Talk:Kamala Harris

RFC: How to refer to the African ancestry of Kamala Harris?

Which of the following should we use to refer to Kamala Harris when discussing her African ancestry:

• African-American
• Black

Note: There are cases where she may be referred to as Asian-American either alone or with one of the above two. This RfC is only about her African ancestry as that has been the greatest area of contention. This does not apply to quotes. You will find a lengthy discussion on the subject above at:[1]. --O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Her father is Jamaican American

Her Mother is Indian American.

Why does Kamalas Wikipedia Page say she's African American. 38.188.135.157 (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do some reading before posting. For example, see "Why does Wikipedia say..." at the top of this page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

African-American and Asian-American are best references in my opinion. She is American (born in California). The terms African and Asian best describe her ethnic connections. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If Black, please indicate capitalization preference so we don't have to have a second RfC. Also, try to keep responses in the Survey section reasonably brief. The Discussion section can be used for more detailed responses. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Both. They're not mutually exclusive. Might remove the "when talking about her African ancestry" part of the question, as the context in which each are used can be complicated. IMO the question is really more about how to thoughtfully present both, and how doing so in the lead might differ from the body of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Black - To reiterate what I've said in the discussion above, most news sources now use Black to describe Harris and the most recent official websites use Black:

• WhiteHouse.gov says "On January 20, 2021, Kamala Harris was sworn in as Vice President – the first woman, the first Black American, and the first South Asian American to be elected to this position."
• KamalaHarris.com says "Throughout her life, she’s broken barriers, and she’s now the first woman, first Black American, and first South Asian American to serve as vice president."

List of other sources discussed above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Black: BBC - "first woman as well as the first black and Asian-American to serve as vice-president" AP News - "Harris is the first woman, Black person and person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president." Pew Research - "She became the first female vice president, as well as the first Black person and first Asian American to hold that office." ABC News - "become the first Black woman and the first person of South Asian descent to head a major party's presidential ticket after President Joe Biden’s ended his reelection bid" New York Times NPR - "after all, she's Black and Asian and South Asian and Indian American." NPR again - "in addition to being the first Black or Asian American person in the position." CNN - "Harris is the first woman to become vice president, as well as the first Black or Asian American person to hold the office." CNN again NBC News - "nation's first female vice president, as well as the first Black American and first person of South Asian descent." Reuters - "The attacks on Kamala Harris, the first woman and first Black and South Asian person to serve as U.S. vice president, have intensified in the days since she consolidated support to become Democrats' likely presidential nominee." Locke, T., & Joseph, R. L. (2021). All intersectionality is not the same: Why Kamala Harris is our vice president and not Stacey Abrams. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 107(4), 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2021.1983197 Clayton, K., Crabtree, C., & Horiuchi, Y. (2023). Do Identity Frames Impact Support for Multiracial Candidates? The Case of Kamala Harris. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.33 Filindra, Alexandra, and E. J. Fagan. 2022. “ Black, Immigrant, or Woman? The Implicit Influence of Kamala Harris' Vice Presidential Nomination on Support for Biden in 2020.” Social Science Quarterly. 103: 892–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13162 Ma, D.S., Hohl, D. & Kantner, J. The politics of identity: The unexpected role of political orientation on racial categorizations of Kamala Harris. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2021; 21: 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12257 FactCheck.org - "Harris Has Always Identified as Indian American and Black" African American: CBS News CA.gov USA Today " Kamala Harris became the first African American vice president of the United States ...", Statistical Thinking: Analyzing Data in an Uncertain World, Princeton University Press, 2023, p. 78. "Kamala Harris his running mate, thus giving her the opportunity to become the first African American vice president in American history." , Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era, Oxford University Press, 2022, p. 286. " Kamala Harris the first woman, the first African American, ... to serve as vice president." Winds of Hope, Storms of Discord: The United States since 1945, Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 486 "Vice President Kamala Harris's ascension as the country's first woman (and African American) to assume the number two position in the White House." Race and National Security, Oxford University Press, p. "Celebrating America's arrival as a desirable "post-racial" ideal has been somewhat reinvigorated by America's first African Asian vice president, Kamala Harris." Discounting Life: Necropolitical Law, Culture, and the Long War on Terror], Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 118. "Senator Cory Booker and Senator Kamala Harris are African American", The Point of No Return: American Democracy at the Crossroads, Princeton University Press, 2023, p. 202. "Right-wing critics ready to pounce on all things Harris—the first vice presidential candidate with African American lineage—were quick to contradict and condemn her ...", Trash Talk: Anti-Obama Lore and Race in the Twenty-first Century, University of California Press, p. 129 African-American women are unrelentingly conceptualized as the embodied salvation of national political parties, most predominantly in Joe Biden's selection of Kamala Harris as his vice president ...," The Divided States: Unraveling National Identities in the Twenty-First Century , University of Wisconsin Press, 2023, p. 44. "In 2020, Biden was elected president, and Harris became the first woman, and the first woman of 'African and South Asian descent, to be elected vice president of the United States." Making the World a Better Place: African American Women Advocates, Activists, and Leaders, 1773-1900, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2023. "This chapter explores the stony road African American women have walked, from ... to the ascendancy of Kamala Harris, the first African American woman Vice President." (Identity Politics in US National Elections, Springer, 2023. "Kamala Harris, as the highest-ranking woman official in US history, as well as the first African American and first Asian American vice president of the United States," Barbara Jordan and the Politics of Scripture, Georgetown University Press, 2022. "In the person of Kamala Harris, the first woman, the first Asian-American and first African American Vice president was elected—a historic breakthrough ...", The Battle for the White House: The US Presidential Election 2020 under the impression of Polarization, Coronavirus Pandemic and Social Tensions, Springer, 2022, p. 156. "It is also historic because Kamala Harris became the first woman vice-president and the first African-American and Asian-American vice-president." Politics of Racism Beyond Nations: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Crises, Springer, p. 235. "the first African American and South Asian woman vice president Kamala Harris. ", Religious Rhetoric in US Right-Wing Politics: Donald Trump, Intergroup Threat, and Nationalism, Springer Nature, 2022, p. 14. "Although Ms Harris was received with excitement and enthusiasm by many as the first woman, the first African American, and the first Asian to be nominated for and elected to this high office ...," Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace, SAGE, 2022, p. 158. "Kamala Harris as his running mate, he positioned her to serve as the not only the first woman but also the first African American, and Asian American vice president in American history," Mass Media and American Politics, CQ Press, the historic collection of workings of the US Congress., 2022, p. 343. Both: Politifact ABC News

The strange insistence on either textbooks or some other specific sources does not square with WP:V or WP:RS. Self-identification is key to our handling of race, gender, sexuality, disability, etc. and the two main official websites about Harris use Black. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic query, now anwered

Please no collapsed lists here. Create them elsewhere and link them, as I have done. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Please remove the references to African American that were already in my list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC) You seem to have reproduced my quotes in the length in which they appeared in my list. This is a little distressing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC) @Fowler&fowler - There is no rule against collapsed lists. As the list's title says, I've included other sources discussed above, including the African American ones you mentioned. I copy-pasted them verbatim so readers can see a full list. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• African-American in the first paragraph of the lead, followed by Black in the second paragraph (as in the current lead). This means I am happy with what has been the status quo for the last three years and 10 months. Here are my reasons:

• On all her official websites from December 2003 until December 2020 she used "African American" to describe her paternal ethnicity:

• District Attorney of San Francisco, December 2003 to December 2010: "About us":"In December 2003, Kamala D. Harris was elected as the first woman District Attorney in San Francisco's history and the first African American woman in California’s history to hold the office."
• California Attorney General, December 2010 to December 2016: About the AG: "She is the first woman, the first African American, and the first South Asian to hold the office in the history of California."
• U.S. Senator January 2017 to January 2021: About Kamala," Harris was the first African-American and first woman to serve as Attorney General of California and the second African-American woman to be elected to the United States Senate in history.
• After January 2021:

