Talk:Kamala Harris

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).

Racial categorisation of Kamala Harris

How exactly can you describe someone with south-asian ancestry as 'African American'?

Does this term now mean 'black', 'dark skinned', or simply 'non-white'?

Obviously the term is now misused and abused by people obsessed with race and ethnicity over a person's character and leadership capabilities. One step forward, two steps back. Harris, as she will tell you, is "American" with parents from India and Jamaica. How difficult is that to accept? How difficult is it to understand that mixed marriages do indeed tend to yield upon the offspring the issue of personal cultural and ethnic identity? If only we could move on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EyefulOne (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, this is disrespectful to people from the Indian sub-continent who have their own very distinct identities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.237.39 (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In the case of categorization of Sen. Harris, it's complex, and without getting too high handed, reflects upon the state of race in America. Yes, she is of South Asian ancestry, and also of African heritage, via Jamaica. But, and I think this is the important part, she identifies as African-American. And in the desegregation program in the Berkeley schools, was treated as if she was African American. But I understand this might be disrespectful to South Asians. but I think thats out of scope on this page. Drop me a note on my talk page, or an Echo on yours, and we can continue this further. Rklahn (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

As the African-American article notes, "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa. The term African American generally denotes descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States."

Many embrace being African American as a part of Black pride. Yet there is also the legacy of the one-drop rule.

IMHO, we have much to learn & grow around this in America.

Please see the following citation for Harris's own take on her ethnic background.

• Sullivan, Kevin (2019-02-02). "'I am who I am': Kamala Harris, daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants, defines herself simply as 'American'". Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-08-07.

Peaceray (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a problem at all. She is described as South Asian as well.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the question here is how she identifies, and in the Washington Post article she says '“My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters,” Harris writes in her recently published autobiography, “The Truths We Hold.” “She knew that her adopted homeland would see Maya and me as black girls, and she was determined to make sure we would grow into confident, proud black women.”' I think we need to refer to her as black throughout, with ancestry treated separately. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

That seems like a reasonable premise. El_C 18:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, a reasonable approach. Identity and ancestry are two different things. Behind OPs statement there may be an implication that we are being Amerocentric, and this is an encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia. I agree. Rklahn (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not involved enough to know what's going on here, but I just want to make sure that she is still described as Indian and Jamaican as well. Someone can be more than one ethnicity at the same time. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Naddruf, it shouldn't be any issue at all to describe her both as a black woman and as a woman of Indian and Jamaican ethnicity/descent. —valereee (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It is fine to include multiple descriptors here. But to be clear, "African-American" is the predominant identity of hers, and it is not problematic to use this. It is not an insult to South Asians to use "African-American" to describe her, even though it is certainly the case that other identity labels may also be justifiable. RedHotPear (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Another inane WP discussion. She identifies as African-American. End of story. Please don't rehearse tired old banalities about who is black who is African-American. Please also don't imply (if you are doing so) for the hundredth time the other pieties about whether the Middle-Passage is a sine qua non for being one or another, whether rum, cod, and slavery are the sine qua nons. By any definition, she is more African-American (in the traditional meaning of the word) than Barak Obama is. So if you are particularly hurting about unloading the monkeys of old-fashioned bias off your backs, go to the Barak Obama page and turn him into a Kenyan-Kansan president with no history of slavery. What is the matter with Wikipedians? If it is not old-fashioned racism, it is the kind that makes Indians (and I don't mean any WP editor) unload their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid). Obviously her South Asian Indian mother did not have those insecurities, and she does not have either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, do you have a source for her identifying as AA rather than as Black? —valereee (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Not Fowler, but I just am not sure how important the distinction is here. Some want "African American" to be restricted in meaning to "descendant of slaves," but Harris herself uses the terms interchangeably, and she clearly identifies with the African-American community. Reliable sources also frequently refer to her as the first "African American" to do/be X, etc. ([1], [2]) RedHotPear (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Race is not a biological category but a social construct. In other words, society, not their pedigree, determines a person's race. TFD (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I found TFD's statement very influential. Where I said ancestry, above, I meant ethnicity. I was less than precise, and regret the error. We should not stray away from Sen. Harris' self identification. Rklahn (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I have partially reverted a recent edit which used misleading edit summary and unilaterally changed "Indian American" to "South Asian American". Per Google searches, reliable sources refer to her as "Indian American" at least 100 times more than "South Asian American" so we need to stick to common interpretation. To name a few, CNN[3], Washington Post[4], Politico[5], LA Times[6] and many other sources are very clear with using "Indian-American". SignificantPBD (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

See her own pages, both in the US Senate and her website, now cited in the lead. The usual Indian nationalism, or sub-nationalisms, have no value on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

African-American is clearly the main identity of hers that this article should address. When it comes to other identities, why not avoid the "Indian-American" vs. "South Asian American" distinction together and go with "Asian-American," the broader category? This broader description seems to be echoed in RS coverage. RedHotPear (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RedHotPear, "Asian" is a very broad term and unpopular compared to "Indian-American". This scholarly source from Harvard University Press also refers to her as "Indian American". We need to check what reliable sources say and the person in question. The sources noted above are of high quality and they leave no doubt.

Fowler, your personal bias "has no value on Wikipedia". Kamal Harris says "My Indian mother knew she was raising two black daughters .... But that’s not to the exclusion of who I am in terms of my Indian heritage".[7] When asked "You're African-American, but you're also Indian-American," Kamala Harris replied "Indeed", she also said that her African American and Indian heritage "are of equal weight in terms of who I am."[8] But you are just POV pushing and misrepresenting this source which makes no mention of "South Asian". I am afraid your poor comprehension skills violate WP:DE. You are also edit warring and ignoring that the page said "Indian American" until you modified it recently by providing misleading edit summaries. Read the top notice of this talk page and stop adding POV terms without gaining consensus. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Im really tempted to do a partial undo here, but Im going to let things develop a little more. I think we are clear on "African-American", less so on "Indian American" vs. "South Asian-American". The citations are, unfortunately, silent on how she refers to herself. So is https://kamalaharris.org/meet-kamala-harris/, which is in advocacy of her. https://www.harris.senate.gov/about leads you to "South Asian-American". This is a messy area that needs time for reflection, time is not of the essence here. Also, can we do a little more Assume good faith on the part of other editors? Rklahn (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Race, as has long been said, and wisely said again above by TFD and Rklahn, is a social construct. However, naming these social constructs is a fraught issue. For example, in more formal contexts "African American" is preferred to "Black." In a submission to the Supreme Court, a petitioner will most likely prefer "African American" to "Black" in the lead paragraph, but in whispering to their lawyer will most likely use "black." Similarly, "Indigenous American," or "Native American" is the more formal version of "Indian." Again, even today in informal contexts Native Americans refer to each other or their culture as "Indian." (The lawyer representing the Muscogee Nation in the recent US Supreme Court decision on Oklahoma being half Native American land says in a Youtube video, "I'm delighted to be back in Indian country.") The reason for the two levels of reference is that the formal name is usually a mouthful. So, the same person will be found using both terms be they "African American" (formal) or "Black" (informal), "Native American" (formal) or "Indian" (informal).

Also, the modern convention is to refer to ethnicities by the broad regional categories of ancestry, not by the names of the modern nations to which ancestral link might be determined. The broad regions are: Latin America (i.e. regions of the Americas in which the Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese, and French) are spoken)), Europe, Africa, and Asia (which is usually split into West Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia), and perhaps Australasia. The reason for this is that the ethnicities were established long before the modern nations took shape. So, South Asia is preferred to India (not to mention the additional confusion that might result from the usage referred to above).

So, summing up, Kamala Harris's father was born in Jamaica, and his ancestry is African (i.e. he is not the odd Jamaican White); her mother was born in the British Indian Empire (which then comprised present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) and her ancestry is South Asian. It is unimportant that the British Raj had decolonized by the time she came to the US, and that she most likely arrived with a passport of the Republic of India; her ethnicity is still South Asian for the reasons given above. Furthermore, KH's self-identification is African-American or Black. She has said very poignantly, "I was born Black and I will die Black." So, in our description there will be an order: "African American" first, and "South Asian American" second, but the latter only if needed. I should warn that if she does become Biden's choice of VP, this page will receive far more attention by editors promoting the various POVs about race and gender that have traditionally riven both American and South Asian societies. Various POVs will both disown her and claim her for their own. We have to be especially careful about preserving the NPOV descriptions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

PS For the editors who might be thinking that I've come here with a naive or ignorant view of India, let me add (though there should normally be no reason for this) that I am the primary author of the FA India. I am well-versed in the nationalism (not to mention sub-nationalism, e.g. "Gujarati," "Tamil" or "Bengali") that India-POV editors attempt to promote in many things related to South Asia. See for example the pages Pilaf or Shalwar kameez, where "South Asia" is now established, but a year ago was subject to constant edit-warring by editors wanting to change "South Asia" to "India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler, I do not think you are naive or ignorant at all. I have also seen nationalist POV-pushing of the type you describe on issues related to India, and it is something to be watchful for, though I cannot definitively say that I already identify it on this talk page. I completely agree with you when you say that "African American" should come first, and when warranted, other identities should follow. Riddhidev BISWAS, it is absolutely not the case that the balance of reliable sources indicates that her "Indian-American" identity is equally notable. RedHotPear (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that someone, probably the editor you mention, has reinstated "Indian American." I would submit that the term "Indian American" if it is to be used at all should be applied to people born in India who have become naturalized citizens of the United States. Otherwise, for ethnicity, as I've already stated above, the broad category is "South Asia." ("Asian American" would be confusing because in the US it has traditionally been applied to East Asian Americans (i.e. those with Chinese or Japanese ancestry). There is good reason that all the former "India studies," "Indian studies," or "Indology" academic departments around the world have changed their names to "South Asian Studies." See Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, University of Chicago, Princeton, Cambridge, Oxford, ... it is a long, long, list. Anyway, I am on vacation; this is all the time I have. I've laid out my argument. I think the usage "South Asian American" should be preferred to "Indian American" for the reasons that I have given at length. Thanks everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That seems off-topic, but I would add that I don't see anybody ever changed "Indian" to "South Asian" on this article except you. So I don't think that will be the case.

Rklahn, the two interviews of Kamala Harris[9][10] linked above are absolutely clear about her self-identification as "Indian-American". TFD was also referring to the same Washington Post interview. I think we must abide by the status quo here. SignificantPBD (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

For heaven's sakes, her own US Senate Website says, "South Asian American." Your citations are incorrect. In neither of those two articles (the LA Times and the Washington Post) does she herself use the expression "Indian American." Moreover, in her book, The Truths We Hold, she does not once use the expression "Indian American." However she does use "South Asian:"

My mother, grandparents, aunts, and uncle instilled us with pride in our South Asian roots.

Note: here we have a new editor, registered in May 2020, with 102 edits, who is attempting to lay down the law. It doesn't matter that I'm the primary author of India, British Raj, Company rule in India, British India, Partition of India, Indian mathematics, Indus Valley Civilisation (which was most likely a Dravidian civilization) ... it is a long list, which includes the FA Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), a region adjacent to the Dravidian-speaking region from which where KH's mother hails. All this experience and record is of no value in Wikipedia discussions. Go figure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Im afraid I disagree about the conclusion here. The LA Times article only comes close when it quotes Sen. Harris saying "But that’s not to the exclusion of who I am in terms of my Indian heritage." Two points: 1) Heritage is not identity. 2) The subtext about this article is race, and has already been said, thats a social construct, not identity either. I find this particular LA Times article dubious as a source on identity. The Post article goes further in this regard. In the headline "Kamala Harris, daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants, defines herself simply as ‘American’" she goes as far as to decline Indian identify. Now, the direction this should go is clear to me: "South Asian American". Its the only thing Ive seen where she identifies her identity, from her own US Senate Website. I really tried to see both sides here, but am now in a position where I can draw the "South Asian American" conclusion. Rklahn (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@RedHotPear: I am agreeable for "South Asian American" to be changed to "Asian and Pacific American" but she will then be the eighth Asian and Pacific American Senator (jointly eighth with Tammy Duckworth of Illinois who also assumed office in January 2017). Please see the usage in this citation, which is being cited for "Indian American" in this edit! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We need to use terminology that conveys meaning to readers. Presumably readers have heard of Indian, but they may not be familiar with terms such as Asian Pacific and South Asian. Also, those terms may have different meanings depending on the user, and different terms may be used in different countries. For example, in the UK the term Asian is used to describe India and its neighbors, while in the U.S. it is used to describe China and its neighbors. TFD (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

For a large number of readers in the US, Indian = Native American; it does most certainly for Native Americans themselves in everyday use. "Asian" in the US and UK respectively has the meaning of the region from which Asian immigrants first appeared on the shores of those countries. National or sub-national jargon, however, is not a criterion for encyclopedicity. Precision is in the first description in a lead paragraph, and "South Asian" is precise; later, in the main body, it can be elucidated with "Indian," particularized with "South Indian," or even more with "Tamil." "South Asian" is unambiguous and is the NPOV usage worldwide now, used in scholarly writing and by international organizations. It is used by the California Department of Justice in its page on their former Attorney General Kamala Harris. When I have some time I will make a list of its use in the formal register by various sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

PS Another point, when we use the adjective "first," we want to apply it to the largest ambit of its use. South Asia = India + Pakistan + Bangladesh + Nepal + Bhutan + Afghanistan + Sri Lanka + the Maldives is quite a bit larger than India. She is the first South Asian, not just the first person of Indian, South Indian or Tamil ethnic ancestry in those offices. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

PPS Although I had used the link before I was reverted, it bears mentioning here on the talk page that South Asian American, which pipes to its plural, does exist on Wikipedia, and does a good job of explaining the term. Please also read both paragraphs of the section: Indian_Americans#Terminology about the pitfalls of that term's use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I found Fowler's "PS" point to be quite a good one. I encourage others to consider it as well. RedHotPear (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray:, @The Four Deuces:, @Rklahn:, @Riddhidev BISWAS:, @SignificantPBD:, @RedHotPear:, @Valereee:, @Naddruf:, also pinging admins with South Asia experience @El C: and @RegentsPark: I will be changing Indian American in the lead paragraph to South Asian American for a variety of reasons (all offered above), but mostly for the fact of term "Indian American" being both ambiguous and informal (best explained in Indian_Americans#Terminology). Her own senate website (see above), as well as the California Department of Justice site (also see above) about her tenure as their 32nd AG, use "South Asian American" only. If Joe Biden does choose her to be his running mate, this page will attract even more attention; it is best to choose the more precise terminology now. More precisely, I will be changing the sentence:

A member of the Democratic Party, Harris is the second African American woman and the first Indian American to serve in the United States Senate., ( which is problematic also because the first citation makes no mention of "Second African American woman," senator only of "first African-American to represent California in the Senate" and the second talks about Asian and Pacific Islands Americans (and as I've remarked before she is the eighth API-American senator (jointly with Tammy Duckworth)), but makes no mention of Indian-Americans.)

to

A member of the Democratic Party, Harris is the second African American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

References

I do not feel very strongly, but your change seems fine. You make a good case that "Indian American," while popularly used, may be informal and imprecise in this situation. RedHotPear (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think either of these are good, but I agree that it is better to say the "first South Asian American" in the lead. South Asian American is a broader category than Indian American. Otherwise it would be plausible that there could have already been a Pakistani American or Bangladeshi American, etc. in Congress.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I second this. RedHotPear (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I am on board with this. I hope that others see this as the consensus. Also, thank you Fowler&fowler for the ping. Rklahn (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@RedHotPear, Rklahn, and The Four Deuces: Contrary to Fowler&fowler's blatant misrepresentation of Kamala Harris' book "Moreover, in her book, The Truths We Hold, she does not once use the expression "Indian" needs to be ignored since the actual quote of Kamala Harris is:

