Talk:Kamala Harris

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tesr1208 (article contribs).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bookerxv (article contribs).

Hometown of Oakland, CA

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

And again

Found the text had been altered, apparently again since these notes show a history, to include references to Harris' crusade against "the epidemic of child prositution in the city" [fiction]. Also removed several phrases which, as others have pointed out, seemed to have come from a staffer or political campaign ad.

-- J. Cornelius 02:13, 26 July 2006 (PST)

Article not impartial

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

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

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

Cegep?

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

Apparently she returned to the States after HS. Here's a profile of her in a Montreal newspaper, with interviews of her childhood friends. [1] -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel?

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

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

"Tenure as California Attorney General" redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm so glad to see so many editors weigh in. I'll add that I'm getting rid of the paragraph on the Daniel Larsen case (he convicted under the 3 strikes law, a judge later declared him innocent, but he remained in prison pending state's appeal). The final straw for me was that the paragraph said Harris ordered his release and the source cited didn't mention Harris at all. I'll leave a link Los Angeles Times editorial here as it does mention Harris.[2] At most, this case could be a sentence, but I don't think it warrants that. Knope7 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

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

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

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

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

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

In the info box source,

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

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

Criticism Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She has admitted to using illegal drugs but was not prosecuted and convicted. Yet she prosecuted many people for the same and lesser crimes. 24.143.11.227 (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Typo: "presss" should be "press"

Book The Truths We Hold: An American Journey Penguin Presss, 2019 [204]

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

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

• Kamala Harris Presidential Campaign Kick-Off.webm

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2019

In section "Guns", replace

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

with simply

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

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

 Partly done: Changed to In response to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Harris supported the call for more gun control. Saying that she believed that thoughts and prayers are inadequate answers to the shooting, she stated that "...we must also commit ourselves to action. Another moment of silence won't suffice." The Facebook comment is now directly sourced.[3] General Ization ^Talk 16:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Finance

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

Willie Brown

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

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

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

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

I don't see a problem briefly mentioning that she dated Willie Brown while he was still married to his long-estranged wife in the mid-1990s. It's interesting biographical detail that has been reported in reliable sources.[4][5][6][7] - MrX 🖋 11:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethnicity, race and religion

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

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

Affluent suburb

I modified the statement that Harris graduated from Westmount High School in "the Westmount suburb" to add the adjective "affluent." Scjessey reverted my edited with the comment, "why is that biographically relevant?"[8] The type of neighbourhood one grows up in is of course relevant to their biography, just as is their parentage and education. If Harris had lived in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, it might not be necessary to describe them. But why mention Westmount at all if it has no meaning to readers? TFD (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese name

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

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

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

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

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