• Although her subpage on Joe Biden's White House websie) describes her to be the first "Black American" Vice President, it is not at all clear judging from the overblown language used, who has written the page, the White House PR team or Kamala Harris.
• However, the US Senate, whose President she is, continues to describe her as: "2021, January 20 Kamala Harris of Los Angeles became the first woman and the first African American and Asian American to serve as vice president of the United States and president of the U.S. Senate" (scroll all the way to the right here)

• There are precedents in on Wikipedia that MOS:IDENTITY cannot simply override: The Wikipedia pages of all the Black elected leaders which mention ethnicity in the lead, have only "African American." The list includes not only senators and later president such as Barack Obama, but also: Hiram R. Revels, Blanche Bruce, Edward Brook, Carol Moseley Braun, Roland Burris, Tim Scott, Mo Cowan, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris (current version of the lead), Raphael Warnock; governors such as Deval Patrick, David Paterson, Wes Moore; and members of Congress dating from the period before emancipation (Jefferson F. Long, John R. Lynch), to reconstruction (Jeremiah Haralson, John Adams Hyman, Charles E. Nash, and James E. O'Hara; to early Jim Crow era (Henry P. Cheatham, John Mercer Langston, Thomas E. Miller), late Jim Crow to Civil Rights era (Oscar Stanton De Priest, Arthur W. Mitchell, William L. Dawson, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Charles Diggs, Robert N.C. Nix Sr., John Conyers, Louis Stokes); to the Modern Era (where there are too many but some notable ones are Charles Rangel, Andrew Young, Barbara Jordan, and Harold Washington). (Added 13:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC))
• Per WP:TERTIARY on due weight A large number of text-books and monographs published by Oxford, Princeton, Cambridge, University of California, Springer, SAGE, ... and other scholarly publishers, use "African-American" (See collapsed list of 16 scholarly books here). There are also a lesser number that support Black.
• Black American on Wikipedia redirects to African Americans
• The previous RfC Talk:Kamala_Harris/Archive_4#RfC:_Should_Kamala_Harris_be_described_as_'African_American'_in_the_lead? in which 46 editors participated, an overwhelming number (21 of 46) were declared by the closer to have supported "African American." 8 supported both African American and Black; 2 only Black ... see the Closer, MelanieN's analysis.
• A group of pioneering African-American intellectuals and rights activists in Berkeley and Oakland, all friends of KH's mother Shyamala Gopalan formed a crucial support group that influenced her childhood, and thus notions of her ethnicity. Please see the third section of the restored Early life and education section (whose permalink I have given, as it was drastically reduced earlier today). (Corrected 14:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC))
• Finally: For those who argue that Kamala Harris herself prefers the label "Black," and give as evidence the Whitehouse.gov's VP site's blurb, here is a more detailed and heartfelt description of what she identifies with. : It is from a moderated discussion at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, Washington DC, in April 2023 after her trip to Africa, and in particular to Ghana. See here for the conversation about her Ghana trip, which is excerpted from this full report. She explicitly identifies with the descendants of those who survived the Middle Passage. Unlike her Indian ancestors, her Caribbean passed through a Door of No Return as they left Africa. As she says very forcefully and with feeling: In the midst of so-called leaders who are trying to erase history in our country — (applause) — what we must all do to stand up and speak out about this as loud as we can. It’s not just about “forget”; they’re trying to erase history, I feel we have to acknowledge the other coast of the Middle Passage in the primary description of her ethnic history: She is the "first African American vice president in American history" followed by Black later in the lead or in a footnote. Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Follow up to Yopienso's helpful remarks

You seem to have misread and misinterpreted Harris's report about her visit to Zambia. Either that, or you accidentally linked to the wrong report. YoPienso (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC) She is talking there about her earlier visit to Ghana. It is that part I am referring to, to the Door of No Return, etc. I have to take my cat out to the doc's but will take another look upon my return. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC) OK, I'm back @Yopienso:. I'll take a look and fix it. Thanks for noticing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Fixed. See above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC) You're welcome, and thanks. There are still some discrepancies, though. The document you linked to never once says "African American" or "Black." Wrt whether "Kamala Harris herself prefers the label "Black,'" here's another document about that trip. In a speech to Ghanaian youth given at the Black Star Gate on March 28, 2023, she said, "...this continent, of course, has a special significance for me personally as the first Black Vice President of the United States of America." [Emphasis added.] Now, that doesn't necessarily show a preference, but it's a prime example of her recent usage. I don't find where she "explicitly identifies with the descendants of those who survived the Middle Passage." She visited the Black Star Gate in Accra as a tourist, making no mention of any ancestor who passed through it or any of the 40 or so similar gates across western Africa. I suspect she doesn't know her father's genealogy many generations back. Maybe it doesn't matter much if we use "African American" or "Black," which are commonly used synonymously. YoPienso (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC) I can't speak to what she said elsewhere, but in the conversation I've referenced she very much considers herself to be a descendent of people who endured the Middle Passage, for this is how that excerpted conversation ends: THE VICE PRESIDENT: And what we should do then to also celebrate the strength of our people to come through that and go on to be astronauts. I just spoke yesterday with Astronaut Glover. Do you guys know who he is? (Laughs.) (Applause.) He’s about to go on the Artemis II mission to circle the Moon. I just talked to him yesterday. Right? And so, the scientists and the astronauts and the mathematicians and all of the people — MS. NABONGO: And the Vice President. THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and the Vice President of the United States. (Laughs.) (Applause.) Right. As far as I'm aware, the term African American as envisaged by the people who originally created it was a reference to the Middle Passage Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC) No, the interviewer interrupted and included her, and Harris then repeated the interviewer's words. YoPienso (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC) But she agreed and had used "us" and "our people" before. She was being modest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC) {{re|@Yopienso: I am collapsing this, so it doesn't distract other participants. Thanks for your helpful comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC) I really appreciate your friendliness. My view isn't that Harris was being modest--why would a politician be modest? She was being gracious with the interviewer, an increasingly rare quality. You can tell by the fact she laughed and then said "Right" that in the moment she wasn't thinking about including herself. I'm not sure I want all my comments hidden, particularly this: Wrt whether "Kamala Harris herself prefers the label "Black,'" here's another document about that trip. In a speech to Ghanaian youth given at the Black Star Gate on March 28, 2023, she said, "...this continent, of course, has a special significance for me personally as the first Black Vice President of the United States of America." [Emphasis added.] Now, that doesn't necessarily show a preference, but it's a prime example of her recent usage. How can we give those lines visibility? Between you and me, I'm concluding that we're wasting our time here. "Black American," "Black," and "African American" mean almost the same thing. They do generally mean exactly the same thing; the difference lies in the speaker's and hearer's personal opinions. "Jamaican" or "Jamaican American" would work just as well. Same for Asian. I much prefer South Asian to the much broader "Asian," which often conjures images of China, Japan, and Korea. Far better would be to use "Indian." It's been a pleasure working with you because you've been so civil. Just a friendly hint here: Be sure not to cross the line into WP:OWN. YoPienso (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Both because both are supported by high quality sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Binksternet: Would the phrasing in the current lead—which has "African American" in the second sentence, and Black in the second paragraph—be acceptable to you? Alternatively would "African American" in the second sentence, but with a footnote which says, "Also Black American or Woman of Color," be acceptable to you? If not, please suggest something specific that will. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a note. The current wording is fine, with AA in the first paragraph and B in the second. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Black and Asian American (my preference is Black Asian American, or just Black for brevity). This aligns with what it says at her own website and the White House website. Apparently, it's what she wants and what her PR people want, as she and they both had to sign off on those descriptors. Media often get things wrong, so I think we should go to and rely on the primary source(s): Kamala Harris and the people who promote her and speak for her officially. It's at both of those places online where she's told us who she is. Why would we want to call her anything else? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

*:But for 16 years before that, as Senator, California AG, District Attorney SF, her previous media people identified her as African-American. See my statement above. So, is WP a tool of the media PR people, and if so, of which version of a subject's changeable identity? How do the last four trump over the previous 16? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Corrected in light of @Objective3000:'s remark below. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• is WP a tool of the media people Would you please stop this? Media have their own editorial rules. In earlier days, African-American became popular because older terms were heavily frowned upon, including the term Black before they owned it. Go back far enough, it was "colored". I remember the waiting room and water fountain signs. Then was then, Now is now. Let people be called what they want to be called, as long as it has a legitimate foundation, whether it be race, sexual identity, gender, etc. Trump was ranting today that she just turned Black. Let us not be his "tool". O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Again, let's not stay stuck in the past. Let's use the terminology Ms. Harris uses.