My mother, grandparents, aunts, and uncle instilled us with pride in our South Asian roots. Our classical Indian names harked back to our heritage, and we were raised with a strong awareness of and appreciation for Indian culture.[11]

This source does not qualify for "South Asian American" over "Indian American" and she has mentioned "Indian" two times right there. She also mentions her husband Douglas Emhoff in her book and writes:

Doug and I were married on Friday, August 22, 2014, in an intimate ceremony with the people we loved. Maya officiated; Meena read from Maya Angelou. In keeping with our respective Indian and Jewish heritage, I put a flower garland around Doug's neck..."[12]

She is very clear about her "Indian" heritage, so why we shouldn't be? @Fowler, you must stop edit warring and stop bragging about your contributions on other off-topic articles. This edit warring without gaining WP:CON, continuous blugeoning and canvassing isn't going to help you in denying these two interviews of Kamala Harris[13][14] which are absolutely clear about her self-identification as "Indian-American". Reliable sources refer to her as "Indian American" more than hundreds of times than "South Asian American". Unless we are seriously questioning the reliability of CNN[15], Washington Post[16], Politico[17], LA Times[18] US News,[19] ABC News,[20] The Hill,[21] and thousands of other WP:RS, which also identify her as "Indian American" but not "South Asian American", I clearly don't see a single reason to pick "South Asian" (which can also mean Pakistani, Afghanistani, Bangladeshi) than more specific and much more common term "Indian". There is no need for this page to be different than the rest of the Wikipedia or the world. SignificantPBD (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What concerns me is that most readers may not know what South Asia refers to. I had to look it up, although I was aware of India. Does it include Saudi Arabia and Vietnam for example. If you use the term, the text should provide an explanation. For example, she is the "first South Asian American" (Asian American includes India and neighboring countries)." TFD (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Why? We can assume people will click on links; that's the whole point of links. And you don't even have to click; when I look at this article without logging in, if I hover over the words South Asian American, I get a popup that tells me where they are from. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Of all the terms used on Wikipedia that are not explicitly explained, South Asia hardly stands out as obscure. Indeed, much of its meaning is reflected in its words; the link should be sufficient. RedHotPear (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

In fact, the FA India, Wikipedia's oldest country FA, which I have primarily written and been managing for 13 years, says in its first sentence: India is a country in South Asia. South Asia is the modern term, corresponding to the five divisions of Asia: West Asia (to which Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey (the eastern half), Jordan, Israel, ... belong), Central Asia (Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Kirgizstan, ...), South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bhutan, and Bangladesh), Southeast Asia (Burma, Thailand, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines) and East Asia (China, Japan, the Koreas, ...) All United Nations agencies use those terms. The old western-centric terms (Middle East, Far East) are passe. The CNN announcement of a few minutes ago says "South Asian American." India-POV editors (by which I don't mean editors of Indian heritage) have for years on WP been promoting the use of "India" or "Indian" as in Indian subcontinent, but those terms are now outdated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor, and I'm not taking a position in this debate regarding Indian-American vs South Asian American. I just want to ask Fowler&fowler why they feel it's necessary to keep pointing out they've made significant contributions to other articles about India on here? As far as I'm aware, your contributions there - although I'm sure are very positive and beneficial (I must admit, I haven't looked at them) - are pretty much irrelevant here (WP:CAU, I know it's just an essay). I'm sure the decision on "Indian" or "South-Asian" will be much better served if editors stick to that discussion, and the sources found for Harris's ethnicity/race. Seagull123 Φ 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Very true. How we forget.  :) Thanks for the reminder. I've scratched the last bit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I favor the formulation proposed above: "A member of the Democratic Party, Harris is the second African American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add that the term "South Asia" is used only when there is something mutually shared between India and Pakistan (or Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) but cannot be undoubtedly associated with either country due to their recent partitions from each other. In this case, there is no doubt that she has "Indian" roots as she has herself confirmed in her book and interviews. Thus "Indian American" is much more appropriate. Also, see this recent source which discusses her self-identification of Indian and African ancestry. Zakaria1978 (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, you shouldn't be claiming consensus when several editors have reverted you and enough editors have objected the disputed edits in question. The article is using "Indian American" since 2017.[22] I don't see why you have to come up with "South Asian American" all of sudden contrary to the sources discussing her self-identification. Zakaria1978 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978 Please do not misinform the readers about what South Asia means. Wikipedia can plainly see it in the link. Please also read her US Senate website which clearly states "South Asian American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, kindly speak to me properly. Do not speak to me in such a disparaging tone. Don't breach WP:Civility and WP:NPA. I have been saying to use Asian Americans, and have debated it extensively. But, you are the one who put South Asian Americans. Her stating South Asian American on her website was just a distinction, as she is the only one, nothing more I can see on this web link. Her identity is Asian American or Indian American, since her mom was from India. That is what I can clearly confirm. Zakaria1978 (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, Fowler&fowler, do not say stuff like this: "If it is not old-fashioned racism, it is the kind that makes Indians (and I don't mean any WP editor) unload their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid)." That is pretty blanket and bigoted statement to make. I have many Indian friends where I live, they don't all think like that. Zakaria1978 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, I am definitely correct with my definition of "South Asia". You have ignored the sources where she is identifying herself as "Indian" which is more specific term than "South Asia" which is certainly too broad and can create confusion. While I am not opposed to using "Asian American" for lead, it still makes no sense to refer to her as "South Asian" when she identifies as "Indian". Why did you expand about her ancestry on 2nd paragraph of the lead? Zakaria1978 (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, please read her US senate website. It says, "In 2017, Kamala D. Harris was sworn in as a United States Senator for California, the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history." Please aalso see the California Department of Justice's page on their 32nd Attorney General, which states, "In 2004-2010, Kamala Harris served as the first woman District Attorney in San Francisco's history, and as the first African American woman and South Asian American woman in California to hold the office." What is that? Chopped liver? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

PS Sorry that last description was for District Attorney of San Francisco. Here is the one for AG of California: "Harris is the first woman, and the first African American and the first South Asian American, to hold the office of Attorney General in the history of California." (See here). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm butting in to an established consensus (I don't see one), but while obviously she can be described as the first South Asian American senator, or Indian American or Tamil American more generally, Tamil Nadu, India, and South Asia are still part of Asia, and in terms of her significance as a VP nominee I agree that the widest possible "first" ambit should be used, i.e. Asian American. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing that there might have been an established consensus. Briefly, before Joe Biden's announcement, one existed. "African-American" was reached pretty quickly. "South Asian American" was harder, but its where we ended up. Being that its Sen. Harris' identity, I hope it's where we end up again. Rklahn (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In terms of describing her identity in general, obviously there was a consensus around South Asian American, but in terms of noting she is the first VP nominee of x characteristic, is Asian American not the most accurate? PrimaPrime (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This entire discussion is proof that continental labels as applied to human beings are little more than contrived constructs which cater to the whims of those who seek to use them, not an indicator with any basis in fact or rule. Elon Musk is an African-American by most definitions. Many don’t feel comfortable with that. Self-identification and what others call you is not relevant to ancestry, geneology, and science. It is a social-cultural construct and completely unnecessary and should be removed from ALL bios. Joey.J (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

She is not African American. Her father was Jamaican and mother is Indian. See wikipedia article on African American https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans She is a black Indian, or black Indian American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.75.22.3712:34, August 12, 2020 (talk • contribs)

Seeing the discussion here (and elsewhere unrelated to Harris), I can only go back to Peaceray's comment above and confirm that people of the USA have much to learn & grow around things related to race. Such apparently diehard attitudes are our downfall. For now, if we need such a definition it seems to me that what 96.75.22.3712.34 wrote immediately before this may be one of the closest definitions were it not for the fact that it's shameful that supposedly intelligent people can spend so much time and effort engaged in this definition game. She was born in the United States, so she's "American". Grow up, children, and stop bickering. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:6000:73C0:D95D:7A1 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

She just referred to herself on international television as "black" so let's cut out all the erroneous (and ridiculous) references to her somehow being "African-American" when that definition is clearly reserved for descendants of African slaves. Joey.J (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

She ain't black man. Gregor 05:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwarner999 (talk • contribs)

@Gwarner999: well Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources and what the individual believes; The opinions of editors based on nothing but that -- opinions -- is completely irrelevant. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

She is Jamaican-American, not African-American.Dplautatwikip (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dplautatwikip: and the reliable sources provided in the article describe her as both; as previously said, Wikipedia isn't concerned with the opinions of editors. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they are reliable if they say something that isn't obviously not true. If my father was born in Mexico I can call my self African-American but that does not make it true. No need to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dplautatwikip (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed it seems White folks always want to label what they think is African American. Obama was NOT African American, he is half White half Black Kenyan. Kamala Harris is NOT African American, she is half Indian and half Jamaican. A person from South African (White or Black) who comes to live here, is NOT African American. The fact that they migrated here is irrelevant. I find it disheartening that White folks on either side of the aisle, think they have the right to say who is what, when they live the life or heritage of the descendants of American slaves. MPA (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not about "White folks." It is about reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an avenue for righting great wrongs. RedHotPear (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala's father was from Jamaica, so referring to her as African American is wrong. Jamaican or Black American would be more appropriate. Ebony75 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As per African Americans: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa." That definition applies to Harris. Peaceray (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

She describes herself as African American. It is absolutely not Wikipedia's place to challenge that. JTRH (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

NYT on Harris and police miscounduct

Here's the New York Times story about Harris' record on police misconduct:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/us/politics/kamala-harris-policing.html

‘Top Cop’ Kamala Harris’s Record of Policing the Police

By Danny Hakim, Stephanie Saul and Richard A. Oppel Jr.

New York Times

Aug. 9, 2020

According to the New York Times, Harris "struggled to reconcile her calls for reform with her record on these same issues during a long career in law enforcement...."

Since becoming California’s attorney general in 2011, she had largely avoided intervening in cases involving killings by the police. Protesters in Oakland distributed fliers saying: “Tell California Attorney General Kamala Harris to prosecute killer cops! It’s her job!”

After the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., she was asked to investigate a series of police shootings in San Francisco, where she had previously been district attorney. She said it was not her job.

Critics said she was "taking cautious, incremental action on criminal justice and, more often than not, yielding to the status quo."

In 2009, she wrote that she would like to see more police officers on the street. After the George Floyd killing, she said that the idea that putting more police on the street is "just wrong."

In 2007, she did not support legislation granting public access to disciplinary hearings. Anaheim mayor Tom Tait said that in July 2012 after an unarmed 25-year-old, Manuel Diaz, was fatally shot in the back by the police, there were hundreds of protesters at City Hall. He asked Harris to conduct an outside investigation, and she refused.

In 2015, Harris refused to endorse AB-86, which would have required her office to appoint special prosecutors to examine fatal police shootings.

--Nbauman (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

What improvements are you recommending for the article? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I would revise the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Law_enforcement_accountability section, replacing the trivial details with a summary of the substantive issues, which the NYT story does a good job of outlining.

For example, I would cut the discussion of "Principled Policing: Procedural Justice and Implicit Bias," because there have been many programs like this, and when they have been studied, they don't affect meaningful outcomes -- specifically unnecessary civilian deaths, civilian complaints, and abuses. The only evaluation they have is subjective evaluations by participants [23] The KQED stories cited are just official statements, with no critics or evaluation. What do WP:RSs say about the program?

I would search the Washington Post, since they have good coverage of criminology, especially by Radley Balko.

There's too much detail about Rackauckas, etc., and it should be shorted to focus on Harris' role.

It should also address for example whether WP:RSs say that Harris' statistics effort was effective or ineffective. ProPublica tried to collect police statistics around the country, and found that they were inadequate. Is this true of California?

Generally, the NYT story is useful because it shows you how to write about police misconduct. If I were an editor assigning a writer to do a story about Kamela Harris and police misconduct, I would hand them this story and say, "Use this as a model."

I am generally reluctant to work on Wikipedia pages about popular figures, because there are usually editors who have strong feelings, and have effectively owned the pages. I'd rather find out first whether it's possible to to edit the Wikipedia page without an edit war. I don't feel like spending an afternoon writing a balanced, objective WP:NPOV story only to have an editor revert everything and replace it with the original press releases. --Nbauman (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, also, we're not a newspaper. What the NYT finds appropriate for an article isn't necessarily what Wikipedia finds appropriate for an article. And if you want to make large changes, run them by the talk page first -- especially if they're likely to be contentious, as you know these will be. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what I did, run them through the talk page.

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, but since our criterion for including content is WP:RS, and most newspapers are WP:RS, we will have a tendency to follow the judgment of newspapers in most current events. --Nbauman (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like nobody's opposed, although toward the idea in general rather than a specific implementation, if you're still undecided on whether to spend time on this. 2601:482:8000:C470:B531:76E7:C82E:7E0F (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should delve into much detail based on one one newspaper article, but if you want to pursue this, it would be helpful to see a draft. Of course you could also edit it directly into the article, but if it's a major revision, you run the risk of being reverted. - MrX 🖋 11:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

wikilink "Willie Brown" on the first mention, please. Drsruli (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning past controversy would not be inappropriate given the upcoming election, just make sure it is carefully worded. Dig _deeper ^talk 18:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(I just meant fix the article so that his name is linked with his page.) (Now fixed; thanks.) Drsruli (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Good, balanced story with interviews giving arguments on both sides. You can also look up the op-eds they refer to. This is a video with a transcript.

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/8/13/kamala_harris_prosecutorial_record_2020_election

Was Kamala Harris a Progressive Prosecutor? A Look at Her Time as a DA & California Attorney General

Amy Goodman, Nermeen Shaikh

Democracy Now!

Aug 13, 2020

Quote: As Senator Kamala Harris makes history as the first woman of color on a major party ticket, we host a debate on her record as California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney, when she proudly billed herself as “top cop” and called for more cops on the street. San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Niki Solis says Harris was the state’s most progressive DA and advocated for “so many policies and so many alternatives to incarceration.” Law professor Lara Bazelon says Harris was on the wrong side of history for often opposing criminal justice reform, though her record did change as a senator. “Her office fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that in some cases kept innocent people in prison,” Bazelon says.

