Harris is of African origin. Fourth, and most importantly, Sen. Harris refers to herself as "African American" https://www.harris.senate.gov/about "the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history." It's her identity, she has legitimate claim to it, and thats good enough for me. Fifth, I think you protest too much, and have lost your Neutral point of view "Its highly insulting to real African Americans which i am one[...]" and should withdraw from proposed edits on the page. And, for the record, I have moved this comment to the bottom of the section, where it belongs. Rklahn (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Blasian. Trillfendi (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Thank goodness she doesn't identify as a Martian-American, then. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Recycling a dumb pseudo-clever joke doesn't actually make it funny or insightful the second time around. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Cry me a river. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I have to say, pointing out that a comment is not funny or insightful doesn't strike me as particularly lachrymose statement. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Not for Harris herself it isn't. Why should we then care what you think? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Because it is a request for comments. Whether my comment is of interest to you personally is irrelevant, even if you use the Royal we. Str1977 (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Both African-American and South Asian-American have been mentioned in the article. Race is relevant because of the historic nature of her candidacy. Biden didn't need to pick her to win California, though. JTRH (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[]
There's a lot of everything mentioned in the article. I'm just saying for the mention in the lead, the Asian is equally important to the African. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[]
They have been mentioned equally in the lead. JTRH (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[]
I try and avoid direct criticism of other editor's talk comments, but I find I must here. The fact that Sen. Harris got picked as the VP candidate is irrelevant. She is either notable or she is not. (clearly she is). She is either African American or not. (I believe she is). She is either South Asian American or not. (I also believe that she is). And, for the record, as stated elsewhere, I believe she can be both. Rklahn (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Rklahn, She is either Indian-American or she is not. She is either Jamaican-American or she is not. So why not use these descriptors against those non-specific descriptors? The No !voters are arguing why should we even mention these descriptors in the lead? - hako9 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Elsewhere, and at length, I have argued that what matters here is what Sen. Harris self described identity is. That is clearly African American and South Asian American. Her Senate website says exactly that. Has said it for months. Race and how other people define her are exactly the opposite of what the goal here should be. Rklahn (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Before we get to that discussion, let's rule out a few things.
  • We are not debating DNA here, genotype or phenotype. Race—as geneticists who have studied it well enough to be confused by its exceptions, know—is a social construct. (If she had been abandoned as an infant by these biological parents, and raised by two foster parents with similar antecedents, where would we be in discussions about her race? Would we look for viable DNA matches in the wrecks of slave ships?)
  • Neither is it about how the NYTimes describes her, for that is really about usage in their stylebook, and that discussion should be held on the talk page of WP's stylebook, for it would be more general.
  • This RfC disturbed a recently found, long discussed consensus, and this discussion raised few original points. IMHO, the original consensus, which was "African American" and "South-Asian American", should carry some weight here, at least as the status quo.
  • Any secondary source that says something contrary to Sen. Harris own idea of her identity got it wrong. We should not trust everything a source says (nor do we), some reasonable thought needs to go into it.
  • I agree with the idea that this has gone on long enough, and should have a definitive end.
Rklahn (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[]

I participated in the discussion early on, but I have not followed it and have no idea how the discussion has gone or where it stands right now. I will take a look tomorrow with fresh eyes, and see if I can reach a conclusion about it, unless people object. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Closure

This discussion is ready to be closed: it has been open for a month, the RfC template was removed by the bot, and the discussion had died down, with the last !votes three days ago. I have evaluated the discussion and find a very clear consensus - clear enough that I feel I can fairly close the discussion even though I participated in it.

As several people pointed out, this discussion is about whether to include the term “African American” in the lead in connection with being the first such person to do something. It specifically excludes using that term in the lead sentence or as a general description of her. People’s responses break down as follows:

  • 21 people (not counting myself) supported saying “African American”. More than half cited RS and some cited her own self description.
  • Another 8 people, including the OP, said they would be comfortable with either “African American” or “Black”. More than half cited RS and some cited her own self description.
  • 2 people preferred “Black”.
  • 9 people favored some other descriptor such as “Jamaican American”, “biracial”, “multi-racial”, or “person of color”.
  • 5 people said not to use any kind of descriptor in the lead, only in the body of the article.