  We could always say in the lead that she's a "person of color" and then use African American and Black throughout the article. (I realize there's a good argument that the two terms aren't interchangeable, but it seems they're often used as synonyms.)

  That said, in 2019, when she was running for the 2020 nomination, Politico quoted her as saying, "I am black and I am proud of it. [...] I was born black and I’ll die black and I am proud of it. And I am not gonna make any excuses for it, for anybody, because they don’t understand." YoPienso (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• African-American or Black American - black is very informal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropulse (talk • contribs) 04:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree with you that "Black" is more informal than African American. It is one of the reasons the US Senate calls its list: African American Senators. It includes Kamala Harris.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Mmm, and then we have the Congressional Black Caucus, the HBCUs, the NABJ, the Association of Black Psychologists, etc.--all formal.

  Couldn't we agree that colored, Negro, Afro-American, Black, African American, all mean the same thing? They just arose from different times and places.

  (I'm aware that "colored" "color" as used in person of color now includes just about everyone who's not white, but I'm referring to "colored" as in the NAACP.) YoPienso (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  The word colored is considered highly offensive. Rep. Eli Crane used the word on the House floor a couple weeks ago. It was stricken from the record.[2] The NAACP chose the term "colored" for its name because it was the most positive description commonly used in 1909. More common words back then were and are far more offensive, but still used by many people today. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you might be confusing it with person of color, which is not the same thing – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Objective3000: @Macaddct1984:

  I was speaking historically, starting with colored, and I specifically referred to the NAACP. I also said the names arose from different times and places. It's exactly my point that it was the preferred term at the time. (Surely you noticed I omitted the most common term I heard when I was young.)

  I wasn't exactly sure where to put Black in the list, since "Black is beautiful" was a slogan before Afro-American morphed into African American, IIRC, but now since the Black Lives Matter movement began, "Black" seems more popular than "African American."

  I'm well aware of POC, which indeed is not the same as colored. I should have been more precise, and will correct that to avoid offense. YoPienso (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I understand. Speaking historically myself, I remember my teen years when the "whites only" signs were prevalent along with the "colored" signs. The public swimming pool was whites only, as well as the public schools I had to go to, a whites only school, and the sundown laws said all Blacks must cross the tracks before sundown. I could rant for an hour on other problems in my city alone. My point is that, at the very least, we should allow these people to self-identify and not be forced to accept the labels put upon them by others. And before someone says RGW, No, I am striving for neutrality and balance in a BLP. How can we document a current presidential candidate by changing the wording that she uses about herself? It's not like she is claiming she has done more for Blacks than any president since Abraham Lincoln (as another candidate just claimed). She just wants, and has wanted for a long time (BA from a Black college, pledged to a Black sorority) as Black. Who are we to change that? Appolgies for the rant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. We must be about the same age. I attended segregated schools until I was in the 7th grade, and the integration was NOT seamless.

  AFAIK, my list of words were all chosen by the people they describe(d). Every decade or so I've done my best to accept and use the term du jour. That's why on this page I've repeatedly said older RSs (more than 2 years old, I'll now say, or maybe even one year) aren't the best; we have to look at what Ms. Harris calls herself now, which seems to be "Black."

  What's RGW? YoPienso (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Status Quo, as no good argument has been made for a change to the article, I see no reason to change it. Ther is no controversy in RS about her ethnicity, this is a manufactured controversy here. This is wp:falsebalance, her self-identification has not actually been challenged by RS,so there is not need for us to challenge it, it's not controversial. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As evidenced by her own words (quoted just above), her own webpage and the White House webpage, her self-identification is Black and Asian American. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I must have missed where she says "I am not African American", please quote it for me. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You want the article subject to prove you wrong, to prove that your preferred definition of her is inaccurate? I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, is it? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No I want you to address the point I made. She has identified as African American, RS has identified her as African American. No one has said she is not African American. Just as we can say water is wet (even if you can find a source that does not say "water is wet"), so just finding a source that does not say "African American" does not mean its a contested claim. There is no controversy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Slatersteven - I'm sorry for replying late and I'm even more sorry if this issue has been resolved but if I could have my two cents in: I agree with you and vote to keep the status quo. I never knew this would be such an issue. If a source says she's "Black" or there's a specific context, then it should be noted in the quote or wherever the context is fit on her article, but otherwise, I don't see what's wrong with calling her "African-American" given how she has identified as such and has been described as such (though this may depend on source). And said term is also considered more formal, no?

I know many are citing varying sources and how the terms "African-American", "Black" and "Black American" shouldn't all be conflated, or how this topic is solely about her African ancestry and not her South Asian-born mother. But if I may make a point: Harris has also described her Tamil Indian mother as a "Brown woman" (though "Brown" is not an official U.S census category, it's often used informally to denote people who are not considered "white" or "black" in America)[3] [Kamala Harris:] She was a brown woman". This, in addition to her mother being variously called "Indian", "Tamil Indian", "South Asian", "(South) Asian-American", and whatever other descriptors.

Clearly sources clearly differ and use various terminology deemed fit by herself or others. I again, do not see what's wrong with primarily calling her "African-American" and not bouncing back and fourth every other sentence or bringing this up constantly on her talk page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Black-ish When quoting a source, use what the source says. Otherwise use Black as that is her self-description. Considering the past treatment of minorities, self-description in cases of race, gender, sexuality, disability, is an important neutralizer. Of course it has to be accurate, not a self-description like ‘most healthy president in history’. Also capitalize Black. There was a lengthy discussion about this elsewhere on WP some months ago. A few days ago, EvergreenFir changed African-American to Black in the lead sentence: She is the first female vice president and the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, as well as the first African American and first Asian American vice president. It was reverted back to Afro-American. The citation is[4], the official page on her at the White House site. That official page says Black American, not Afro-American. Why would we misquote this? EvergreenFir’s correction should be changed back to Black now, instead of waiting for RfC close. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  African American had been in the lead (a result of the previous RfC) from January 2021 until very recently when it was changed without consensus. What is in place now is the longstanding consensus version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your repetitive mention of that RfC is highly misleading. It did not have Black as an option and wasn't about Black vs. Afro-American. What is in place now is not what is in the citation provided, a page in an official White House site about VP Harris. If we are going to use citations, we should say what they say, not an editor's opinion about what they should say. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  From 11 November 2020 until 29 July 2024, when EvergreenFir made the change, and from 30 July 2024 when it was reverted (with edit summary: "reverting lead change without consensus") until now, the lead of this page has always used "African American." That is three years and 9 months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  So it should be corrected per the citation, the official White House site on her. If we look at the most common term used for Blacks since 1492, we would be using a term I will not repeat. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Errr call me stupid, but what's the difference? Af-Am is more formal, as is "European" or "of European descent", while 'black' is slightly more colloquial, as is 'white'. Neither is any longer derogatory or excessively informal. If she herself is happy to be called 'black', who are we to argue? Whether to capitalise should be decided by the MOS, though I'm not sure what that would say. Incidentally, Obama himself sometimes uses the terms interchangably, and I've heard (and read) him describe himself as 'black'.Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: The difference is that in the Wikipedia pages of all the other major Black office holders from before emancipation until now, including KH, the first mention of the ethnicity in the lead is "African American." See my statement. I'm sure most have referred to themselves now and then as Black. The first mention is in formal language. Later, in the KH page's lead's second paragraph, we use Black. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• African-American at first use, Blacktherafter. Both terms appear to be almost equally sourced/used, with a slight preference for AA in more formal contexts, and Black in colloquial ones, and her own use. Apart from considerations of formality and her personal preference, AA is more precise. In the UK, 'Black' is most often used to refer to African-Caribbean and/or direct African ancestry, but it has also been commonly used for all non-Europeans. In Australasia I believe, it is commonly used for the descendants of indigenous peoples there. While I agree with the general principle of self-identification in such matters, when neither term has been objected to by KH, and when sources use both, being precise trumps (no pun intended) the language she herself uses when addressing a US audience. We should follow whatever MOS says about capitalisation, I can see the arguments both way on that as the term, when used about ancestry, is not being used in its ordinary adjectival sense. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just saying...we should not use "blacktherafter". I'm pretty sure that refers to someone with a bucket of tar weatherproofing the ceiling of an old church. GMG^talk 11:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Both - as I already outlined in the earlier discussion prior to the RFC - The previous RfC from 2021 centered on the topic of whether to include her race/ethnicity at all, it didn't explicitly list Black as an option. Per MOS:IDENTITY we follow reliable self-identification and as such sources such as her whitehouse.gov profile and her ongoing Presidential political campaign self-identification are most recent on the matter, which indicate she uses the term Black American and South Asian American most recently and we should prefer it as such for top level per our MOS guidelines on preferring her self-identification if there is ambiguity - If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. We can for older pieces, such as her time in California and as Senator use African American as that was the term she used at the time and as others have already noted, the two terms can be used interchangeably. Raladic (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Black. Today the NYT, WaPo, and CNN all referred to her as Black.