"I worked with Kamala Harris. She was the most progressive DA in California"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/10/kamala-harris-progressive-pioneer-san-francisco-da-column/3334668001/

"Kamala Harris Was Not a 'Progressive Prosecutor'"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

--Nbauman (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is this issue still live? EEng 01:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

FAQ

Anyone object to adding an FAQ at the top of this page re: her ethnicity? We're getting inundated with edit requests from people saying she's not AA, but Indian and Jamaican. I guess people don't realize that the slave trade visited Jamaica as well as the U.S.? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, no objection. Clearly needed. I think it should note that we're calling her what she calls herself, period. Doesn't matter about Jamaican and African diaspora. —valereee (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu I guess, strictly speaking, she'd be Caribbean-American, which is somewhat distinct, that's unimportant inasmuch as reliable sources describe her as AfAm. We can use that, along with WP:OR (drawing conclusions), as a stand-in answer; I'd prefer that over a slave trade talk. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Iseult, we would have to use language from reliable sources, and I don't know that they mention the slave trade. I brought it up as a simple fact that her father's family aren't "native" to Jamaica. I can draft something.... – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Iseult, I'd argue it doesn't matter. On her senate and campaign websites, she calls herself both African-American and South Asian-American. We should call her what she calls herself. —valereee (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a Reuters fact check of use. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

One question I support the FAQ should include is why this article isn't titled "Kamala Enhoff". Please explain your opinions on this question (I'm not asking this question myself; I'm only asking if the question should be on the FAQ.) Georgia guy (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Is that question asked "frequently"? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the question will likely be asked by someone who studies her life and family. Georgia guy (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the biographies are already being written after about an hour. KidAd (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Georgia guy, why would anyone ask that? —valereee (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait, you think because her husband's last name is Emhoff, people will be wondering why her name isn't Emhoff? Seriously? —valereee (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't need to be in FAQ. Most people know better; it's common knowledge that many professional women keep their maiden name. (Why isn't the Ivanka Trump article titled Ivanka Kushner? Now there's a NFAQ for you!) -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't start new threads. This is already a consensus above that the description of her ethnicity should be "African American and South Asian American. That is all the FAQ needs to say. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel in another thread. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would support a FAQ. There's no point having the same discussions again and again. - MrX 🖋 21:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Echo the "no FAQ" thinking on the topic of identity. We have gone through it extensively, it has subtlety that I don't think an FAQ could capture, and any editors should simply go find the talk page discussion. If there must be an FAQ, it should simply point to the talk page section, and make no reference to even the consensus. Rklahn (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Rklahn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I created Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ. Please refine it with me. This is my first FAQ. If we agree to it, we can post it to the page. Otherwise, I can delete it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, should we add name pronunciation to the FAQ? KidAd (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Please delete the FAQ. There is no reason to redo a discussion that has already reached consensus and nuance at Talk:Kamala_Harris#Racial_categorisation_of_Kamala_Harris. A second discussion does nothing except give people a chance to be disruptive. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

KidAd, yes! That's a common mistake people make. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu You jumped the gun here. There is not consensus on the existence of an FAQ. Even if there was, there is not consensus on what it should contain. Please delete the FAQ. Rklahn (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

While true, "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." You entered into an area where there was already a well thought out recent consensus, and contradicted it, with less than 24 hours warning. Im going to remove question 1 as it contradicts consensus. Rklahn (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My edit got reverted, for reasons I don't quite understand. I restored consensus. However, it later got edited into a form less objectionable. I still think any FAQ is a mistake, this is a page now highly in flight, and any FAQ is likely to become outdated quickly. I would double down on that for any FAQ entry that contradicts the article, or consensus. Rklahn (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to violate the FAQ in my response at the time I wrote it, but having thought about it, I do object. The recommended classification of Harris' identity as "African American" is not consistent with RS, scholarship, or practice. All RS say her father is from Jamaica and her mother is from India. Jamaican immigrants are not called "African Americans." They are called Jamaican-American. Immigrants from India are called Indian-Americans. RS call her a "Woman of color" which is an accurate umbrella term. There is debate about who the term "Black" applies to, but that might be acceptable. Calling Harris "African-American" and South Asian-Americans is political, not based on scholarship or practice. It is not based on RS.
• I also object to admins removing comments from the talk page. They deleted this, as far as I can tell: I get it. Democrats want the African American vote and don't want Kamala Harris associated with India because of the outsourcing of jobs...but her parents are Jamaican-American and Indian-American according to all RS!

She calls herself an 'American.' You could say she is the first "Woman of Color" or "Black woman" (though there is some debate about the use of this term to refer to people of color from other regions) to hold those offices. Although many people living in Jamaican come from Africa (as do all of us, technically), African Americans have a different history than Jamaican Americans. India is her mother's country of origin - it is the most specific term. Stick to RS and state that. People will eventually find out anyway - why compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? I think someone actually removed the record of my edits from the history! Articles:

   ‘I am who I am’: Kamala Harris, daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants, defines herself simply as ‘American’ - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-who-i-am-kamala-harris-daughter-of-indian-and-jamaican-immigrants-defines-herself-simply-as-american/2019/02/02/0b278536-24b7-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html
   Kamala Harris Is Biden’s Choice for Vice President. A former rival for the Democratic nomination, she will be the first woman of color to be nominated for national office by a major political party.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-biden-vp.html Stoney1976 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Stoney1976 (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources call her "African American". Or Black. Or a person of color (which does not exclude being Black). No source calls her "Jamaican American" that I am aware of. Donald Harris is Afro-Jamaican. His ancestry comes from Africa. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

We absolutely should have an FAQ section here, and it should include more than just racial identity. It should include other things as they come up, such as how to pronounce her name, for instance. The beauty of having an FAQ section is that we can stop having to write out answers to the same old questions that keep getting asked here - "frequently" you might say. We can just reply "See FAQ #1 above". End of discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good, I see the name pronunciation is already there too. Good work, User:Muboshgu. I propose we transclude it to the top of this page right now. And add other things we get tired of answering, as they come up. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, are you good with the current wording? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the name pronunciation?

The other thing that strikes me is that there's an awful lot of explanation and verbiage at the top. Is that typical for FAQ pages? Is it wise to say things like "feel free to change it" and to encourage discussion? I was expecting something more like the "Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus" page at Talk:Donald Trump, whose attitude is "this is the existing consensus, don't change it without discussion;" it allows us to just point to it when the question gets asked for the umpteenth time and it doesn't encourage people to argue about it. I think it was User:JFG who set that up. Did you look at some other FAQ pages, to see whether they make their intro assertive or accommodating, and whether it is wordy or brief?

You may have trouble figuring out where to put it at the top of this cluttered page. Again, you might look to see where other pages put it.

I'm glad you're doing this, it is going to save us all a lot of time and energy! You said it was your first FAQ so I thought I would share some thoughts. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You may not have transcluded this yet but I am already using it. My standard reply now: "We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ."

I just want to go on record, again, to say that I am against the very existence of the FAQ. Its not helping for reasons I predicted: The page is moving quickly, and there is not a good consensus on the one question that it still addresses. In fact, it contributed to the dismissal of a recently achieved consensus. The FAQ should go away. Rklahn (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'd be happy to set up a "current consensus" section similar to the one at Talk:Donald Trump. On high-visibility political articles, it helps incoming users understand at a glance what has already been decided in previous RfCs or well-attended discussions. It is particularly useful when there is a lot of talk page activity, and discussions get buried in archives quicker than on regular pages. To address Rklahn's objection, of course, consensus can change and the "current consensus" list does not preclude new discussions in any way. At the Trump page, many consensus items have been deprecated or replaced over the years, as facts evolved and editorial judgment got refined. — JFG ^talk 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm against a current consensus section. The most nuanced discussion is Talk:Kamala_Harris#Racial_categorisation_of_Kamala_Harris, which led to the early consensus. The RfCs are not; for any one can add a line or two of perfunctory reasoning and vote their Yes or No in boldface. It is best to refer readers to the above link where they can examine the evolution of consensus and add anything they find wanting. Otherwise, there will be a constant rehashing of arguments, often oversimplified, by new editors, with the editors of old absenting themselves, their eyes glazed, suffering from consensus fatigue. Consensus is an art not a science. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There has been so much blatant disregard for consensus in this article that it makes a straight faced reply nearly impossible. Editors are cherry picking policy to justify their edits in the absence of true consensus to edit what they want. I can think of two recent examples. I was against the creation of this FAQ, then got told "Consensus does not require unanimity." and the editor went on to do exactly what they stated what they were going to do, without regard to what the objections might be. No attempt at compromise was made. This all took place in less than 24 hours. Not to disrupt consensus or anything, Im still against the existence of the FAQ. It adds little value, Editors are paying it no mind, and it contributes to the lack of consensus. Second example: There was a well thought out consensus on the subject of Sen. Harris' identity. It lasted a good 72 hours. What is the point of working hard on achieving consensus, just to have it rough shot over because consensus can change. I would favor a policy change at Wikipedia that said that a consensus had the power of precedent, and it cant be overturned simply because a new group of editors, regardless of their points of view cant simply show up as the mob and overturn it. Rklahn (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Asian America or South Asian American

Mr. KidAd, kindly revert your edit here[24]. According to Race and ethnicity in the United States, United States Census officially recognised five racial categories, which are White American, African American, Native Americans/Alaska Native, Asian American, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander as well as people of two or more races. It does not recognise South Asian American, please change it back to simply Asian American. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your politeness! But per WP:NOTSOURCE, do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article, even when describing Wikipedia. As far as I can tell Harris identifies as South Asian-American, so we should make that distinction. KidAd (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr. KidAd, that is not true, her identity is of Asian American. What source do you have that she "solely" identifies with the sub-category of South Asian American? The US does not recognise South Asian American, straight from the US census. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what categories the U.S. government/census/etc. use or recognize. What matters is how the subject of the article identifies. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Her official Senate.gov page says it all here. Then there's CNBC, CNN, Politico, and Business Insider. KidAd (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment wasn't about what she claims. Whatever sources editors find for that are great. My concern is that there's no reason to base anything description on census categories. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, please stop calling other editors Mr. It's offensive. Harris identifies as African-American and South Asian-American on her website. —valereee (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I live in the UAE, here, calling someone "Mr." is a sign of respect. You did not have to be so rude and America-centric. Saying it politely would have worked. No, her website does not say he "identifies" or "solely identifies" as South Asian, it just says she was the "first South Asian American senator". Little to do with ethnicity, as South Asian can be Iranic (like myself), Indo-Aryan, Dravidian or Mongoloid. The mention of South Asian is just to distinguish herself. The USA does not recognise South Asian American, it only recognises Asian American. And none of those sources provided states she rejects being Asian American and "solely" identifies as "South Asian American. Also, other sources like here[25] states she is Asian American. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The source he lists says "The 55-year-old senator says she has not grappled with her identity and describes herself simply as "an American"." Other RS describe her as "Black" and a "Woman of Color" which are broader terms for people of mixed ancestry. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-who-i-am-kamala-harris-daughter-of-indian-and-jamaican-immigrants-defines-herself-simply-as-american/2019/02/02/0b278536-24b7-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-biden.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoney1976 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, I'm sure Mr. is a sign of respect for people who identify as male, but KidAd doesn't have it stated that they are male. You are assuming that someone who doesn't specify must be male. That is offensive. —valereee (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

While I did not personally find the use of "Mr." offensive (I am male, so that may have something to do with it), the honorific can be interpreted as condescending or sarcastic, especially if you are not speaking with someone face-to-face. A good rule of thumb not to use honorifics, preventing any potential miscommunication. We're all equal here anyway. Apart from that, sources clearly reference her as "South Asian-American." Her official Senate page says it! So why belabor the point? KidAd (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Asian American is most appropriate here. Getting messed up in South Asian ethnicity is long and complicated. We should follow the US census, none of your sources say she "solely" identifies as "South Asian". Asian Americans are the recognised term by the US government and is most neutral. South Asian is not an ethnicity, we can be Iranic, Indo-Aryan, Mongoloid, and Dravidian. Asian American is the most neutral term, globally and in the US (since Asian American is recognised). Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The census categories are entirely irrelevant. A term doesn't have to be recognized by the government to be appropriate. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying US census is irrelevant, fine. But you failed to provide any source says she solely identifies herself as solely South Asian American. Most of these sources give her that ethnic distinction. I also explained multiple times above that her use of "South Asian American" was to mark her unique position as being the "first South Asian" in US Senate, putting just Asian will make her after a long line of Asian American senators. She did not say anything in her senate page of being "solely" South Asian as an ethnic term. That is a stretch. She is an Asian American. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, I totally get that, but until Harris definitively corrects her preferred categorization, we have to accept what she has personally said. What she's said is that she is African-American and South Asian-American, that her mother knew she and her sister would be considered Black, and that she is proud of her Indian-American heritage. That's the kind of thing we can use. —valereee (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, again, all of you failed to provide any source says she solely identifies herself as "solely" South Asian American, and rejects Asian American. South Asia is clearly in Asia, and South Asia Americans are Asian Americans. Her senate page uses South Asian American to distinguish herself, since there are many other Asian American senators before her. Again, South Asians are not a single ethnicity. We are very diverse. Asian American is the least offensive language, since the broad term is accepted by the US government, and she, or other Asian American don't reject it. I did not find any source where she rejects her wider Asian American heritage. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, the WP:ONUS is not on us to prove a negative. It is on those who want to include something that isn't in sources. We are sourcing what she says about herself. —valereee (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I provided the sources above. Both US census and National Post.[26] Again, kindly reread what I mentioned above. Asian American is the least offensive language. Zakaria1978 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, the US census is not a reliable source for how Kamala Harris identifies. The National Post -- unless it quotes her directly and more recently -- does not trump what she says about herself. —valereee (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, where does she identify "solely" as South Asian American? And rejects Asian American? I also provided other source. Zakaria1978 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, again, that's the WP:ONUS. You're asking us to prove a negative; we don't have to do that. —valereee (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether she identifies solely as something or rejects something else. If we go with that logic, we should describe Harris simply as "American." After all, where is the source that states identifies solely as Asian American and rejects American? This is silly. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As for the contention that you feel only the census values are what the US recognizes, that is not true there are over a dozen for Immigration forms as a counter example, nor is it even an accurate statement for the census since it does allow you to enter other.Gloern (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

""Harris identifies as African American" has been edited out of the Article while we were Talking. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We went through this at length recently, and the consensus was "African-American" and "South Asian-American". Many points of view were represented, most of them being rehashed here. If we are now revisiting that consensus, please make that clear. Otherwise, please respect the work of the other editors who put a lot of thought into this issue. Rklahn (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A radical suggestion here from someone from a country with somewhat less of an obsession about giving people racial labels. One of Australia's leading politicians is Penny Wong. The lead of her article says a grand total of this about her ancestry (the preferred word here, rather than race)... "Born in Malaysia to an Australian mother and Malaysian father." This is elaborated on later in the article with "Wong was born in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, to Jane (née Chapman), an Australian, and Francis Wong, a Malaysian of Chinese origin." That's it. That's all that's said about her "race". Is there a Wikipedia rule that says an article on an American politician must give an interpretive and obviously highly debatable racial label to that person? Does Wikipedia really have to play the racial label game so strongly? Can we not just write simple facts about her background,and leave the interpretation to others? HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, I think that would go with how Harris sees herself, and myself I think the sources support it, but we might be getting into territory where others will be calling OR. —valereee (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do we even need to describe how someone sees themselves? Even that seems to become a point of contention for a some American politicians with complicated ancestries. Stick to facts. Let readers interpret. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, now you're going too far. :D In the US, how a politician identifies does matter. It would seem strange not to address it at all. Does it need to be in the lead? Maybe not. Is it stupid that this is as important as it is? Yes. —valereee (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

While I think you are trying to be fair to a previous discussion that people currently in this thread might be unaware of, reading that section, it seems to me this current discussion is covering a different aspect completely, there is no repeat between the 2, as the previous one was concerning the duality of her ethnic history and this one is at least mostly concerning the validity of one of the terms being used.Gloern (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I like what HiLo48 stated. Lets put something like an immigrant mother from India and an immigrant father from Jamaica. That might be the best. Since she is American above all else. However, I am firm in the evidence, she is an Asian American, the least offensive term. Zakaria1978 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris IS NOT African American or Black as stated in her bio and needs to be corrected. She is biracial half Jamacian and half East Indian. She affirmed her nationality when sworn into Congress as "Proud to be one of the first Indian American women to be serving in Congress" Now Kamala Harris identifies as Black but that is like Elizabeth Warren identifying as an American Indian. TooterTurtle2003 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