This shows an overwhelming consensus in favor of African American as a descriptor when talking about being the first to do something. Several people mentioned that “South Asian American” should also be included where appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]

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

Followup: I notice that while the discussion here was unanimous in saying African American (without a hyphen), our current usage in the article lead says African-American with a hyphen (twice), Asian-American with a hyphen once, and South Asian American without the hyphen once. In the article text we say African American (without a hyphen) six times and South Asian American once. Of the nine sources cited by User:Neutrality in this discussion, four use the hyphen and five don’t. I am going to remove the three hyphens from the lead for consistency with the article text and this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Aspen Institute

I believe, from the discussion below, that consensus has been reached on an edit. Please:

  • Remove both references to the "Aspen Institute" in the "Awards and honors" section.

"Harris was also selected to serve as a Rodel Fellow with the Aspen Institute along with 24 other elected officials." and the citation that goes with it. The entry on "Aspen Institute" in the "Memberships and fellowships" table.

  • Remove the first "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklahn (talkcontribs) 01:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[]


Subject's relationship with Aspen Institute is mentioned twice in the article. In both cases, its in the "Awards and honors" section. In the first case, its in the first paragraph of the section, cited to a primary source. In the second case, its listed in the "Memberships and fellowships" table in the section, also to a primary source. I also question if her relationship to the Aspen Institute is even encyclopedic. Im having a hard time finding anyone having a relationship with the Aspen Institute outside of primary sources.

I believe both should be removed.

While we are in the area "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." is in the section twice. It should only be once, the 2nd occurrence.

Im proposing this edit, but seeking consensus at this time. Reasonable editors may disagree with my suggestion here. It may be controversial, not in my opinion, but I could see others making the argument. I would make the edit myself without hesitation, but as a page under extended confirmed protection, I am unable. Rklahn (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[]

The Aspen Institute is a notable think tank and it seems indisputable that Harris was among a couple of dozen people who had fellowships there in 2006, according to the group's website. But in my opinion, it does not belong in this Wikipedia article unless her fellowship is discussed in independent secondary sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[]
The section "Memberships and fellowships" should be removed. Other than the Aspen Institute, the only other membership listed is the California State bar. But all U.S.lawyers are members of state bars. TFD (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Im included to agree with TFD here, but I would like to keep the focus on establishing consensus on the Aspen Institute bit first, then the section as a whole. So far, consensus seems to be gathering around removal, and Im soon to put a extended-protected template on this. Rklahn (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Which section? It is included in both "Awards and honors" and "Memberships and fellowships." I though we could remove the second section. If we do mention it, i think we should mention what the Institute is. TFD (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Im proposing to remove both references to the Aspen Institute. I think both should be removed because they both cite primary sources. Rklahn (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[]
 Done Per the consensus above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Notice of request to reduce protection level from Extended confirmed to Semi-protection

I would just like everyone interested to know that I have requested that the protection level of the article be lowered to Semi-protection. Many active editors before the VP nomination got locked out when we went to Extended confirmed. And to focus on me for a moment, I was one of them.

The bad actors seem to have gone away, the talk page is healthy, and edit wars are a thing of the past. Simply put, its time. Rklahn (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Nice try, but the request was declined at WP:RFPP with multiple administrators agreeing it should stay at ECP. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Fair enough. But there does seem to be a little inconsistency here. Mike Pence is only Semi-protected. Im accepting the decision for now, but Im pretty likely to bring this up again after the election, and potential inauguration. Rklahn (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[]
IMO the entirety of Wikipedia should be Extended-confirmed. ValarianB (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
If that was the case, how would anyone ever get enough edits to BECOME extended-confirmed? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
You and your logic. EEng 17:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Sandboxes, draft-space, article talk pages. Prove that they're here for valid reasons with measurable contributions to discussions and non-live articles. If that's too severe, then at least default every BLP to this status. But I didn't mean to get this far afield from this the topic of Kamala Harris, apologies. ValarianB (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
I hereby propose "overextended-confirmed protection" under which you can only edit after proving that you have other things to do and really should be spending your time somewhere other than Wikipedia. Would cut down on a lot of nonsense, I think. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[]