The New York Times: "The party chair said she had won enough delegates to secure the nomination, setting up Kamala Harris to become the first Black woman and person of South Asian heritage to earn the top spot on a major political ticket for president."

The Washington Post: "Harris becomes just the second person of color in America’s nearly 250-year history to head a major presidential ticket, after Barack Obama in 2008. Harris is Black and Indian American, and Trump has recently attacked her identity and suggested that she formerly downplayed her Black heritage, an assertion for which there is no evidence."

CNN: "Harris, who said she will formally accept the nomination next week after the virtual roll call is complete on Monday, will become the first Black woman and first Asian American to lead a major-party ticket." YoPienso (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why my comment was moved from Discussion to Survey. I've never ever seen an RfC like this one.

I should have specified to capitalize "Black," which is how I wrote it.

It seems so obvious to me that the term "Black" has gained momentum since Black Lives Matter started. Why are we quoting older material as examples? Why are we saying Harris used to call herself "African American" so we still must? YoPienso (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason is to separate the individual editors opinions/"votes" and have a separate Discussion section for longer discussions, or else the Survey section can get overloaded in arguments sometimes.

You can find this detailed at the WP:RFC#Example of an RfC as a best practice on formatting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Separate votes from discussion.

So responses to the RFC question go into the survey. Follow up discussions go into Discusssion. Raladic (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your good-faith answer.

The most popular kind is the kind I'm familiar with.

This one is being run exactly the opposite of the format you linked to: "If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth." All the discussion here is taking place in the Survey section, and when I thought, OK, they're doing it backwards, I put my "vote" with supporting evidence in the Discussion section, and you moved it. ???? YoPienso (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The idea for the discussion section would be if someone has a COMMENT they would like to make (that isn't a vote), such as bring up alternative issues that the RfC didn't propose, they can be discussed in there. I've seen this separate Survey/Discussion format used a lot at WP:RSN for more complex issues. Raladic (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but everybody's commenting in the Survey section! We have 3 collapsed conversations! YoPienso (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Black per MOS:IDENTITY, as its the term used both by the subject and recent reliable sources. (Plus, there's something to be said for shutting up all the "Jamaica is not Africa!" edit requests, even if they're wrong) --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  How do you know that "Black" is the term used by the subject? For on all her official web sites from 2003 (when she became SF DA) until late 2021, almost a year into her term as VP, the her official web sites all said she was the first/second African American. That's a good 19 years. What do you make of the famous anthropologist, Yolanda Moses' observation:

  • Moses, Yolanda (4 May 2021), "Kamala Harris' Refusal of the One-Drop Rule", Sapiens, Anthropology Magazine, Given this history, it matters that Harris proudly claims she sees herself as both African American and South Indian. As an anthropologist who studies inequality, I see her self-identification as a repudiation of the one-drop rule and the unjust racial hierarchy it represents.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler Because that's what her current official website and white house biography uses. Pointing to a 3-year-old article in which a third party says that she "sees herself as ... African American" is irrelevant because it's not recent and it's the language someone else uses to describe her claim. By that argument we should use "negra" since that what the author of this article uses. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I've said here before @Ahecht:, "recent" on MOS is more like 40 years, not 1. See the footnote [j] in MOS:IDENTITY: In MoS's own wording, "recent", "current", "modern", and "contemporary" in reference to sources and usage should usually be interpreted as referring to reliable material published within the last forty years or so. In the consideration of name changes of persons and organizations, focus on sources from the last few years. For broader English-language usage matters, about forty years is typical.

  Her own official websites from 2003 to early 2022, all had "first African American and South Asian American Vice-President in history etc." In other words, in 19 of the last 21 years, the first mention of ethnicity in her official web pages has been African American. Only in the last two that you see "Black American," (not "Black," which seems to be your vote).Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Who are we to tell Blacks they cannot be identified as Black? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Who are we to tell Blacks they cannot be identified as Black? We are an international encyc addressing a world audience,. We aren't attempting to regulate how a section of a US audience refers to itself, especially informally, but we have different objectives and language use. To a significant section of UK readers 'black' is a label meaning "of non-European heritage", Southall Black Sisters were almost entirely of Asian ancestry and that 'broader' use of 'black' to mean 'of colour' is still common. From that perspective, "Black and Asian American" is almost a tautology. Other countries also use 'black' with a different meaning to the US. "American Black" is slightly clearer. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler Except that for "persons and organizations", footnote [j] says that recent is the last few years. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Only for name changes @Ahecht:, not intimations of identity, especially not when her official website in the US Senate, whose president she also is, continues to use "African American," as I've indicated before. See US Senate and scroll all the way to the right. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler So you're arguing that a person needs to change how they identify themselves for 40 years before we can recognize it on Wikipedia? That's absurd. The footnote is comparing "persons and organizations" (last few years) with "broader English-language usage matters" (forty years). The usage of "name" in that context obviously isn't limited to "name of the subject" and can also include "name of their identity".

  The US Senate source was last updated in 2021 and was not written by Kamala or her team (Kamala's role as "president" of the senate doesn't mean she's in charge of it, it means she presides over the legislative body).--Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahecht: It says, "In the consideration of name changes of persons and organizations, focus on sources from the last few years." So in order to avail yourself of that exception to the broader rule of 40 years, are you saying she has changed her identity? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  She has changed what name she uses to identify her race/ethnicity. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  African Americans can also refer to Black Americans descended from former slaves. Wisenerd (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Could you clarify further what you mean, @Wisenerd: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  They're presumably referring to "American Descendants of Slavery" or ADOS. Some believe the term "African-American" should be only or primarily refer to ADOS. Or more specifically, America's black population of enslaved descent which would exclude people like Kamala (even if is a descendant of slaves, her ancestry is in Jamaica/the Caribbean, not the mainland United States).

  But I'm not sure if that's irrelevant to this discussion. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  If people are objecting to KH using African American (though I'm not sure who is) because her Afro-Jamaican ancestor was not enslaved within the US, they should be objecting even more emphatically which they are not to Barack Obama whose father most likely arrived on a Super Constellation from Kenya.