On a second look, I am seeing that the article said "Indian American" for a long time until it was modified yesterday.[27] I have changed it back to "Indian American" since that is how she identifies herself as also mentioned by this recent source. Zakaria1978 (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Race_(human_categorization) makes this discussion even more complicated. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, we are revisiting covered ground. Race is a social construct, imposed by society. Identity is what counts here. That is "African American" and "South Asian American". Clearly. Rklahn (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Social constructionism is an ideology and not one that most RSs reflect Anon0098 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a common criticism of social constructionism, but I don't think it's accurate. It's a sociological and information theory line of thought. Regardless, I don't think it changes my main point: We should be seeking identity here, not race or ancestry. Rklahn (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously there is a biological component to race, but in every way that is relevant, it is a social construct (and in this way, is related to identity). I agree with Rklahn that identity is what matters here. RedHotPear (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Zakaria1978 that we should use "Indian American". In the U.S., "Asian American" though it technically can include anyone whose ancestry originated on the Asian continent, tends to imply East Asian. "South Asian American", though also correct, is more complicated and a bit of a mouthful, and also not used quite as often as "Indian American". "Indian American is the more concise and precise term to use here. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Admins

Pinging admins @El C:, @RegentsPark:, @Vanamonde93:, @Doug Weller:, @Bishonen: Could you all please keep an eye on this page. The precise and NPOV terms are South Asian American and Asian American, not Indian American, whose issues are explained in Indian Americans#Terminology. Besides, as I have explained above, when we use the adjective "first," we are looking to apply it to the largest ambit of its use. She is the first Asian American presumptive VP nominee, not just the first South Asian American. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

First Black woman and first Asian-American. —valereee (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but what will you wikilink "Black" to? If it is African American and I don't see any other link, WP:EASTEREGG will compel us to use "African American" instead, no matter what language newspapers use in order to be popular. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That is not an Easter egg. "Black" is legitimate, it is both an alternate term for and another word for African American (because the times are a-changing). But wait, User:Fowler&fowler; you didn't call on me, but I adminny too, though often ad minimum. What is this "language newspaper use in order to be popular"? It would be wise of you not to answer that, but to just give it some thought, because as it stands that statement doesn't make a damn bit of sense, and has more than a whiff of...well, it starts with an r. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It is an informal term, interleaved later, but not used in the first instance in the lead. There is good reason that the Barak Obama, Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Bunche, Thurgood Marshall , Carol Moseley Braun pages use African American. Sorry, about not calling on you. I forgot. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, Vanamonde93, sorry, but I wasn't feeling left out or anything--it was that as an admin I was trying to tell F&F that this "newspaper language" thing was not appropriate. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I almost wonder if (Aiyee) we need a section on her race/identity/ethnicity. I apologize to the entire world for America thinking this is necessary. —valereee (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear precedent here in the above "first" pages of distinguished African Americans. No need for a section. I submit that doing so, at least at this state, will become a form of devaluation of person on account of her gender, and ultimately of sexism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, so want to avoid a race/identity/ethnicity section, but I don't know what you're saying with clear precedent here in the above "first" pages of distinguished African Americans. Can you provide again, sorry. It's a really long discussion. —valereee (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Sorry, I just realized that you too are an admin. I was tired when I wrote what I wrote. What I meant was the pages: Barak Obama, Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Bunche, Thurgood Marshall , Carol Moseley Braun use "African American" the first time they refer to the subject's ethnicity in the lead; they might be later using "Black" as well. See also Colin Powell whose parents were Jamaican immigrants. The "no need for a section" remark was added later after I saw your post. I should have signed it separately, but I did not so it appears that it is one post. The precedent is only about "African American." I mean that if the Barak Obama page does not have a separate section about his ethnicity, despite the POV about it promoted in many places, there is no reason to start a new section about KH's ethnicity. It might be seen as a case of double standards, or rather of holding female candidates to a different standard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: I rather think Fowler pinged me and the others because we're admins who've dealt with the whole South Asian vs Indian mess before, and of course because he knows all of us also admin politically messy areas...Fowler&fowler I'm happy to keep an eye on this, but Valereee and Drmies' know what's what and have more experience in the AP2 morass than I do. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• @Vanamonde93: What is AP2? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler, AP2 is "American politics 2"—it refers to the topic area and the associated discretionary sanctions in effect on such pages. More details are listed and linked in the notice at the top of this talk page. czar 04:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your heartfelt apology, valereee, it really means a lot. Can we just finally establish a consensus one way or another? There are like 10 different headings under the talk page about this Anon0098 (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources seem to be mainly calling her Black and she calls herself Black:"I was born black and I’ll die black and I am proud of it. And I am not going to make any excuses for it, for anybody, because they don't understand.”[28]. She can still be listed as African-American as a category and on lists so far as I'm concerned, I don't think that the fact her ancestry doesn't seem to include American slaves precludes this although I know ADOS says it does. Sources also refer to her as "Indian American" - mainly without the hyphen and of course we do have an article Indian Americans. Doing a search it's a very common term. Doug Weller talk 06:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

One need not look any further than https://www.harris.senate.gov/about She calls herself "African-American" and "South Asian-American". Rklahn (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm requesting the admins to implement the consensus already achieved an earlier section, "Racial categorisation of Kamala Harris," (and already implemented in the FAQ (see its section above) which is to use African American and not Black, and South Asian American and not Indian American, and in the instance of using "first," to use the largest ambit of its use (in this instance "first Asian American" (not "first South Asian American") to be the presumptive nominee for Vice-President of a major party. I'm not asking for their views on these terms. They are welcome to add those to that section above if they so choose. There is pretty much nothing they will find in the sources that has not already been raked there. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I too, like Vanamonde93, prefer to leave this to editors more tuned to AP2. But, afaik, it is customary to use African American rather than Black as the primary identifier. Indian American, South Asian American, I'd go with whatever sources predominantly say (the NYT, and this is just one example, uses Indian American ([29]) but not sure if that's uniform across reliable sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reality overtakes our categories and processes here. It is not surprising that readers, editors, and our very system have a bit of a problem with this intersectionality. It's probably best to let the sources speak for themselves. There are a lot of "African-American" mentions in the sources, and to have that in the lead is not bad. Or, "African-American, descended from..." etc. (What it proves, of course, is that "African-American" is less a racial than a cultural category.) And to cite her, speaking of herself as "black", is justified and I would encourage it--as it happens, "Black" is taking over as the term of choice, and that's fine. (What is unfortunate is that the passage that Doug Weller cited has lowercase "b"; Reuters is a bit conservative, and this is their version of her speaking. The capital is important.) BTW I'm fine with F&F's request, right above this: use Afr-Am and S-A Am. There is consensus for this, it is well-sourced. I myself slightly favor "Black" in the lead, with a capital B, but I don't mind setting my personal things aside to help implement and maintain this consensus. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this page is overwhelmed with dozens of discussions on this same subject, I propose that any future such discussions be answered with "We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ." And move on. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended protection edit request on 12 August 2020

We have drifted from the identity consensus. In the first paragraph, please change "Asian American" to "South Asian–American". Rklahn (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Rklahn:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The senator is indeed South Asian American. Since they are a subcategory of Asian Americans, we should not change the lead. It is important to note that she is the first Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate. Not just the first South Asian American, and not just the first Asian American woman, she is the "first Asian American" to be so chosen and so honored. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rklahn: The ambit has expanded. She is the first South Asian American in the Senate, but we are now talking about presumptive VP nominee. She is more than just the first SA-A, she is in fact the first Asian American (a larger category). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

P.I. Ellsworth There was consensus around identity on 10 August 2020 @ 14:34 (UTC) that lasted until 12 August 2020 @ 01:06 (UTC). The end of this consensus was driven, largely by Joe Biden's announcement that Sen. Harris will be nominated as the Democratic VP. The consensus should be treated as the status quo in the current discussion revisiting the identity consensus. And thats exactly what the current discussion does. It disrupts a thoughtfull and well discussed consensus. Rklahn (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I support the current lead (first African American and the first Asian American). This has been discussed and debated ad nauseum in multiple sections of this talk page, so feel free to start an RfC if you think it should be changed. - MrX 🖋 11:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I may. I think the change of the consensus was disruptive. Thanks. Rklahn (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. - MrX 🖋 11:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but this time around, the consensus was developed recently and was run rough shot over. It's a disruptive rehashing of points gone over already. It has no respect for the hard work of editors that spent a lot of time and effort sorting this out. Rklahn (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, Rklahn, you do see the the fact that nobody is arguing that Senator Harris is not South Asian American. The argument for using "Asian American" in the lead has to do with the largest group or groups to which the senator belongs. Since the senator is South Asian American, then there is no question that she is the first South Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate. She is also the first South Asian American woman to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate. No question. However, the largest group to which the senator belongs in this context is "Asian Americans". Since there have been no other Asian Americans who have ever been chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate, then wouldn't you agree that the senator is the first Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Im not entirely sure this is a universally held view in the current discussion, but your point there remains valid. I do not think the Senator identifies as "Asian American", rather we should not be searching for some category beyond "South Asian American", because thats what her identify is. Rklahn (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether or not the senator "identifies" as any certain ancestral category. And I think it matters most that it causes so much contention among really good editors of this encyclopedia. So the entire thought that she is the very first whomever to receive the honor of being asked to run for the second highest office in the US should be stripped altogether from the lead. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So how do we describe Rachel Dolezal?

I don't think we have WP:CONSENSUS.

I think there is enough discussion of Harris' racial identity in WP:RSs that it deserves a paragraph of its own. The best way to resolve a hopeless disagreement is to acknowledge it and give both sides. --Nbauman (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There was consensus until somewhat recently. I tried with this edit to restore it. It should be "South Asian–American" in the absence of a new consensus, simply to restore the status quo, if not anything else. Ive been pretty clear on this position for a while. Heck, Ive been been quoted in the media on this. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/08/the-wikipedia-war-over-kamala-harris-race/615250/ Rklahn (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'South Asian-American' or 'Asian-American' in the lead?

Should Kamala Harris be described as 'South Asian-American' or 'Asian-American' in the lead? - MrX 🖋 11:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• Looks like she identifies with the South label [30]. RS are mixed, but at a glance it looks like the majority use "South Asian American"[31][32][33][34]. So probably "South Asian American". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Per the same sources I posted below (Britannica, NYT), I'm not sure why we just wouldn't say Indian. I struggle to imagine where we would identify someone as "North American" rather than Canadian, or "Eastern European" instead of French. I mean, she's not Laotian or Bhutanese. So I'm not sure why we would prefer the more vague term that introduces more ambiguity than is necessary. GMG^talk 12:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Asian-American" but only if as worded.

Both terms have previously garnered a somewhat limited consensus on this talk page at different times recently with a clear preference for either over alternatives. I notice that, currently, the lede inconsistently adopts usage contradicting that later in the WP:LEAD section and in the 2010 election section, within three otherwise verbatim sentences.

In that textual context—of vice-presidential firsts—but never otherwise, I'm happy for us to go with the attributive (hyphenated) form "Asian American"—the lede (if not lead) status quo—as the broadest term used by the reliable sources to describe Harris's ancestral connection to that continent.

I doubt WP:BLP rules on self-identity wholly apply here. As it stands, the article never either purports to describe her self-identified 'race' ("black"/"African-American" ?/"Indo-American"??), nor ethnic origin (Afro-Jamaican/Tamil), within the lead section, let alone lede (perhaps we should; that's a whole 'nother RFC). We, merely, state where she is on chronological lists in reliable sources that describe vice presidential nominees as reasonably somehow belonging to various groups based loosely on ancestral origins.

In an academic or encyclopedic (usually any non-colloquial) register (sociolinguistics) of either Commonwealth or American English varieties, the definition of "Asian Americans" subsumes any sense of "South Asian Americans", which, as an aside, itself subsumes any sense of "Indo-" or "Indian Americans" (cf. the ambiguous "American Indian").

On the basis of Occum's Razor and the bizarre brevity deficit of listing both (or all three), I suggest we replicate the lede wording (previously proposed on this talk page and then implemented) to both later paragraphs.

Llew Mawr (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Neither IMO, since she is of mixed "Tamil and Afro-Jamaican descent", why not simply say that more specific descriptor and not spend time deciding which geographical/ethnic labels fit best.Pincrete (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• She's from California. I don't really see why she can't just be a "Californian American". I found this RFC by looking at the talk page after seeing she is ".. the first South Asian woman..." without even mentioning that she's American. I think that is wrong. If her ethnic ancestry is important, it appears that South Asian American or Tamil American is the most precise, as her mother's Tamil origins are well sourced, and neither parent is identified as having ancestors from other parts of Asia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• If it must be mentioned, then Asian American is the largest group to which the senator belongs in this context, and is the most concise description that is still correct. Leads are meant to be more concise than precise. Since there have never been any other Asian Americans to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate, then it is most correct and concise to say that the senator is the first Asian American to be so honored. I am leaning toward not mentioning her ancestral categories at all in the lead. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I believe we should not refer to her race or ethnicity in the lead at all. We can discuss her descent in the section on her early life. If we feel we must categorize her in the lead, we need to use what she calls herself, which is African-American and South Asian-American. —valereee (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have made this same point elsewhere, and absolutely agree. Rklahn (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• To make it clear, we are not talking about the lead SENTENCE, right? We are talking about later in the lead, where she is described as the "first" of a particular group to do something. It has been decided, over and over at this page, to use "South Asian-American" because that is how she describes herself, for example on her Senate page. Can we please stop rehashing this? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN and Valereee and Rklahn that this is the consensus, and there is no reason to keep rehashing it. She is an American lawyer and politician, but she is the second African-American woman and the first South Asian-American to serve in the US Senate; the California Department of Justice, similarly, uses "South Asian-American" when describing her barrier-breaking accomplishments as District Attorney of SF and the 32nd AG of California. As for the presumptive VP nominee, she is both the first African American woman and the first Asian American (a super-category of South Asian American) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Ive also tried to make this point as well, and also wholeheartedly agree with it. I also agree with Fowler&fowler comments on this as well. Rklahn (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone has changed "first South Asian American" in the US Senate to "first Asian American." That is incorrect, as she is the eighth Asian-American (jointly with Tammy Duckworth). Asian American applies only to first presumptive VP nominee. Please correct this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Already fixed by User:Valereee. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I corrected and warned the editor, who is experienced enough to have known better. —valereee (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Echoing Paine Ellsworth on using the largest group when it comes to "firsts." She should be described as the first Asian American to be selected as the vice presidential running mate of a major party's nominee, and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate. RedHotPear (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Indian American but not "South Asian American", given consistency and her own self-identification.