  I think the reason is probably more mundane. For 17 years KH had only Af-Am on her official website. In Joe Biden's White House, as a dutiful number two her official page is a subpage of the White House's. I wonder who has really written her page. It might be a PR team's handiwork, not her's, based on their determination that "Black" is more informal, more folksy, and thus less intimidating, to a critical number of voting age Americans than is "African American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Follow Up Discussion

• Query@Raladic: I'm afraid your interpretation,

  "The previous RfC from 2021 centered on the topic of whether to include her race/ethnicity at all, it didn't explicitly list Black as an option,"

  was not understood to be so by those who participated in it. As the closer, MelanieN, noted in her analysis at the end: As several people pointed out, this discussion is about whether to include the term “African American” in the lead in connection with being the first such person to do something. It specifically excludes using that term in the lead sentence or as a general description of her. People’s responses break down as follows: 21 people (not counting myself) supported saying “African American”. More than half cited RS and some cited her own self description. Another 8 people, including the OP, said they would be comfortable with either “African American” or “Black”. More than half cited RS and some cited her own self description. 2 people preferred “Black”. 9 people favored some other descriptor such as “Jamaican American”, “biracial”, “multi-racial”, or “person of color”. 5 people said not to use any kind of descriptor in the lead, only in the body of the article

In other words, everyone who participated in it understood we were discussing the second sentence of the lead which states, "She is the first woman Vice President and the highest ranking female official in US history, as well as the first African-American and first Asian American Vice President. A number of admins took part and an even larger number were watching. The result was that of the 46 editors who participated, 29 were comfortable with African-American, 10 were comfortable with "Black," 9 with other descriptors and 5 were opposed to any descriptor. Why would they have mentioned these other options (Black, Afro-Jamaican, etc) if they were only voting Yes/No to "African American?" I believe your interpretation might have been made by examining the letter of the law as it might have appeared four years later, but it was not the spirit of the law that prevailed at the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Because most people don’t amend their vote after making it.

The question of the old RfC was RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead?.

But some participants later in it noted that it was missing Black as an option and added that as their own, but the voting was already ongoing.

So my conclusion is right that the original question did not fully encompass for people to actually vote for Black as the RfC wasn’t restarted once that was added by some people as opinion. Raladic (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The RfC was posted at 11:56 12 August 2020.

At 12:11 12 August 2020, The OP, Mr X, wrote, "Yes. Sources routinely describe her as African American or black (which I'm equally fine with as an alternative)."

By 12:34 12 August 2020, CMG, the first vote after the nominator/OP, had posted, "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.

Their vote was counted at "African American" or "Black." The awareness of the other options was there 38 minutes later. That is more or less off the bat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Query @Yopienso: You say, "Today the NYT, WaPo, and CNN all referred to her as Black." But those are not examples of MOS:IDENTITY. They are descriptions of ethnicity by others. They are not descriptions of ethnicity by scholars, Wikipedia's touchstone of reliability such as these 16 academic books for the term "African-American," let alone scholarly attestations of her self-identification such as "Harris self-identifies as a Black woman of Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) ancestry."

If you are attempting to make the case that in a frenzied news cycle before formal nomination the outpouring of journalists attempting to beat a deadline is a better indicator of due weight on WP than scholarship, then please open a thread at WP:RS/N. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are examples of current RSs on top of how Harris self-identifies. The RSs are following her own usage, which we should do, too, doubly--from her preference and from the RSs.

Also see the list of RS usages posted by EvergreenFir at 20:40, 29 July 2024. YoPienso (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But those are not scholarly books except the ones copied from my list (which all support African American) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Which is not relevant. We follow WP:RS (and in the case of identity, even primary sources for self-identification per WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:IDENTITY), it doesn't have to be scholarly books. Raladic (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have replied below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about a living person who is heavily represented in the current news cycle. There are no scholarly books on the specific subject of how Wikipedia should refer to the race/ethnicity of Kamala Harris in her BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly books will not tell Wikipedia to express itself in a certain way, @Objective3000: but to the extent that WP considers scholarship to constitute the most reliable sources (see, WP:SOURCETYPES): Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources., those 16 sources published after 2021 by the best academic publisher are certainly more reliable than the cascade of reporters trying to beat yesterday's deadline.

@Raladic:Please note that MOS:IDENTITY states, "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent[j] reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. But footnote [j] says, "In MoS's own wording, "recent", "current", "modern", and "contemporary" in reference to sources and usage should usually be interpreted as referring to reliable material published within the last forty years or so. In the consideration of name changes of persons and organizations, focus on sources from the last few years. For broader English-language usage matters, about forty years is typical"

40 years means from 1985 onward. Thus not only scholarly sources listed above but Kamala Harris's own self-identification of African-American from 2003 (when she became SF DA), to CA AG, to US Senator) until end of 2020 (when she became VP) was "African American." This is solid reliability that the newfound overabundance of "Black" among reporting frenzy of this past week does little to dent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The most important part you've missed here from MOS:IDENTITY is the word wikt:en:recent - use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources - in the literal English language sense and the follow up, that if there's disagreement - to bias it an use what the person themself use - If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.

The historic sources may be one thing, but for identity, we rely on most recent identification, including if in doubt - primary reliable sources - as I already linked above from WP:ABOUTSELF.

She did not just last week change her identification as Black American as shown on her primary sources such as the white house, that has been for a long while. It may be that other secondary sources have only more recently caught up to support it, which is fine and supports our MOS guidelines to use exactly that - the most recent reliable sources, not historic ones.

Misinterpreting it to mean we can't use more recent sources if they deviate from older ("recent") sources is getting into WP:WIKILAWYERING territority, it would mean for example that we would not report on the current President right now, since on average over the last 40 years there have been many Presidents, so which one is the most recent President based on the RS as you're interpreting the guideline. Raladic (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic: "recent" in MOS is specific, if there is descrepency betwen the "most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent[j] reliable sources." They don't mean for an abstract term such as "president." They mean in this instance, her, or KH. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. Sounds pretty obvious, doesn't it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But it is not clear what she has recently used, for in the definition of MOS:IDENTITY footnote [j], MOS has laid out a very clear meaning of the terms "recent," "current," etc.: for a name change, it is a few years; for everything else, 40 years is typical.

Kamala Harris has self-identified as as "African American" from well-before 2003 until 2020. That is more than 17 years. She has increasingly self-identified as Black during the last four. The scholarly sources, which carry Wikipedia's imprimatur of reliability, moreover, even among those published after 2021 refer to her as "African American" more often than they do "Black American" or "Black." So, it is not clear there is any need to even invoke MOS:IDENTITY; clearly the US Senate, whose President she is doesn't, as she is called African American on the Senate's websites in more places than one.

This is encyclopedia. It uses the formal linguistic register, i.e. "African-American," for all Black American U.S. political office holders from before emancipation until now, when describing them as the "first, or second, or third, etc., ..." All are "African Americans" in their first mention in the lead. You can see that impressive list in my statement. Why should we make an exception for her alone now, after four years? They've all said they were Black too at various times in their lives. If you want to describe her as the first person of Jamaican or Indian ancestry (as this article once did), fine make a case for it. But if you want to describe her as the first Black American, it goes against a well-established precedent on WP, of describing them as African American, not least of which is that the page Black American redirects to African Americans. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yopienso, Objective3000, Raladic, and EvergreenFir:

There is another issue with writing, "She is the first Black ...." What will you link "Black" to? The page Black says, "This article is about the color. For the race, see black people," a page which begins with, "Black is a racialized classification of people, usually a political and skin color-based category for specific populations with a mid- to dark brown complexion." If you are going to link it to Black Americans, the link will take you straight to African Americans, which is an ethnic category.