Kamala Harris in her own book mentions her husband Douglas Emhoff and writes:

Doug and I were married on Friday, August 22, 2014, in an intimate ceremony with the people we loved. Maya officiated; Meena read from Maya Angelou. In keeping with our respective Indian and Jewish heritage, I put a flower garland around Doug's neck..."[35]

She is very clear about her "Indian" heritage, so why we shouldn't be? In the multiple interviews of Kamala Harris[36][37] she is absolutely clear about her self-identification as "Indian-American". Reliable sources refer to her as "Indian American" more than hundreds of times than "South Asian American". Unless we are seriously questioning the reliability of CNN[38], Washington Post[39], Politico[40], LA Times[41] US News,[42] ABC News,[43] The Hill,[44] and thousands of other WP:RS, which also identify her as "Indian American" but not "South Asian American", I clearly don't see a single reason to pick "South Asian" (which can also mean Pakistani, Afghanistani, Bangladeshi) than more specific and much more common term "Indian". There is no need for this page to be different than the rest of the Wikipedia or the world. SignificantPBD (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Most of the sources say Indian American in comparison to South Asian American. The article since 2017 used the term "Indian American"[45] until it was changed this month. Like I said above too, Indian American should be our choice over South Asian American because we need to be more specific about her ancestry. Her mother is from India, and we haven't seen if her close relatives come from any other region from South Asia. BBC's recent article about her also discusses that she has identified her Indian ancestry.[46] Though I am not opposed to using "Asian American", I especially prefer it when it is completely justifiable for the sentences such as "first Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate", but lede needs to be specific about her Indian ancestry in order to avoid any confusion. Zakaria1978 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't use "Indian American" because it is unclear; it could easily be taken to mean Native American ancestry. "South Asian" is not ambiguous. Yes, it refers to the whole Indian subcontinent, including several other countries besides India. But we commonly say "Asian" when referring to people of Chinese, Japanese, Thai, and many other ancestries. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm totally convinced that "Indian American" is really all that confusing. Yeah, it's easy to confuse Indian with NDN. But you're going to get some pretty strange looks if you try to refer to someone from the Navajo Nation as an Indian American. GMG^talk 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment with respect to everyone, there are two distinct questions here, the first of which is how to describe her ethnicity/heritage. IMO it makes sense to describe the most specific RS-ed info, which is she is mixed Indian-Tamil/Afro-Jamaican descent. The other implicit question here is which VP 'first' tick-boxes does she hit, which makes sense to be as generic as possible ie first "Asian VP candidate", first "African-American " VP candidate. Pincrete (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Why can’t we just come out and say Indian? While we’re being intentionally broad, we may as well call her an Earthling too Anon0098 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

She would not be the first "Earthling" to do anything notable. RedHotPear (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

---

• Yes - Sources routinely describe her as African American or black (which I'm equally fine with as an alternative). Her role as Biden's running mate makes her racial identity a first, and a highly noteworthy aspect. - MrX 🖋 12:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• It looks like NYT goes with black and Britannica goes with African American. I personally prefer black, since African American is most often just a euphemism for black. Nobody's gonna really pretend we'd be having this discussion about...like...an Arab dude from Morocco. But I'm not going to argue over splitting hairs there. Either one effectively communicates the information. GMG^talk 12:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) No IMO, since she is of mixed "Tamil and Afro-Jamaican descent", why not simply say that more specific descriptor and not spend time deciding which geographical/ethnic labels fit best, or if we must, say "black". I give the same answer to the other RfC above.Pincrete (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This may be technically true, it looks like the spread of sources that use this this phrasing is pretty daggum sparse. GMG^talk 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes with tiny caveats, per WP:RS, WP:BLP and the multiply previously agreed talk page consensus.

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)

• She's from California. Photos do not look "black", lots of Californians have brown skin in summer, regardless of their ethnic background. This question is only derived from her father's background, as her mother was Tamil Indian. Her father Donald J. Harris was born in Jamaica and is described in that article as British Jamaican not "African American" (or even just African). That article also says he is descended from Hamilton Brown who is described as Northern Irish, so perhaps we should also call her Irish American. As a non-American, I had not really heard of her until she became lead candidate for vice-president, so I'd like to read more about her, and less about the ancestors of her paternal grandparents. Describe her as first/second X to do Y when sources say that, but otherwise, describe her as American or Californian. --Scott Davis ^Talkw 13:27, 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)

• I believe we should not refer to her race or ethnicity in the lead at all. We can discuss her descent in the section on her early life. If we feel we must categorize her in the lead, we need to use what she calls herself, which is African-American and South Asian-American. —valereee (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We fairly regularly refer to race/ethnicity in the lead when someone is a "first" of some note: Barack Obama, Jackie Robinson, Charles Q. Brown Jr.. GMG^talk 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    GreenMeansGo, yes, I know. In each of those cases, we had pretty clear agreement on what the heck the person was generally to be called. Giving Harris a racial categorization is a lot more nuanced. It's like...isTiger Woods the winningest-ever Cablinasian golfer? Well, no, not according to the lead of our article about him. We deal with that later, in the section about his early life. JMO. —valereee (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    Er...not trying to argue other stuff exists. :) —valereee (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    • • • I mean, yes. It is an OTHERSTUFF argument. But at some level, OTHERSTUFF arguments are slightly more valid when you're talking about high profile FAs. GMG^talk 15:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

          GreenMeansGo, I meant it as an example of how we've handled similar situations, just as I'm sure you meant Obama, Robinson, Brown as examples, not "reasons why we have to do it here! Because look at this other article!" When in fact sometimes it's the other article that needs correcting. I once pissed off someone at Mark Dice because they were arguing that since it was in Kyle Kulinski, Dice should be treated the same, and I was just showing my/WP's political bias. By the time the complainer had started making a YouTube video exposing Wikipedia's bias, I'd corrected Kyle Kulinski. They accused me of "whitewashing" Kyle Kulinski to hide WP's bias. :D —valereee (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

          • Maybe we're getting a bit off in the weeds. Obviously I agree that OTHERSTUFF is a non-argument when we're comparing just some rando article. But VA/FAs kindof set the standard, and they kindof dispense with the reasons that OTHERSTUFF is normally a non-argument. GMG^talk 16:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the lead, yes, but not in the lead SENTENCE. We already have African-American and South Asian-America in the lead in several places where she was the "first" at something. That's where it belongs. The lead sentence should just say "American". -- MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agree again with Valereee and MelanieN Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, as I have mentioned multiple times on this talk page, it is her most notable identity as reflected in reliable sources. We must defer to reliable sources and not construct our own standards as to who the "African-American" label should apply to. Also emphasizing MelanieN's point that we are not talking about the lead sentence, which should just use "American," as is the norm. RedHotPear (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Because it's significant and how she is described in reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• NO At best - she's Biracial. Her mother is from Tamil, her father's Jamaican. People from Tamil-Nadu aren't African, they're Indian. not everyone from Jamaica is black either. There are Chinese Jamaicans and white or very light completed Jamaicans (Guy Harvey for one!) so unless with have a reliable source that says it, we can't say it either.W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• "unless with have a reliable source that says it, we can't say it" - Are you not aware that a huge number of reliable sources, over a long period of time, describe her as African American, and that other sources make clear that her father is Afro-Jamaican? Guy Harvey is not really relevant here. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 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)

• Yes - A multitude of reliable sources, over well over a decade, describe her as such, and it is historically significant; she is only the second African-American woman to ever serve in the Senate, so a mention in the lead section (not the first sentence) is warranted. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 12 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."

--Neutrality^talk 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)

• Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before commenting. It is disruptive to make outlandish "Birther" style claims ("no way of knowing without somebody digging up birth certificates"). It is disruptive to say that we should disregard reliable sources, or to suggest that there is no such thing as a reliable source. And it is disruptive to claim that well-established reliable sources are "fake news" (I assume you are referring to the variety of sources that have explicitly referred to Harris as African American, including Reuters, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal). Your bizarre claim that these sources have been "prosecuted" over "posting false information" is similarly disruptive. This kind of activities can be sanctionable. Please consider this a clear warning. Neutrality^talk 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• No' Because of her complex heritage. I would accept African-American despite her Jamaican heritage but she is biracial. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Emir of Wikipedia, my understanding of this RfC, given the other RfC, is that they are not mutually exclusive. Endorsing this RfC doesn't rule out endorsing the other one too. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  They don't need to be in the lede. Biracial is used by RSs [47]. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think there already was clear consensus before these RFCs and my !vote is still for the status quo. But, FWIW, whereas American sources like to use "African-American", I notice The Times of London also takes a different, rather concise take: "The daughter of a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, she makes history as the first non-white woman on a presidential ticket."[48] Llew Mawr (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  This comment inaccurately presupposes that one cannot be African-American, of Jamaican heritage, and biracial. Obviously, there are many people who are all three of those things. Neutrality^talk 21:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO - She should be described as a "Women of Color" OR "Black with South Asian (or Indian) ancestry." Kamala's father is Jamaican and her mother is from India. BOTH sides of her family's ancestry should be represented in any description. In academe (and major media outlets), she would be considered a "Woman of Color" and/or described as biracial (see links at end). If she is referred to as "Black" the other side of her ancestry should be acknowledged too, as in "Black AND of Indian (or South Asian) descent. Again, BOTH sides should be recognized. Examples: "A former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, she will be the first woman of color to be nominated for national office by a major political party." on https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-biden.html. "So when Joe Biden named Harris on Tuesday as his running mate — making her the first Black woman on a major party's presidential ticket — Cochran wasn't just struck by the history. It represented a full-circle moment for Black women, who for generations have fought for their voices to be heard and political aspirations recognized...Harris' selection is historic in many senses. It also marks the first time a person of Asian descent is on the presidential ticket. Born to a Jamaican father and Indian mother, she often speaks of her deep bond with her late mother, whom she has called her single biggest influence" on https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-harris-black-voters.html. "Still, I could have ill imagined that one day an African-American man would become the president or that a woman of Jamaican and Indian descent would be a candidate for the vice presidency" and "A woman of color will be on a major-party presidential ticket for the first time: Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden announced Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) as his vice-presidential pick Tuesday" on https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/women-of-color-representation-government/?arc404=true . "Kamala Harris becomes first woman of color to run for vice president on a major party ticket" on CBS News this morning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBjNxAxW79Q).Stoney1976 (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes — per Neutrality's comment above. RS describe Harris as African-American, indeed the focus on that angle, after all Wikipedia didn't invent "Harris is the first African-American vice presidential candidate" - RS did. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:33, 13 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)

• No. Harris is an American. All the ethnic descriptors can go in the body. She is half-Asian, half-Black (Jamaican to be precise), and her current husband is Jewish. All these details of the American melting pot can go in the body. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That's whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • How is that whitewashing (though I prefer woman of color, Black, or biracial in the lead)? It is how she describes herself, and her ancestry is still included. It's all verifiable in RS. Stoney1976 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • No, it is recognizing and highlighting Harris' accomplishments as opposed to her ancestry. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is a Snopes article that says her great-great grandfather may have been an Irish slave owner, Hamilton Brown, and her great grandmother's birth may not have been recorded because her great-great grandmother was a slave. I'm noting this because if this turns out to be verifiable, those arguing that her African American ancestry should be recognized would also have to include her Irish ancestry in principle, which gets kind of ridiculous. Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-ancestor-slaves/ I would still advocate for calling her a "woman of color" capitalized or not, and noting that her father is from Jamaica and her mother from India. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, Stoney, that comment is kind of ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree, this is absurd. For one thing, Snopes says the claim is unproven. More importantly, it proves nothing. Most slave-descended African Americans can count some white slave-owners in their family tree. For a white man to impregnate an enslaved woman he owned was very common. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Of course, because she is. She is also other things, but they are not mutually exclusive. We should not whitewash her; it's obvious that reliable sources discuss her as African-American--besides other things. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 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)

• BBC has been referring to her as a "woman of color" (most frequently) or "Black" or "biracial" then noting her parents' homelands rather than calling her "African American" in their more recent news stories except when quoting others. Examples: "With three months left until election day in the US, California Senator Kamala Harris has already made history: her Jamaican and Indian roots make her the first woman of colour appointed to a presidential ticket by either of the two main American political parties." https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53746551 "Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has named Kamala Harris as his running mate - the first black woman and South Asian American in the role." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53739323 "Mr Biden noted that Ms Harris, a US senator from California, was the first woman of colour to serve as a presidential running mate for a major US party." https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53754294 All RS. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• No. She is Jamaican and Indian descent and it has no relations with African-Americans. It would make more sense to call her "biracial" or "mixed". ShadZ01 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Sources generally refer to her as African-American, and we should follow the sources instead of trying to dissect her racial descent ourselves and apply silly made-up rules (Jamaican immigrants to the US can't be African-American? That's complete and utter nonsense). The current lead [49] mentions her race twice, once when noting that she was the second African-American and first Asian-American woman to serve in the Senate, and then again to note that she is the first African-American and first Asian-American woman to be chosen as a major party running mate. That reflects the way the vast majority of sources have covered her race: she is biracial, both black and Indian-American. Just to be clear, I think the short description in the first sentence should remain "American politician and lawyer", in accordance with manual of style guidelines on nationality. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Biracial appears to be somewhat restrictive. Her mother was Tamil, but her father was Jamaican, presumably of some kind(s) of African descent (has anyone checked for more precise race than "African"?), and also claims to have an Irish ancestor (not proven or disproven at this stage). It seems more accurate to describe her as American of mixed ethnic ancestry and heritage. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You're right, I probably shouldn't refer to her as "biracial" in the future. Anyways, that doesn't change what the sources say. Most of them refer to her as African-American or black, and many also say she's Asian-American, South Asian-American, or Indian-American. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• No Identity is separate from heritage. She is Jamaican-American, doesn’t matter how much she believes otherwise Anon0098 (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Related:

• The Wikipedia War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be --The Atlantic
• Is Kamala Harris Legally African American, Indian, Both, Neither, or Something Else? --Reason Magazine
• Kamala Harris’ Biracial Heritage Has Thrown Conservatives Into A Tailspin --Forbes
• Did U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris’ Ancestor Own Slaves in Jamaica? --Snopes
• Kamala Harris’ Jamaican Heritage --Jamaica Global
• Kamala Harris is Asian and Black. That shouldn't be confusing in 2020 — but it is to some. --NBC News
• Kamala Harris’s Indian Connections Spark Social Media Frenzy --Bloomberg

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• African-American vs. black --Grammarist
• Not all black people are African American. Here's the difference. --CBS News
• 'African-American' Becomes a Term for Debate --New York Times
• Why I'm Black, Not African American --Los Angeles Times
• 'An African American', or 'a black'? --Politico

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO KH should not be called "Afro-American" until reliable sources are found which show that she has one or more African ancestors. While sources I have read say Afro-American, they give no strong evidence for it. While her father is Jamaican, I have never seen strong evidence that he has an African ancestor. I have never seen any African ancestor named or identified. I have never seen any slave in the ancestry mentioned, who was clearly born in Africa, or clearly had an African ancestor. I have seen no DNA test like for Elizabeth Warren. Is there even a reliable source which demonstrates that KH has physical characteristics exclusively typical of African ancestry? (TolerantToleration (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC))

  TolerantToleration, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for how to handle including things like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  TolerantToleration is almost certainly a racist troll account. It was created today and its only contributions appear to be to try to reach the autoconfirmed status and troll here. This is also not encouraging. Acalamari 17:46, 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[50]Meet Kamala Harris, the Second Black Woman Elected to the U.S. Senate

NPR[51]

Roll Call[52]State attorney general could be second ever African-American woman in Senate

LA Times[53]and Harris will become only the second black woman in the nation’s history to serve in Congress’ upper chamber.