So why engage in eastereggery i.e. violate the principle of least astonishment in an encyclopedia catering to a worldwide readership? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't think readers don't know what Black means in this context? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If you leave Black unlinked, many readers will not be aware that it is not a racial category we imply. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

What else could readers of this article possibly think Black means? Eye color? WP:BLUDGEON O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In context, "Harris self-identifies as a Black woman of Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) ancestry", the source appears to be saying that Harris uses 'Black' to refer to both her African and Asian roots. This is in line with a common UK use, where the word refers to all 'non-European' ancestries, similar to the US term person of color I believe. Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Very simple, it links to Black Americans, which as you pointed out is a redirect to African Americans, which points out in the first sentence of the lead that the two terms are used synonymously - African Americans, also known as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, so no one will be astonished or confused. Raladic (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I obviously saw the first line, but you will still leave the reader wondering why you did not link it to African Americans in the first place, if your encyclopedia redirects it? Or, what is the difference between Black Americans and African Americans? You will create layers of complication. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The won't even notice the redirect. This is going beyond WP:WIKILAWYERING. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing, that you are saying the Wiki text [[Black American|Black]] which will be redirected to [[African Americans]], springs no surprises to an average reader. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think both Raladic and I are saying that. The reason we have piping in wikilinks is it is very common to have the text in the link different from the name of the linked article. And why would they even see the name of the redirect unless they hovered over it; in which case they would see both Black American and African-American? There is no problem here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Having been on Wikipedia for nearly 18 years, I do know about piping. But when the reader sees Black, they don't if the racial category Black peoples is meant, or the ethnic category African American. If they print the article, they could come away with interpreting it to be racial. And when they hover the cursor over it, it says, "Black Americans redirects to African Americans." Seems needlessly confusing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic post

India is a country full of different ethnicities, languages and cultures. Kamala Harris's mother comes from Tamil Nadu in the south of India. Kamala Harris herself has already spoken about the south. It's important to make this clear, and it's not enough just to say that her mother is Indian. Her ethnicity was mentioned, but someone with little knowledge of the subject had to remove it. So it would be good to put it back in. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/my-chitthis-significance-sen-kamala-harris-speaking-tamil-national-stage-n1237562 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9037j47pyzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC) @2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9: Sorry, but you should open a new section/thread, as your comment does not belong to the topic of this RfC which is about ethnicity in the lead of the article, in particular the African-American or Black American, or Black, aspect of her ethnicity. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The One-drop Rule

Re: the statement "Kamala Harris is a Black woman of Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) heritage." I believe this should state that she is "a woman of Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) heritage." Why should Ms. Harris' black ancestry take precedence over her Indian ancestry? This harks back to the era when one drop of black blood made a person black. That rule was outlawed by the Supreme court in 1967. Why are we perpetuating a practice that was used to discriminate against people? 206.127.90.175 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes the one-drop rule was used to discriminate against Blacks. The rule no longer exists. So we are not perpetuating anything. Yes Blacks still face discrimination. But that doesn't mean that they cannot embrace their Blackness. No one is investigating her, outting her, and declaring her inferior because of her heritage. (Well some are.) But she has been saying she is Black since her early life. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Objective3000 and @Fowler&fowler - I hope I'm not making this discussion rather tedious but there has obviously been a lot of debate recently about Harris's heritage and self-identity. I'm pretty sure the sentence the IP user cites ultimately comes from a book (?) about Harris's life. IDK why it's problematic to have that sentence or why there's anything wrong with the self-identity of Harris.

Tons of people of mixed descent personally identify as and/or are widely considered to be just "African-American" or "Black" or whatever. Same with any other heritage/category in the U.S. Is Obama's mother not of European descent? Is actress Halle Berry's mother also not of European descent?

But FWIW to the section starter, as race is a social construct, the idea of being properly classified as "Indian-American" (which may historically have been conflated with "American Indians" given "Indian" meaning in American slang) or even "Asian American" is a more recent concept (c. 1980s). Sometimes Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans were lumped together under the same "race" category. And it apparently wasn't uncommon for South Asians in America to identify as "Caucasian" or "Other" prior to the late 1900s.[5] So I'm not sure if Harris had the same sense of "Indian" and/or "South Asian [American] identity" she may have today like she did in the past (for example, being "Asian-American" in the U.S more often denotes East Asian descent, not South Asian heritage, who may see themselves as being "Other" or "Brown" over "Asian-American" or "Brown" and "Asian American" or something like that). Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Much of what you say is true. Indians are Asian American in the census, but not in common parlance, as you've observed.

KH's sense of her ethnicity, however, in my understanding, is a very specific one: a somewhat distant Afro-Jamaican heritage from her father, a more immediate South India (Tamil) from her mother, but a strong African American or Black American glue from the support group of African-American friends of her mother on which she was imprinted as a child. It is the kind sense of ethnicity not found among South Asians. I get the sense from her that she has no particular feeling for most of India or Pakistan (say of the Himalayas, the Maharajas, the Taj Mahal, North India, East India, West India, Goa, the Ganges, Khyber, etc.,), it is only for the small corner of Madras in which her grandparents lived. She does have feelings for Indian anti-colonial nationalism which her grandfather had reminisced about during the walks with his oldest grandchild. (During British times, he had worked very faithfully in the Imperial Secretariat Service so it is unlikely that he had taken active part in Indian nationalism, but he may have had yearnings.) Perhaps for that reason, after her mother's death Kamala Harris did not choose to immerse her mothers ashes—which she had take to India—in the Ganges, the Godavari or any other river. She scattered them on the waves off a beach in Chennai, South India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris has said that it was her mother's perception that in American society her girls would be seen at Black, and she raised them to be proud Black girls. That possibly does sound like the one-drop rule. But it is very likely more than just that.

For today, Indian Americans as well as Indians in India might well be proud of Kamala Harris, now that she's potentially on the verge of making history, but in 1970 it is not clear at all that—her Indian family aside—a rigidly caste-based social group (which even today seldom marries outside its caste and is sons-obsessed) would have formed the kind of support group for a divorced 32-year old Indian women, with two girls from a marriage to a Black man, that the African American friends of Shyamala Gopalan did in Oakland and Berkeley. They were Shyamala's friends in need, and thus the Harris girls' crucial formative ambience, what in a sense they became imprinted on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is some proof of my conjecture above. It used to be in the article and I had forgotten that it did :

Although the two Harris sisters spent summers with their father in Palo Alto and traveled to Jamaica with him now and then, their "experience and relationship with blackness," according to Maya Harris's daughter, Meena Harris, " is through being raised in these communities in Berkeley and Oakland, and not through the lens of being Caribbean."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we're wondering into forum territory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

(deep aggravated sigh) The "one drop rule" would apply to someone like Johnny Depp (who verifiably had a black American slave ancestor several hundred years ago) and society would turn around and say for that reason he must be called black. You see how stupid that sounds? Not somebody whose own father is literally a black man. My parents are black… so that makes me black… that's how genetics work. If one parents was black, and the other was (just shooting at the wind here) Ashkenazi Jewish I would be a black Jewish person. Eric André and Doja Cat are examples of that. No one is saying they can't be ethnically Jewish because of their black fathers' DNA. Blackness doesn't erase nor supercede anything regardless of phenotype. This "rule" doesn't exist anymore just like black people are no longer "three-fifths of person" anymore. Let's turn our damn noggins on. Trillfendi (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion of a "one drop" rule is completely irrelevant. GMG^talk 13:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. it borders on soapboxing. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Split proposal

Portions of this article were boldly split to Early life and career of Kamala Harris, but there was an objection, so this discussion is to endorse or reverse the split. This article was at >9,000 words before this split, which is in line with when WP:SIZERULE says it's appropriate to split. Since Harris is now a presumptive presidential nominee, there will likely be more detail added to all periods of her life, and it's easier for editors to do that if the article isn't already very long. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment - adding as a side note for those that didn’t see the earlier discussion, linking it here: Talk:Kamala Harris#Removal of content of due weight in KH's biography Raladic (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support split. The article is growing daily so splitting out the early life and career section was a good start to keep this article at overview level. Raladic (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, let's split this article. There is definitely going to be a lot more information added to this article soon and even more if she becomes president. 124.244.153.35 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in the manner in which this has been done.

Before you made your splitting edit of 0:51, 31 July 2024, the Early life and education section had 799 words and the Early Career and District Attorney section had 1893 words, together totaling 2692 words.