Vox[54] 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 [55] 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)

• Comment.There is a debate regarding who is "African American" versus "Jamaican American," in part because of proof of ancestry, etc., but also because their colonial histories and cultural identities are different. Many Jamaican Americans do not consider themselves African American. See: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/21/black-history-african-american-definition/1002344001/ In their most recent story, the AP's fact checker says Kamala identifies as "Black and Indian American." They say, "Kamala Harris for years has identified herself as both Black and Indian American. In interviews, she has regularly talked about how her mother, who was from India, raised her as Black." Black is a more overarching term that includes people whose recent ancestors are from different countries. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/breaking-the-news/african-american-or-black-which-term-should-you-use/89-0364644d-3896-4e8b-91b1-7c28c039353f The even more overarching term for a woman with both Black and Indian ancestors would be a "person of color" or a "woman of color." The Washington Post says, "A “person of color” identity is a new entry in the portfolios of nonwhites, who can identify primarily as black, Latino, Asian; Mexican, Jamaican, Chinese; or Catholic, Methodist, Muslim. Under many circumstances, they now choose to identify as POC." See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/02/people-color-are-protesting-heres-what-you-need-know-about-this-new-identity/ Current reporting supports "Black and Indian American" or "Black and South Asian American." If we are going by parents' countries of origin, "Jamaican and Indian American." Stoney1976 (talk) 22:26, 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)

• No - Even though she may self-identify as African-American & MSM describes her as such, that doesn't make her so. Her father is from Jamaica & her mother is from India & neither of those countries are located in Africa. PS - Thank goodness she & MSM aren't describing her as Martian-American. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - per Neutrality and Praxidicae's comments. Jr8825 • Talk 04:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Neutrality, as the only thing that matters is how one is described by reliable sources. Still further, Jamaica is in America, so a Jamaican of African descent is an African American. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: Harris describes herself as such, and reliable sources frequently mention it. It's certainly notable, as well, because reliable sources regularly suggest that her race was a factor in her selection, and that she is a "historic" candidate because of her race. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, when relevant: Harris should have this attributed to her if it is directly relevant. If it is discussed that she is the first African-American V.P. nominee, for example, that would be acceptable. However, it should not be placed in a context such as "Kamala Harris is an African-American politician," if the same would not be done for a person of another race. PickleG13 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes There are reliable sources which substantiate this. ~ HAL333 19:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Distinguish hatnote with wrestler Kamala

I've removed the distinguish hatnote with the wrestler Kamala (wrestler). My reasoning is that Kamala Harris is far more famous than the wrestler, and even though their names are similar, I believe it would be very unlikely anyone would mix the two up. I don't think it's necessary here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

FuriouslySerene, I've been thinking about that, too. I don't disagree. The wrestler isn't known as Kamala Harris. They're known as Kamala. Just so happens their legal name is Harris. I'm not sure it's enough for a hat. If necessary we could direct people to a dab, maybe? —valereee (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Since Kamala is its own dab page, I agree with removing the hatnote. If Kamala redirected here, we should keep it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I was considering doing it myself. - MrX 🖋 18:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Back again. Doesn't anyone read talk pages anymore? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, it may be hard to find this section sandwiched between sections created by people who don't understand that most Jamaicans are of African origin. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sort of on-the-fence about it. It could go either way. However, some headlines refer to him as James "Kamala" Harris (so you could say that he too could be called "Kamala Harris"). ...Also, one user (User:Byzantine Scholar) changed the image on both Kamala Harris templates to that of the other Kamala (wrestler), which they said was in protest of the hatnote's removal. I've since reverted those edits (and asked them on their talk page not to vandalize again), but just thought you should know. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please restore the link. Kamala (wrestler) received 280,000 recent views. Removing him is ridiculous and potentially racist. It is certainly disrespectful of someone who recently died.Byzantine Scholar (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no likelihood that these people would be confused with each other. - MrX 🖋 00:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you mean by "potentially racist" but the Kamala Harris page gets about 30 times more views than the Kamala wrestler page. So I'm unsure why the hatnote isn't on the Kamala wrestling page. But I'm quite certain nobody is getting the two confused. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favour of restoring it. It's not about the two people being confused for one another, of course they wouldn't. But the wrestler Kamala's real last name was Harris, it would be easy to make the mistake of thinking either their stage name or real name was "Kamala Harris" and looking for them at this title. Besides, hatnotes are cheap. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see this earlier. This should be restored; it's not like there are that many people named "Kamala Harris," and she isn't on the disambiguation page "Kamala." Nuke (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

she isn't on the disambiguation page "Kamala." What are you talking about? She's right there. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unless Kamala becomes a redirect to Kamala Harris instead of a disambig page, then I don't see the point of a hatnote. NO ONE is going to type "Kamala Harris" into the Search box hoping to get the wrestler, though it's possible someone typing "Kamala" alone is doing so. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Kamala Harris and James Harris known as Kamala are completely differently, and I don't believe anyone would mistake the two. Oppose hatnote based on that, and also for the fact that Kamala doesn't redirect to Kamala Harris (different story if it did). I would note that GhostOfDanGurney has reverted a revert of the hatnote, violating the WP:1RR discretionary sanctions in place. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support hatnote based on reasons on my last revert. Two subjects with similar names, both involved in current events. The hatnote doesn't have to be permanant, you know? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's curious how nobody added it to the Kamala wrestler page then. Considering this page averages 30 times the views, and with the recent news the imbalance will grow to thousands of times more views, it's far more likely that someone looking for Kamala Harris would go to the wrestler's page. Frankly this hatnote seems to diminish her. I really don't get what it serves. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

People were doing it there since he died, too. Today, some even changed the name and infobox picture to hers, bunch of nuts. None of his contributors care to emphasize the pronunciation (kuh-MAUL-ah) or debate his ethnicities, though, so yeah, way different story. (And as a biased asshole, I should point out that while the latter Kamala is the hotter ticket now, the former has more global syndication hours in the bank, and got an article over seven months sooner in '05.) InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed the hatnote again. Consensus appears to be not to have it, with minimal opposition saying we should keep it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris and far-flung language and religious nationalisms

Hello Valereee, Drmies, MelanieN, Muboshgu, Rklahn, Naddruf, The Four Deuces and others,

Several sentences (constituting WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS) have been added by one or more editors. These are:

As a result, Harris writes in her memoir that she understands small amounts of Tamil. Gopalan insisted on giving her daughters names to help them preserve their Indian cultural identity; she named Kamala "Kamala Devi" for religious reasons, as both words are derived from Hindu mythology. "Kamala" is Sanskrit for "lotus" and an alternative name for the Goddess Lakshmi who is often depicted with the aforementioned flower; whereas "Devi" is Sanskrit for "goddess" and the name of the female deity who protects villages.

The LA Times article says only "Indian mythology," (full quote: "Shyamala insisted on giving her daughters names derived from Indian mythology, in part to help preserve their cultural identity" see here) Both "Kamala" and "Maya" also occur in Buddhist mythology, the latter much more so than it does in Hindu mythology. Besides being a name for "illusion" in Indian mythology, Maya is the name of the mother of the Buddha, see Britannica here; see WP's own Sacred lotus in religious art, whose names in Sanskrit and Pali language are both Kamala and Padma.

The point that I am attempting to make again, this time more explicitly, is that South Asia is riven by various forms of linguistic- and religious-nationalisms. Kamala Harris is an American politician whose stomping ground is American culture, not South Asian or Jamaican. A brief description of the parents' background is appropriate (but keeping in mind that they too spent the majority of their years in the US, not India or Jamaica); but an extended disquisition on family ancestry—especially with a view to puff up, to promote or extol, far removed issues and fancies—is not. The original sentence said only, "Harris identifies as African-American and considers her experience to be American." Please help keep the article NPOV, the main body as well as the lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• IMO: trivia. If people want this level of info, they can consult the sources we so helpfully provide. —valereee (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Similarly, the sentences, "In a 2018 article written in Jamaica Global, Donald Harris claimed to be a descendant of slave owner Hamilton Brown. Biracial of Indian Tamil and Jamaican descent, Kamala Harris identifies simply as "American"." are other examples of benighted trivia, this time Jamaican. Tamil is an ethnic and language category, not racial. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I removed the passages and, Valereee, cited you for critical mass. The WaPo headline is deceptive, and that last edit is plucked right from it: "Kamala Harris identifies simply as "American"" can be taken in many different ways. The article also says "Harris grew up embracing her Indian culture, but living a proudly African American life" and "My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters", so the whole "there's only one American" just isn't correct, and the headline, and how that ended up in the article, that's easily misleading. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not sure how any of that is synthesis or original research and I think this is interesting and relevant info to include. I also don't understand your title of "far-flung language and religious nationalisms". It seems to be your idea that Indian culture and/or languages are somehow less American than other culture. It seems that this wouldn't be an issue with any type of European ancestry, or names from some kind of Christian tradition.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know about "far-flung", but I do know that we do not do etymologies and context for names of other people, unless there are some serious considerations there--like someone being named for Nathan Bedford Forrest, or someone getting a different name later in life (like Saint Boniface). Drmies (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• This page does seem to be going off into minor language and religious directions. I think drilling down into her Tamil roots may be interesting regionally, but not particularly encyclopedic. The Tamil roots may be relevant if she were an Indian politician, as Californian is to an American one. Generally, I agree with Fowler&fowler on this. Im no longer in a position to edit the article (I lack 500 total edits), but if I were able, there are edits I would make in this area. Rklahn (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with removing all of this. Not because there is anything wrong with it, just because it is a level of detail not needed for a biographical article in an encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, this should be either removed or greatly trimmed. RedHotPear (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for replying. For the record, I do not think that the culture of India is less American, indeed less of the world, than European culture. The very fact that arithmetic, as we know it, as it is taught in elementary and middle school around the world, is largely a creation of Indian culture would belie that. Where it is appropriate, discussion of that culture whether literary, artistic, or scientific, is fine. I have done my share of explicating it in subject areas in which the standards are well-defined. But there is very little reliable literature on Kamala Harris's history. We have her version, but she is not a historian. A Wall Street Journal article on her, for example, says, “I come from a family of fighters,” she added, a reference not just to her mother but to her grandfather, P.V. Gopalan, who Ms. Harris says was part of a group in India in the 1940s that sought independence from British rule. He didn’t promote his views widely because of his job as a civil servant under British rule, she says." This is the sort of vague historicizing, about what in effect is a closet freedom fighter, and thus unverifiable, that we need to be smart about when reporting in WP.

Anyway, I think the page seems to be stabilizing. I am happy to return to my vacation. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I enjoy working with you and appreciate your contributions! Happy vacationing. RedHotPear (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Cite for second Black woman and first South Asian-American Senator in history

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/11/look-senator-kamala-harris-joe-bidens-pick-vp/3350018001/ JTRH (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I favor the consensus reached in "Racial categorisation of Kamala Harris" which in this area is "African American." Rklahn (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I do too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Second Black woman and first South Asian-American" works for me. See details above. Stoney1976 (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• African-American vs. black --Grammarist
• Not all black people are African American. Here's the difference. --CBS News
• 'African-American' Becomes a Term for Debate --New York Times
• Why I'm Black, Not African American --Los Angeles Times
• 'An African American', or 'a black'? --Politico

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because that is the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see the FAQ section at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My issue is that we are not describing her this way. We alternate between "Asian American" and "South Asian-American" rapidly. IMHO, it really should be "South Asian-American", and we should return to the consensus that said that. Rklahn (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Birtherism 2.0

Welp, it looks like birtherism is back in fashion and Harris is its the new target.

• THE KAMALA HARRIS BIRTHER BULLS--T IS ALREADY TAKING OFF
• Kamala Harris Birtherism is Happening. Already. Seriously.
• Trump campaign adviser floats false birther theory about Kamala Harris' eligibility for vice president
• Trump campaign attack on Kamala Harris’s citizenship is right out of the birtherism playbook

We will probably have to include a mention of this in the article, but the real concern is that we're going to get some POV pushers trying to use our article to legitimize this.- MrX 🖋 22:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We've already had it. Acroterion (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I am glad there are people of good faith here, because that "yeah, well, that's just the Supreme Court's view" style of argumentation makes me irrational very quickly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Have to see if it lives past the 24 hour news cycle. TFD (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories That was quick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I was afraid of this - after Trump tweeted about it (without QUITE coming out and endorsing it). Somebody should remind him that his mother was an immigrant. And we should keep it out of this article - not even to debunk it - unless it becomes a more prominent issue. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheezits frickin' cripes. This on top of the massive fraudulent mail-in voting. Between now and November if I do anything stupid, just assume I'm drunk. —valereee (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about writing an article about the whole mail-in voting subject - the pandemic making it more necessary, Trump's constant claims that it is all wrong and fraudulent, his postmaster's attempt to make sure ballots won't be handled timely, etc. In fact I am working on a draft. Any idea what it could be called? "Mail balloting in the 2020 United States presidential election" seems clunky. Or should it be about balloting in general? Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

^ Like this idea. What about something more general like “2020 USPS funding controversy” ? KidAd (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've already added a section to the article United States Postal Service. IMO it was much needed; I see that daily page views have just increased from the low hundreds to a thousand or more. People are trying to find out what all the hoo-rah is about. But I'd rather focus on the absentee ballot issue rather than the money. I wonder if we can get anything about this into Donald Trump? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely think a section on Birtherism is inappropriate. It's in the realm of journalism, and bad journalism at that. Sen. Harris is unquestionably a US Citizen, over 35, with at least 14 years residence. Rklahn (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Somebody added a sentence about this to the article, right after the "Biden chose her" sentence. I removed it. No way is this the most important thing to say about the aftermath of her selection. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Khive?

I think it should be mentioned in the article, but any suggestions on where to locate it in the article? Given that it that emerged over time, I'm not sure exactly what period to put it in. It could be mentioned in the presidential campaign article, too. Blythwood (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Blythwood, Do you have any reliable sources that discuss this? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It hasn't received much coverage in the press, but I think it could be mentioned briefly under 'Presidential campaign'. Here is a recent source that also ties it to her VP candidacy.[56] Here are some other sources: [57][58] - MrX 🖋 11:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• For those that also have no idea what we're talking about, this is apparently "K-Hive", which is apparently a reference to the grassroots organization left over from her presidential bid. GMG^talk 12:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Huh...those sources would support an article. For sure we have to cover it here. —valereee (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Turned the redirect into a stub at KHive. —valereee (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  And OMG there's already a shitstorm... —valereee (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Application of WP:JOBTITLES

Which is correct?:
"She was announced as former vice president Joe Biden's running mate...." or
"She was announced as the former Vice President Joe Biden's running mate..."
GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say "She was announced as Vice President Joe Biden's running mate", but I would say "She was announced as former vice president Joe Biden's running mate". The difference in the second example is that "former" modifies "vice president", making "vice president" a descriptor, not a title. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I must disagree, as vice president in this case would only be used correctly, as "the former vice president, Joe Biden". GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The relevant example from MOS:JOBTITLES is "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972". "US" modifies "president" even though "president" immediately precedes "Richard Nixon". In our case "former" modifies "vice president", so it's lowercase for us, too. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We'll have to see what others have to say on this. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES is clear in this instance, but I'm curious how others will chime in. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't like it or agree with it, but that is the MOS rule, per a discussion within the last couple of years. It's Vice President Biden, but former vice president Biden. And she is nominated to be vice president of the United States. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Ayer. The "US president Richard Nixon" example was included specifically to forestall arguments like the current one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, that should be changed at WP:JOBTITLES, then. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Stepchildren

The current article is mostly silent on Harris' stepchildren. I came to this article specifically to learn about her family. From reading further, it seems like the children are a big part of her life and something she is public about, including naming and sharing pics of them on Twitter, and calling out their names during her VP nominee speech last week. I suggest we expand this aspect of the article.

• Infobox. Currently no mention of stepchildren. Propose we name both. Also, provide birth years or ages, if/when these show up in reliable sources.

• Body. Currently: "Harris, who is childless, became stepmother to Emhoff's two children from his previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff."