After your splitting edit, in which the article had shrunk from 7,982 words to 6,177 words, the Early life and career section had 860 words, of which Early life and education was 234 words, and the Early career 626 words. Overall, the early life was reduced by 70% and the Early career + DA by 67%, which is about the same. So, no complaints thus far. But the first three paragraphs of the pre-splitting Early life etc. had already been much worked on four years ago. They don't have any room for compression. In particular, if you examine cites [17] to [37] of the pre-split article, they are in a different gene pool altogether than the cites in the remainder of the article. They are feature articles or review articles in major newspapers; the rest are the scribbles of your basic sleep-deprived cub reporter at the DA's office. So, as long as you don't touch the first three paragraphs, it doesn't matter what you do with the rest of the article. You can reduce it to 500 words for all I care. But those three paragraphs are inviolable. I apologize for mangling the DA section. Thanks for your effort, which I agree is needed, but everywhere else. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a policy based Oppose reason. If there should be edits made to the WP:SUMMARY that is now in place on this article after the split, then those are editorial and can be made through copy-editing, but don't change the fact that the split was proper and in line with our guidelines. So you can be WP:BOLD and fix the copy-editing issues you raised instead of opposing the split outright. Raladic (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

oppose even more emphatically because the editor does not know how to summarize. See my examples in the statement of user:Bohbye Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Last time I try before I give up, this split discussion is about the technical aspect of whether we should have split the article or not, based on guideline informed rational, in this case WP:SIZESPLIT.

It is not a discussion of the content or finesse of the prose (we are writing an encyclopedia and use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) of the summary left behind, that can be refined over time through copy-editing, by all editors, yourself including. We reserve to put WP:DETAIL into separate sub-articles - Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles).

Your continuation of ignoring this point of the discussion and instead continue to argue that the current summary in the article isn't good is besides the point of the reason for the split and this discussion. Raladic (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We can't eat theoretical pudding. You can't cite a theoretical WP guideline to justify something that doesn't meet basic WP guidelines of writing. That summary is not a summary, a precis, a concision, or an abridged version of a text that—while on the long side—was still half way comprehensible. Anton-22's summary is semantically null. The bottom line is that summarization is not excision; it involves rephrasing, it involves expressing the gist. There is no rephrasing in that summary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I notice that you've added note to the Kamala Harris Early life and education section about a discussion, but have failed to replace the original text that was to be the subject of said discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Question to @Fowler&fowler - I see you have now started fixing the issues you raised as your basis for your objection with the current summary - so does it mean you no longer object to the split and should strike it and endorse it?

I just want to clarify, because else, depending on how someone uninvolved reads this discussion here, the old article may otherwise just be merged back in its entirety over these new improvements, if the editor finds a consensus to overturn the split retroactively. Raladic (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Instead, have one category for Early life and another category for Early career. That way, the section won't be so long. DocZach (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason for an article split based on WP:SIZERULE is about the entire article length, splitting into multiple sections doesn’t solve the problem of the article size getting unwieldy. Which is why we have guidelines to start splitting articles past 9000 words, such as was the case here. Refer to other politicians such as President Joe Biden or Barrack Obama, which similarly have splits of their Early life and career sections into separate main articles. Raladic (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no point of splitting it just because of Joe Biden and Barack Obama Having such pages. the main page can handle her fairly short life story. Bohbye (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bohbye: I agree. Biden's and Obama's articles are not what we should aspire to. The two Wikipedia politicians' Featured Articles, Liz Truss and Mitt Romney both have separate Early life and Education section followed by Early career etc. If they have passed FAC, then the separate sections with some individuality and not one long boring read written in simple generic sentences has Wikipedia's blessings. Liz Truss is over 6K words and Romney over 11K, so I'm not even sure we should be in such a hurry to drastically reduce the article. From my POV, for someone to traipse into the article and without any discussion on the talk page to run their red pen through it is not WP:BOLD, but WP:Amazing Amount of Gumption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

PS Here is an example of the drastic distillation in the split:

Third paragraph of the original Early life and Education section

African-American intellectuals and rights advocates constituted Harris's formative surroundings; Mary Lewis, who helped start the field of African-American studies at San Francisco State University, and taught there for many years, was one of Shyamala Gopalan's most trusted friends. When Shyamala worked late at her lab, Kamala was cared for by Regina Shelton, a black woman whose day-care center in the apartment below was decorated with pictures of Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth. Harris has written that Shyamala “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.” Although the two Harris sisters spent summers with their father in Palo Alto and now and then traveled to Jamaica with him, their "experience and relationship with blackness," according to Maya Harris's daughter, Meena Harris, " is through being raised in these communities in Berkeley and Oakland, and not through the lens of being Caribbean."

is reduced to:

"African-American intellectuals and rights advocates constituted Harris's formative surroundings."

which is not a summary, only the first half of the first sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Antony-22:, I've just read your summary of the Early years etc. section. Here's one paragraph:

In 1966, the Harris family began moving around various locations in the Midwest, with both parents working at multiple universities in succession over a brief period.[19][20][21] Kamala, along with her mother and sister, moved back to California in 1970.[22][23][20] African-American intellectuals and rights advocates constituted Harris's formative surroundings.[24] Harris's parents divorced when she was seven. When she was twelve, Harris and her sister moved with their mother to Montreal, Quebec.[25][26] Harris graduated from Westmount High School[c] in 1981.

• "began moving around various locations"

• The phrasal verb to move around, typically has the implication of moving quite often, or to keep moving, like an army family's ... but KH's was nothing like that. See below.
• "moving around" means to change locations, so what does "moving around various locations" mean that "moving around" does not?
• What useful information does the reader glean from "various locations in the Midwest?" They were in a very small part of the upper Midwest: Urbana, Illinois, 1966–67; Evanston, Ill. 1967–1968 and Madison, Wisconsin, 1968–1970, all within a smallish radius; not in Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, or Indiana. How does your phrasing enlighten the reader?
• "Kamala ... moved back to California in 1970. ... Harris's parents divorced when she was seven.

• But she turned seven in 1971, which was only a year later. So, why this change from the Julian calendar to the personal calendar?

• "African-American intellectuals and rights advocates constituted Harris's formative surroundings."

• What connection does the sentence have with anything before or anything after?

• General comment: What you have produced is not a summary, but a representation of a paragraph by one or two of its sentences. You therefore end up with a text which by its ellipses begins to push against the tolerance of natural language, as it is thin on both cohesion and coherence., the issues of diction aside.

How you are managing to wage aggressive battle for this text is beyond me. Please note, it is not enough to say, "But you have the freedom to fix it." This is because it takes much longer to fix an overly thinned out "summary" than it does to fix the original article.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP:SOFIXIT situation. I did my best to keep what I thought were the most pertinent facts in the summary, but I didn't intend it to be the final version, and I support your proposed improvements. I'm not advocating for the exact text of the summary, I'm advocating for the article split based on the large size of the combined article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about reducing the size both of the article and in particular the early years section in which I have some interest. But in my view, the way to spin large sections out is not to unilaterally take on the mantle of the splitter and produce something in mainspace. You should have posted your summary of a section here and we could have commented on it, or simply proposed that the section be reduced in size and editors would have suggested various approaches. Your method has created needless disruption, as it has for the moment given the summarized section the imprimatur of something more hallowed than a work-in-progress section.

Also as you must know, this article is much edited. The early years section was mostly written four years ago, when KH first walked into the national limelight. The editors who created the content and read the sources might be less frequent visitors, and may need to be pinged. In their absence, we end up with talk page discussions—as we have here—in which the participants have written precious little in the article, and very likely not read the sources.

Anyway, I do understand your point of view. I will try to improve the early years section. Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I see. That's not a method I've used in the past, but I can see how it would be helpful for a very-high-visibility article like this. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, nearly all of the text you object to is directly carried over from the original text, and can be improved in both locations. As I've said, splitting articles to reasonable sizes often brings more attention to them and encourages improvements of this type. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that. Not all your fault. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early life and career of Kamala Harris had been filed by another user and has received a fast and overwhelming speedy keep, which likely will preempt an outcome other than supporting the split based on our policies and guidelines around sizesplits. Raladic (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's not an argument against the split, only against removing the summarized article which they say is not a fork of this article. There are many such copied and pasted summaries on Wikipedia.

  If those participants have article-based and not policy-based arguments they can very well participate here. But please don't canvass there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging all people who participated in a related thread for more input: @Rhododendrites, Objective3000, Bohbye, Galaxybeing, Isaidnoway, Left guide, Geschichte, Ravenswing, Maile66, Bsoyka, 750h+, Bgsu98, and Another Believer: Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This section belongs in the main article about Harris, and is not long enough to warrant separating into its own article. Vrrajkum (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you realize that an oppose !vote will result in all the text at Early life and career of Kamala Harris being merged back into this one? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, we can agree to a compromise. If the opposes, hold, i.e. a consensus results, we can agree to restore only the Early childhood and education section, not the Early career. The Early career was the one that had the real bloat as did the other later sections where you have done yeoman's work or stalwart service or both (take your pick @Antony-22:). I stated earlier: the original Early life and education section had 799 words and the Early Career and District Attorney section had 1893 words, together totaling 2692 words. After your splitting edit, in which the article had shrunk from 7,982 words to 6,177 words, the Early life and career section had 860 words, of which Early life and education was 234 words, and the Early career 626 words.

  If we accept this compromise, then we would have 799 + 626 words = 1425 words instead of 860 words. We can then work on reducing Early life to 500 words, which I think is reasonable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Let me think about that. There are a lot of fine details that are much better for a subarticle, like what streets she lived on in Berkeley and every school she attended in Montreal. On the other hand, there's some narrative that could be brought back into the summary, especially from the fourth paragraph of the full version. But if the summary is more than half the length of the full version, it's not really a summary any more. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: If I move the Early life and Higher education sections back here, would that satisfy your objection and allow me to withdraw this split discussion? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you may have missed that the split already occurred and the split off article is 2800 words long that would be merged back into here, becoming a third of the entire article. Raladic (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  But in my compromise, it will increase increase in size for only a few minutes until the 1893 word Early career is split off by itself and shrunk back to 626 words. So the article will increase in size by 799-234 words = 565 words, which is the net gain in size incurred by the first half, i.e.

  Early life and education. We would then work on the Early life section to produce a summary of 500 words (instead of the all-too-bare-boned 234 words currently in place) and split the Early years and education section off a second time independently of the first split. Eventually the article will have increased in size by (500-234) = 266 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - doing so will allow further research and presentation of content during this period of Harris' life, which a page view of 13 million plus demonstrates a great public interest. Not doing so will unduly restrict editors' contributions to the section, and the exploration of Harris' formative years, in an effort to conform to WP:SIZERULE ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above mentioned reasons. Also, splitting because another page is split is not a reason to do so. As was mentioned above, Biden's and Obama's articles are not ones to aspire too.Naheehsp93 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that User:Fowler&fowler changed their !vote via their talk page because they're currently on a three-day block: "Yes, please consider my vote to be a support for a split. You don't even need to bring the the old early childhood section back as the phrasing now is much better. Just ignore my old vote and let the split stay as is. Apologies for the rigmarole." Since they were the one whose objection led to this discussion, would anyone object if I withdrew this discussion, thus retaining the split? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think from a technical standpoint since there were technically also some other oppositions, you should request formal closure, but I agree that the consensus strongly favors to support the split with Fowler now supporting it in addition to the others (myself included) and the one other user who parallel filed the AfDs that were speedy closed and appears to now have retired from Wikipedia. So based on policy informed opinions (mainly SIZERULE being at the center) the split seems well supported. But since it technically was controversial at first, it's probably better if someone uninvolved closes it per WP:SPLITCLOSE. Raladic (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Appointments by Willie Brown

Personal information is referenced in the first section of the article that should be placed under the Personal Life section. Kamala Harris, “who was dating Willie Brown” should only be mentioned under the Personal Life section as it is for male profiles. Written as is, allows for inference of women’s dating history influencing their career advancement. This is inherent sexism. 2600:1007:B080:412D:45E5:69FC:75FD:5447 (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

In 1994, Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown, who was then dating Harris, appointed her to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later to the California Medical Assistance Commission.

It is not mentioned in the "first section" of the article (which is called the lead). It is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Early career section, where her early California government experience is introduced. It is not inherently sexist. If the Speaker of the California Assembly had been a woman, and appointed a man she was (quite openly) dating to a major state board and a state commission, I believe it would be appropriate to mention that also. The sentence states a well-known and verifiable fact, and does not state, or even suggest, that she was unqualified for the appointment. The personal connection between Brown and Harris is extensively discussed at the 1994 article that sources the information about her appointments, and it would seem quite odd not to mention it. I daresay it is sexist to suggest that this information should be suppressed on the basis that Harris is a woman. General Ization ^Talk 03:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

Kamala Harris was involved in an extramarital relationship with Willie Brown, Speaker of the California State Assembly. During that time Harris was appointed to the California Medical Assistance Commission by Brown. She also dated Montel Williams in coming years. 68.109.9.118 (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Same as above. To add, the article appears to already cover this: "In 1994, Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown, who was then dating Harris, appointed her to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later to the California Medical Assistance Commission." "In the 1990s, Harris dated then-Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown. In 2001, she had a brief dating relationship with talk show host Montel Williams." --Super Goku V (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for your infantile Facebook memes.

1) Brown had been publicly separated for 2 years before entering a relationship with Harris.

2) Harris briefly dated Montel; no he wasn't in a relationship at the time. 1.145.115.40 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Of some relevance is this discussion in Wired of the playbook that arose during the Gamergate campaign and how it has been used in this context with Harris [6]. I don't suggest that it be included here, but there is a common thread in the way a woman's dating history is interpreted. It is analogous (in my view) to the Swiftboat-style methods used with male military veterans. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we add in results of her "tough on crime" stance

NBC news article from July 2024 https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-policies-california-rcna163518 WIKILMK (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to slighly alter the education-part of the Infobox

Change from

• Howard University (BA)
• University of California, Hastings College of the Law (JD)

to

• Howard University (BA)
• University of California College of the Law, San Francisco (JD)

or perhaps an abbreviated version thereof.

The name of the college has changed and this should be reflected in the infobox. Felixsj (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There has already been significant edit-warring on this issue. My personal preference is for the name in effect at the time she graduated. Affixing a name that did not yet exist is an anachronism which professional historians are carefully trained to avoid.

And to be clear, as an undergraduate, I majored in history in one of the highest-ranked departments in the world. One of my recommenders for law school is the current department chair and is famous enough to be the subject of a WP article, on which I am silently recused. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There shouldn't be edit warring at all when the current consensus is to use University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.

Anyways, it seems like the name change is retroactive under Californian law. While we are not bound to follow it, it seems like the Hastings version is considered to have never existed at all. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

What’s the relevance of your second paragraph other than to name drop? 2A02:C7E:2EC1:8D00:4B7:38B1:4018:EB1A (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a policy on this, because it happens frequently today. Often, people's names are removed because of their involvement in slavery, genocide or politically incorrect views. TFD (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Word Salads

Similar to the way the article on Donald Trump mentions his frequent lying, even in the lede, prominent mention of Kamala Harris' frequent, rambling, well-publicized incoherent word salads should be made in this article. TopShelf99 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

sources? Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

pronunciation of Kamala

The pronunciation given on the page is incorrect and it is not how Kamala refers to herself. The correct pronunciation is KəH-mə-lah. That is Kuh muh lah. Kuh muh luh is also ok. The stress is on the first syllable.

Source: Sanskrit english dictionary entry for Lotus. Also type in kamala in google translate for Tamil (kamala’s mother tongue) or Sanskrit to get the right pronunciation.Hariraumurthy (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We need a source of her saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)