Proposed: "Harris, who has no biological children, became stepmother to Emhoff's two children, Ella and Cole, when they were teenagers. The children are from Emhoff's previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff. Harris has written about the importance of her relationship with her stepchildren, who call her 'Mamala'. [59][60]

67.252.46.102 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this editor. For a comparison one might look at the Bernie Sanders article. Bernie has one child born to a girlfriend of that time and several children born to wife Jane, who he states he considers his own. Jane's kids are included in his Personal life section but not in his info box. That surprises me because I've been watching Bernie's article for years and don't remember that ever coming up, but looking at it now I think they should be in the info box...though maybe not as I can see that argument too and am open to discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the Jill Biden info box, she lists Joe's two boys and the girl they had together. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this editor. For a comparison one might look at the Bernie Sanders article. Bernie has one child born to a girlfriend of that time and several children born to wife Jane, who he states he considers his own. Jane's kids are included in his Personal life section but not in his info box. That surprises me because I've been watching Bernie's article for years and don't remember that ever coming up, but looking at it now I think they should be in the info box...though maybe not as I can see that argument too and am open to discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We cannot use a politician's own accounts (whether in authored books or granted interviews) to give the sheen of a nuclear family here. Kamala Harris has stepchildren, but they were mostly raised by their parents Douglas Emhoff and Kerstin Emhoff before their divorce (after 25 years of marriage) and by their mother after the divorce. This is not a blended family of the type in which a widower with children or a man awarded custody of the children, has married for the second time (like Abe Lincoln's dad). We don't mention Ronald Reagans children with Nancy in Jane Wyman's infobox. In other words, we cannot give the children encyclopedic notability in Kamala Harris's page unless there is very reliable independent evidence of her significant relationship with them. I would imagine it would also be a disservice to their mother who mostly raised them (if any raising was left) after the divorce. These children, I note, are not mentioned by name in either of their parents' WP pages. I know Biden was making much of wanting to meet Cole and Ela in his first joint appearance with KH, but that is good old political pandering to a conventional stereotype. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler makes a strong point. We must be looking at how much weight secondary sources are giving this information, and assess the merits of inclusion from that. Currently all im seeing is mentions in primary source interviews, and i'd rather we don't become a parrot for those. Zindor (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with F&F —valereee (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The assertion in the proposed text, that Harris has written about the importance of her relationship with her stepchildren, has been widely covered by reliable sources. Here are additional references: [61] [62] [63], and there are many more. As WP:Notability was the only objection, should we move forward with the change? 67.252.46.102 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not notability, but reliability. Those are Ms Harris's musings. There is no independent verification of a significant relationship between her and Doug Emhoff's children, everything we have has been fed by her. Cole Emhoff, moreover, is 25 and his sister a few years younger. KH and DE have been married for five years. That means CE was 20 and his sister in her late teens at the time of the marriage. The children had already been raised. She might be on friendly terms with them, but that is not noteworthy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If we clarify that the relationships are important to Harris, not important overall, would that address your concern? This is also more true to how the sources report this. Also, removing the statement about her being childless, per other discussion on this talk page. So, how about this: "Harris became stepmother to Emhoff's two children, Ella and Cole, when they were teenagers. The children are from Emhoff's previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff. Harris has written about the importance to her of the relationships with her stepchildren, who call her 'Mamala'. 67.252.46.102 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I.P, that is an admirable weasel and i applaud it, but one could argue again that it has limited weight for inclusion because of a lack of coverage of the relationship in secondary sources. Does Harris explicitly call the relationships 'important', or is that original research? Even if we did make the inclusion based on the framing, the who call her Mamala would have to be dropped as it is Harris herself claiming that. Kind regards, Zindor (talk)

Because this is an IP, I will give the person behind it the benefit of the doubt in not knowing that stepchildren are not to be included in infoboxes except rare occasions, and that names do not go there (if the child is independently notable that’s a different story but time will tell on that one) and especially not (!) birthdays because this is a BLP and we have privacy rules. Trillfendi (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal life information is usually going to be traced back to the subject. Of course when people write about Harris' personal life, they are going to include mostly what she says about it. She's the most high profile person in her family and the one most likely to speak to the press. If you look carefully at the sources of most other biographical articles, you'll see a lot of personal details go back to articles where the subject was interviewed. The "Momala" tidbit is nothing controversial and would be an extraordinarily odd thing to lie about so frequently. It's been repeated by numerous reliable sources that seem to deem it credible enough to publish. If it helps to attribute statements about Harris' relationship with her step children to Harris herself, I wouldn't object to that. Knope7 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is this issue still live, or can I archive it? EEng 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • EEng, her stepchildren were in the video that was shown just now, I believe--with mention of "Mamala". I assume they are mentioned in the article, one way or another, cause they should. Not in the infobox, certainly not with DOB etc., but they should certainly be mentioned. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you see to it that whatever needs doing in the article gets done? I've got my hands full just trying to monitor all these different discussions and keeping them moving forward. EEng 03:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue wasn't just that the stepchildren should be mentioned, but whether we could believe Harris that she has a close relationship with them and that call her Momala. Ella appearing tonight calling her Momala and saying she's the best stepmother should hopefully put the objection to rest. Knope7 (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Knope7, if you can add this, in an appropriate and economical manner with a reference, that would be great. Thx, and thx EEng, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: Jamal Trulove

I am requesting that the following be added to the end of the District Attorney of San Francisco (2004–2011) > Public safety > Violent crimes section. The case constitutes an aspect of Harris' career that is both relevant and notable, having been mentioned by CBS News in its "Crash course on Kamala Harris".[64]

In October 2008, Jamal Trulove was arrested by police for the 2007 murder of his friend Seu Kuka. He was convicted in 2010 and sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. Harris' office provided the alleged eyewitness with $60,000 in housing and relocation benefits and publicly credited the "brave eyewitness who stepped forward from the crowd" for the conviction. After serving more than six years, Trulove was acquitted in a retrial in 2015. Kamala Harris did not personally prosecute the case, and an anonymous San Francisco District Attorney's Office employee claimed the approval process was a rubber stamp. Jamal Trulove claimed that Kamala Harris was present at both the hearings announcing the verdict and sentencing. In March 2019, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to approve a $13.1 million settlement over the case. The Associated Press reported that a federal jury had found the detectives showed an eyewitness a single photo of Jamal Truman, rather than using a "lineup", and the detectives were aware of another suspect they did not investigate, among other failures.

References

2601:482:8000:C470:48F9:A4C1:FFE3:9352 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, and thank you. I'll remember its proper usage next time. 2601:482:8000:C470:48F9:A4C1:FFE3:9352 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone had time to look it over yet? Typeprint (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Typeprint, the story is certainly true, if that's what you're asking. I just this afternoon had created the article Jamal Trulove. Are you asking whether it's worth including in this article? —valereee (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll weigh in. Given the size of this article and the tenuous ties to Harris herself, I don't think this should be included. The most involvement that the proposed language says that she had is that she was present in court twice. It doesn't attribute the bad line up to her or say that she ignored the other suspect. Knope7 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking if it belongs in the article. The most direct evidence of its relevance is the CBS citation. It really depends on whether or not the activities taking place under someone's management reflect on that person's biography in a "the buck stops here" sense. If the standard is that Harris herself had to be clearly involved in the case rather than merely signing off on it, then we should also save space under the same heading by also removing the "In April 2005" and "In May 2005" paragraphs. I don't feel strongly either way, as long as it's not left inconsistent. Typeprint (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The CBS article doesn't really explain Harris' role. I removed the April 2005 paragraph as it had one source that didn't mention Harris at all. The May 2005 paragraph is better sourced so I will leave it for now. I am against including every major case during her tenure where it is unclear what her involvement is unless there is some larger policy argument. For example, the paragraph I removed talked about a case applying the three strikes law. If instead a paragraph talked about a pattern of how her office prosecuted those cases that showed she had steered policy, I might feel differently (although it should still focus on her role shaping the policy, not every detail of one case). This article has long had a problem with getting dragged into the minutia of every controversial case her office touched. One particular problem is also that where there are allegations that the police, crime labs, or anyone outside of her office mishandled a case, somehow that gets attributed to Harris as well. This a biographical article and the more removed Harris is from an incident, the less inclined I am to think it should be included. Knope7 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is this thread ready for archiving? EEng 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

2003 DA Campaign

Last sentence in the section: "…becoming California's first American district attorney of color." What does this even mean?! Did California previously have a NON-American disrict attorney of color? I attempted to view the citation, but there's no link. Chachap (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Redundancy

I do not dispute the accuracy of the following two quotations in the lede section:

(1) "California's third female senator as well as the second African-American woman, and the first South Asian American, to serve in the United States Senate."

(2) "first African-American, the first Asian-American, and the third female vice presidential running mate on a major party ticket"

...but I believe the redundant mention of her ethnicity/heritage is...redundant. It strikes me as overkill. The first quotation establishes her race/ethnicity/heritage. It need not be repeated in the second quotation. I propose the first quoted text remain as is, and the second be changed to: "the third female vice presidential running mate on a major party ticket" (dropping repetition of race/ethnicity/heritage). DonFB (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

They're two separate sets of facts, one about the senate and another about the vice-presidential run, so i wouldn't exactly call them redundant to each other. Now saying that, there is a lot of race-related facts in the lede, and maybe we do need to have a discussion about the weight given in RS to Harris' race when describing her. Zindor (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to mention when she was second or third, especially when talking about California senators rather than senators in general. TFD (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The second or third is about senators in general; it isn't phrased correctly. I should be: "the second African-American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate, as well as California's third female senator." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were both elected California senators and served for about 30 years each until Harris replaced Boxer. That makes her third in California. But there are other female senators such as Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kristen Gillibrand, while Hillary Clinton was also a female senator. TFD (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. There is no reason to single out California. I'm not sure who added it. It wasn't there before the page was engulfed by the VP running mate news. Perhaps the source (which might have been from California) stated that and someone paraphrased it diligently. Happy to remove. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The needless repetition of "African-American" and "South Asian American"/"Asian-American" remains. The lede takes note that she is the "second" African American woman elected to the Senate. A worthy accomplishment, certainly, but will the next such woman be named as "the third..." and the one after that "the fourth"? I believe that stating "the second" is unnecessary in the lede, because it's a justification for one of the repeated descriptions of her as African American. Therefore, I now propose that her election to the Senate OMIT all reference to her race/ethnicity/heritage/gender, and that those monikers be applied ONLY to her selection to the Biden ticket, because in that arena, she is truly first, excepting gender. DonFB (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The election to the senate is her own achievement. Carol Moseley Braun, the first AfAm senator served more than 20 years ago. The selection as a running mate is Joe Biden's choice, based on his assessment of her appropriateness for that position. (And he was dawdling, dithering, creating the perception that a former national security advisor, a US House representative, a governor, a mayor were all coequals.) It will remain secondary to her US Senate achievement until such time as she becomes VP if she does. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with F&F that her being the "second African-American woman and the first South Asian American" to serve as U.S. Senator should not be removed. The removal of "California's third female senator" is okay because it is California-specific and does not merit a mention in the lead. RedHotPear (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RedHotPear.67.252.46.102 (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s two different accomplishments involving the same thing: heritage. If you want overkill of so-called identity politics, see here. Trillfendi (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is this thread ready for archiving? EEng 03:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

Kamala Harris was given the middle name "Iyer" at birth. It was later changed to "Devi."

Source:

https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/is-kamala-harris-described-as-caucasian Alexandergrant19 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

After some research, this notion of an alternate middle name appears in no other source. The birth certificate image alone is not verifiable and thus is not credible. ValarianB (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The Dispatch is an IFCN approved fact checker and one of Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. The basis mentioned in the article isn't the image but her actual birth certificate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandergrant19 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

When that image is verified as authentic, and sources discuss the middle name, then we can proceed. ValarianB (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The Mercury News just published an article on this. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Shaky English in lede

It says:

She is the first African-American, the first Asian-American, and the third female vice presidential running mate on a major party ticket after Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008.

The structure of this sentence is: "She is the <x-ranked> running mate after Ferraro and Palin." There are two problems here:

• "I'm the first conqueror of the Matterhorn after Whoever" actually means that I'm not the first conqueror at all; only the first relative to some previous event. But with respect to being African-American and Asian-American, she is absolutely the first.
• Moreover, the contraction of the two firsts with the statement about being female means implicitly that already Ferraro and Palin were African-Americans and Asian-Americans before her - which is obviously wrong.

I would therefore suggest to rewrite this as

She is the first African-American and the first Asian-American vice presidential running mate, and the third female one on a major party ticket after Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008.

--User:Haraldmmueller 08:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should reinstate the original phrasing which had no mention of the third female. As someone had observed at that time, "Up to what rank is notable, fourth, fifth, ...?" Besides, the third after two losing candidates—the first forgotten, the second a laughing stock—can be interpreted to be encyclopedically diminishing, insinuating that her prospects could be like theirs. At the very least, "after ... in 2008" should be removed. After all, we are not saying earlier, "the second African American senator after Carol Mosley Braun." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• First, no we do not need trivia about Sarah Palin in the lead. To whoever is reinserting that, please stop. Second, despite the fact that someone decided to pointily insert three references into the lead to justify this bit in particular, it's still not compliant with WP:LEAD. We do not start with information we want in the lead, copy and paste it in the body for shits and giggles, and justify it with ref bombing in the lead to references that aren't even used in the body at all. GMG^talk 14:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the version ([65]) after GMG's edit. RedHotPear (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Would be fine with me, although I dont see anything wrong with adding Ferraro and Palin - WP's job is to convey information, and this would not extend the lede unduly, IMO, but answer the (again IMO) probable unspoken question "who were the two before?". --User:Haraldmmueller 16:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You should basically never have a 1-to-1 ratio of words in the lead dedicated to a topic, as compared with the words in the body. This is almost a 200k article, spanning a 30 year career. If someone is interested in the history of vice presidential candidates, there are no shortage of other articles that cover the content. GMG^talk 17:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Haraldmmueller, it does not stand out as extremely wrong, but it just feels excessive. RedHotPear (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Would it work as a footnote? Third female major-party VP candidate, ref something about Ferraro and Palin at the bottom of the page /ref. ? JTRH (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I did notice last week that this was why I was struggling to parse this sentence,but was loathe to re-open the can of worms of its wording on the talk page so soon after previous consensus (which did reduce this sentence from where it was).

I support extraneous information being in a footnote (or just brackets) so the sentence has logically consistent syntax.

I also note that most of the news articles referenced on the page foremost mention [[]] Harris is the first "black woman" or "woman of colour" to run for either position (I'm guessing on the logic that a VP first isn't significant if a president got their first.) (She is also the first Asian American on the ticket ,but I don't know we have a reference for that.)

Therefore, I propose this clearer wording (which may need moving out of the lead) with only twelve extra words:

Besides being the first [[woman of colour]] [!REDIRECT TO People of colour!] on a [[List of United States Republican Party presidential tickets|major party's presidential ticket]], Harris is the third woman <ref>preceded by Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008</ref>, the first African American and the first Asian American to serve as a ticket's [[running mate#In United States politics|]] [!linked article explains the term means VP nominee!].

Alternatively, for more clarity, "...as running mate on such a ticket." at the end.

Llew Mawr (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The grandfather in India

I'm leery about giving too much air-time to the Indian grandfather. KH has said many things about him, but we cannot include her assessments or her relatives'. For example, as I've said in an earlier thread, she has said somewhere (later qualified) that he was a freedom fighter in India. But he was a bureaucrat during British rule. And in fact, both the LA Times and NY Time articles state that her relatives in India denied that he had done any freedom fighting. Neither am I sure about his advanced views on this and that. The fact remains that when her mother married Donald Harris, she did not inform her family in India, until after the wedding. If there were so advanced, there shouldn't have been any problems. (See the Shyamala Gopalan page.) The grandmother, Rajam, was quite conservative as far as I can tell. Conversely, KH has said very little about the father's family, but she and her sister visited Jamaica (most likely) just as often. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the fact that all four of his children earned advanced degrees speaks to confirm his support for education, including for women. The information I added was from a NYT article that was clearly reported by speaking to several of her relatives in India, not just her own words - and it was clear that she has kept in touch with her aunts and uncles as an adult. I agree that "freedom fighter" is unsupported and unlikely. That article said Shyamala took her daughters to India "every few years", but the article just says they went there and I'm OK with that. We know almost nothing about her presumed visits to Jamaica, but they were unlikely to have been as frequent since she and Maya were predominantly raised by her mother after the divorce. In any case this is all WP:OR; there is a lot more information in sources about her mother's family so we have more about them in the article. Sources have reported very little about her father's family, and you'd better believe they have looked. My hunch is that he had very little contact with his family after settling in the U.S. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know you added it from the NYT article. I had already used that article (with a quote) in the Shyamala Gopalan page. It is mostly a rehash of the Bengali-Mason article in the LA Times (October 2019), which had interviewed the same people. (See here) That article, I believe, is the best, the most accurate, in terms of what is credible in relation to South Indian culture. As you will see in the picture accompanying the article, KH's grandfather is wearing the sacred thread of brahmins. He was obviously not progressive enough to discard caste altogether, which many progressive people in India had done long before. Gandhi had and he was born in 1869. Nehru (born 1879), India's first prime minister, was openly agnostic, if not atheist. Similarly, women had traveled from India to England to study starting in the 1890s By the 1930s, dozens of women were traveling annually (mostly) to England to study. So, I think we have to be careful about using "progressive" here. If you'd like, you can have an RfC at WT:INDIA. In other words, we can treat neither KH's musings, nor NYT reporting, based on talking to relatives, as entirely reliable. The NYT article is reliable about what the relatives said, but not about what the grandfather was. But it is not clear what the relatives said is notable. If there were contemporary newspapers (i.e. published before the rise of KH) or scholarly sources, that spoke to his progressive outlook, it would be different. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not asserting that he had progressive views on every subject. (Hardly anybody does, after all.) Clearly he still believed in the caste system; he was proud of being a Brahmin. And he was traditional enough to enter an arranged marriage (which was actually the norm throughout India well into the late 20th century and still is to some extent; in college I knew an Indian PhD who said she would never dream of marrying a man her parents hadn't chosen for her). What we say is that he had "progressive views on democracy and women's rights", and that, I think, is borne out by his actions. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel, we cannot use the term "progressive" (Webster's Unabridged: "devoted to or evincing continuous improvement : making use of or interested in new ideas, inventions, or opportunities"), which gives more agency to Gopalan than the evidence warrants. I feel that "broad-minded," (Webster's Unabridged: "receptive to or tolerant of liberal views especially in religion or politics"), used in the LA Times article is more accurate. To be sure, Gopalan needled Shyamala about choosing Home Science as her college major, but it is not as if her direct response was to embark on a career in endocrinology. The prime mover of change was Shyamala, she made some uncommon choices for her peer-group and her siblings followed suit.

As for Gopalan's views on democracy, there too, it was Indian nationalists (see Indian National Congress) led by Gandhi and Nehru, that were the beacons for democracy in the post-colonial world. There were thousands of middle-level bureaucrats like Gopalan who supported the Congress passively. His views were unremarkable for his peer-group. South India, by and large, sat out the Indian Independence Movement.

As for his brahmin caste, it is true that despite a century of Bollywood selling romance, the majority of Indians still marry in arranged marriages within caste, but nowhere in India except Tamil Nadu was there a serious Anti-brahmin movement, so entrenched were the brahmins there in civic life, so anti-democratic their stance toward some other castes. Gopalan certainly has a right to be larger than life in family lore, but in an encyclopedia, we have to clarify that it is a claim/thesis of someone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement that she attended both Baptist Church and Hindu temple is also dubious and should be removed unless reliable sources exist or at least credited to her. It reminds me of Huey Long saying he had attended both Catholic and Protestant which was untrue but was intended to get Catholic votes. TFD (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why dubious? She is a Baptist to this day (more precisely, in her childhood she attended a church in the Black Baptist convention and she now belongs to a church in the American Baptist convention). In her childhood she lived in a predominantly Black neighborhood of Berkeley, so it's quite credible that she attended a neighborhood church. As for the Hindu connection, we know that her mother tried hard to keep them attuned to their Indian culture, and there is a Hindu temple in Berkeley and others throughout the Bay Area, so it's credible there were some visits to that temple, perhaps on important festival days. We do know that as an adult she asked her aunt to perform a Hindu ritual on her behalf, so she clearly had some familiarity with the religion. Here's the bottom line: We have her word, directly quoted in a Reliable Source, that she had this religious exposure as a child. The fact you doubt it is not a sufficient reason to say "leave it out". But if it bothers you enough we could credit the information to her, since she is the source: "According to Harris, she attended..." would be OK. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be more accurate to qualify with, "According to Harris, ..." Little puzzling though how deep these beliefs were. Was the mother accompanying them to church? Did they read the Bible at home? The Baptists, after all, are not polytheistic; they don't really allow for alternative forms of worship, even within the fold of Christianity. Did the church know they were going to the Hindu temple? If she truly sang in the choir, which requires regular attendance, don't the pastor or others remember the Harris family? No one has reminisced? There is Regina Shelton, (see also here and here) who according to Harris, took the Harris girls to a church in Oakland now and then. But Shelton has refused all interviews. Perhaps we can go with, "According to Harris, her downstairs neighbor, Regina Shelton, took her and her sister, Maya, to Oakland’s 23rd Avenue Church of God. Harris considers herself a Black Baptist." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

African American NOT.

For her race breakdown She is 50% Asian Indian 25% WHITE and 25% Black. She never was a descendant of black slaves brought to the United States. Both her parents were not Americans at the time of her birth as they were accepting money as foreign exchange students . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sen. Harris reasonably identifies as "African American" and "South Asian-Americana" in https://www.harris.senate.gov/about. Identity is what we should use, not ancestry or race. Rklahn (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Weird how nobody ever talks about Trump's degree of whiteness. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Her California birth certificate says Asian not BLACK.As she is 50 % Asian that is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe using a birth certificate as a source for identify is irrelevant. It does help to define her natural born citizenship and that she is over 25 yesrs of age, both useful in determining if one is qualified to be president. Sen. Harris is unquestionably "African American" and "South Asian-American", and you are just not going to find that on the birth certificate. Rklahn (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP, We cannot keep rehashing old arguments. Please scroll upstairs, and read them. There is a longstanding consensus about "African American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

She is also the first South Asian American senator and VP nominee of a major party. Not only does she say it on her senate website, but also in her Independence Day message to India (August 15, 2020). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Also for the IP. There is effectively no difference between a descendant of black slaves brought to the United States and a descendant of black slaves brought to jamaica who is born in the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, HiLo48 is correct. IP: please read Middle Passage, especially the sentence, "Traders from the Americas and Caribbean received the enslaved Africans." Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler is correct. RedHotPear (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

[sigh] Someone born in California with a Jamaican father has the agency to call themselves African-American because the term is broad enough to include people whose African ancestors were enslaved in the Carribbean (where trans-Atlantic chattle slavery was first established) and emigrated to America. Truth be told, this is why black people hate this term. It’s too politically correct. Trillfendi (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

They don't hate the term, only prefer not to use it in casual contexts (in part because it is a mouthful and formal). When they are petitioners in a lawsuit, they prefer "African American," at least in the first few paragraphs. This is much documented. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler -- I apologize for a bit of a tangent, but I can't resist. Your clause "[w]hen they are petitioners in a lawsuit" catches my eye, and I feel like I'm missing some sort of context. Could you point me to a source or just elucidate a bit further? I'd be grateful. Dumuzid (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I was assuming s/he was referring to it as an example of a more "formal" situation. Per WP:TONE, this encyclopedia would also be one of these situations. RedHotPear (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@RedHotPear:. Yes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m black... trust me, I know the idiosyncracies of why (most of us) don’t like being called African-American. Trillfendi (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: So what? One's own tradition, as someone said somewhere, is not a birthright; it has to be earned, repossessed. Thus far all you have produced is blather. 15:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Struck per admin advice at my user talk page. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

[deeper sigh] Get this, unsigned commenter, one black person can proudly call themselves African-American, another can wholeheartedly reject or despise the term. It is not mutually exclusive within this community. You’re not going to blacksplain to me. Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi:, but she is speaking for herself; you are speaking for "most of us," i.e. a community, and all you have for evidence is, "trust me." That does not help at all in this discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I should have been more precise. I mean if they are asked how they would like the group of black/Af-Am people to be referred to in a lawsuit, as petitioners, respondents, in briefs, etc (say, in the Supreme Court), or in any formal submission (say, to the Congress), they prefer the use of the term "African-American." In intimate or casual settings, captured, for example, in a novel, they prefer the reference to be "black." Novelists are likely sensitive to that preference. I haven't checked, but I'd bet Toni Morrison's Beloved very likely does not have the expression "African American," but does have "black." I'll look for references next. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Examples:

• page 1, sentence 2
• Title page
• Title page

Granted these are examples, not a proof. I will look for sources next. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source, summing up the result of a few surveys, page 8. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the references, and I don't really disagree. The basic gist aligns with my own anecdotal experience. It's just that the lawsuit context struck me as interestingly specific. I would only caution that the language of court decisions (and even pleadings!) is not necessarily a good proxy for self-identification. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Thanks. My remarks were not an argument for KH's self-identification, but meant to show that black people's response to the term "African American" was more nuanced than (informal) "hate" (as claimed in the post I was responding to), that the context of use, the register, played a role. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• It is at least a little bit funny that we get any person of color in a central political position, and we immediately get two weeks of debate that they're 10% Filipino, 12% French, 22.5% panda, and 4% El Camino. GMG^talk 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This non-American, from a country where the word "race" has no legal meaning and is slowly disappearing from the language, actually finds it quite sad that the US still has so many people so obsessed with peoples' ancestry, especially when it's not (supposedly) pure white. I also find it unbelievably confusing. But I do know that there is effectively no difference between having black African ancestry via Jamaica and having black African ancestors who were brought direct to the US. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw a clip of Trevor Noah talking about the issue and he had probably the best formulation I've heard. In America, no one ever questions blackness in failure. There is no like...crime where the police are on the lookout for a suspect who's half black and Japanese on their father's side, but also lived in Vancouver for three years. But in success, when you get Tiger Woods, Obama, or Harris, suddenly everyone has an Ancestry.com account. Explicitly people are looking for nuance, but implicitly people are looking to justify the national intuition that blackness and success can't coexist, therefore cognitive dissonance necessitates it be more complicated than that. GMG^talk 12:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, so true. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of Trevor Noah, remember when France won the World Cup and he was like, “this is a victory for Africa!” because of the likes of Mbappé. Long story short, the Gauls got mad and said it was a double standard. The same applies here. Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: And yet he seems to have remained fairly consistent on the principle. GMG^talk 21:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s a crying shame that she has to be subjected to the “she isn’t really one of us” (even coming from whites who feel the authority to speak on the subject) bullshit while the Indian community in America is crying tears of joy that there has now been a VP nomination speech with the Tamil language. Trillfendi (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Folks, lets not complicate the discussion. Much as I enjoy Trevor Noah, and talented as he is, he is clueless about French culture, and very likely about American. There is a reason why people from French ex-colonies can speak much better French than people from British ex-colonies can speak English, including South Africans. It is because language has always been a much greater marker of Frenchness than color, more emphasized in contrast, for example, to the British in Africa and Asia. I think Noah misunderstood the point of the ambassador's letter. It was not about countering the French Fascists.

Remember also folks, it is not just race, it is gender as well. Barack Obama himself benefitted from widespread sexism in the 2008 primaries which very likely led to many male white Democrats prefer him (despite reservations about voting for a black man) to Hilary Clinton (on account of greater reservations about voting for a woman, regardless of color). In that sense, KH has a double-whammy of burden: color and gender, perhaps even a triple-whammy if you add to that the suspicion—which will be kindled again and again—of her not being American enough. We are not going to stop manifestations of all three appearing in talk page discussion, or in article edits; we have to keep calm and carry on, citing consensus and pointing to the previous discussion, preventing POV-pushers from rehashing old arguments. The consensus here is: KH is African American and South Asian American. If people want to rehash the arguments, they should go to that discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

IF Her birth certificate says Asian. Your mother is Asian she gave birth to you and had Asian put on the birth certificate it Quite clear she is Asian. IF she would say she is the first Asian VP selected that would be correct. If she said she was the first black woman elected that would be correct. If she says she is the first African American elected that would be incorrect. As her American roots start at her birth. She has no family history of America what so ever prior to her birth. Mother from India Father Jamaican . Nobody in Jamaica calls themselves African Jamaican. If you called one African Jamaican they would think you are crazy.

Changing archiving

Timrollpickering, I agree with EEng, we shouldn't go to 2-day archiving. —valereee (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This talkpage has exploded since the announcement and needs to be regularly archived to keep it under control. Automatic archiving of discussions that are no longer active is preferable to subjective manual decisions. 7 days and 30 separate threads is too long. However it seems there's little point fighting a rather aggressive user who's asserting ownership of the talkpage and making personal attacks. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• (a) By "under control" you apparently mean a short page giving the superficial appearance that God is in his heaven and all is right with the world. To those of us who actually edit the page, it means doing the best we can to address people's concerns and help discussions to consensus, however long that takes.
• (b) 2 days isn't "no longer active". In fact, exactly because there's so much going on you can see threads on minor – but valid – points which have sat idle for days. There's absolutely no reason to archive those. The community will get to them when it can, and it's not for you to set a deadline we all have to scramble to meet.
• (c) You may be uncomfortable making decisions but others are not.

So the page has "exploded" – so what? A page on one of the highest-profile individuals in the world is naturally going to have a lot of things to discuss. Those discussions have to take as long as they take, and the page has to be as long as it needs to be. Your personal aesthetic ideas are of zero consequence.

You give excuses for not engaging my reasoning. What about Valeree? Is she aggressive and exhibiting ownership too? Or is it that mindless one-size-fits-all gnoming can't compete with actually thinking about what's going on? EEng 00:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Im also with —valereee and EEng. Wikipedia is not a democracy but it does seem like this is approaching consensus. cc: Timrollpickering Rklahn (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• About a week ago I manually archived a whole bunch of edit requests that were in exactly the form of the one above: insisting that the commenter's opinion on her racial identification is more important than reliable sources. I did that so they wouldn't turn into threads like the one above, with a bunch of editors with better things to do wasting their time arguing with a racist. These repetitive "political debate" threads contribute nothing to building an encyclopedia and should be shut down and archived as quickly as they appear, IMO. But I agree that 2 days is far too aggressive for automatic archiving. I suggest 7 days minimum, with freedom to manually archive discussions which are obviously concluded, and answered edit requests. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  If we continue to do as Iv describes that will at least keep the proliferation of new threads under control. Meanwhile the existing threads need to be resolved somehow, but they're so complex I'll have to leave that to others. EEng 19:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a 7 day minimum with manual archiving is a good idea since a few that haven't had comments in a couple of days don't seem to be resolved. I archived a few today - stopped when I saw EEng's plaintive "ready for archiving requests" :) and this thread - but many more should just go.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• The talk page should not be unnavigable. Trillfendi (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  And there shouldn't be hunger in the world, but we can only do what we can do. (I think Timrollpickering's solution would be to kill all the hungry people – problem solved!) EEng 20:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)