Talk:Kamala Harris

The consensus version

The consensus version for describing KH's achievement is the first female vice president of the US, the first African-American, and the first Asian-American. I'm on vacation until mid-February 2021. Admins valereee, MelanieN, Drmies, Muboshgu please note and restore; otherwise, the "ethnic" sub-nationalists and trolls will have a field day. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur this is the consensus version and I have restored it. "First female" is the first sentence since it is the most reported and most historic. "First African-American and first Asian-American" is the second sentence. Terms like South Asian-American, Jamaican-American, and (per the one I just replaced) Caribbean-American and should not be added without a new discussion and a new consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The edits I made did not contradict the overall achievement of Harris being the "First African-American and first Asian-American" Vice President, it simply provided further accurate and separate cited detail regards her own personal family's ancestry. Though I can see the FAQ, I do Respectfully request that someone please guide me to where consensus was actually reached not to include this information. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, archives, linked at top of page. —valereee (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I was unable to spot the RfC in the archives, I now have thanks (maybe a simple specific wiki-link RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead? to similar previous archived discussions would quickly deal unknowing editors like me in future :) Thanks anyway. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And Bodney, the additional information about her ancestry is included in the body of the article, just not in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the lead reflects the article, but I do agree that not everything can or should be in the lead, especially when an article is likely to be extensive based on her own personal biography. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we tweak the FAQ? It says South Asian American throughout, which could be confusing. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should simply be "Asian American". I believe that is what the sources predominantly say. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

They say Asian-American specifically in reference to being vice president. In that position, she is not only the first South Asian, she is the first Asian. We say South Asian for other positions, such as senator where she was the first South Asian but not the first Asian. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If one goes far enough back, you will discover the consensus was South Asian-American. Then Sen. Harris was picked by VP Biden to be the VP nominee, and a large number of editors were attracted to this page. South Asian-American is how Sen. Harris identifies, and that is what should matter. Rklahn (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe we had consensus that the largest group should be used for the "firsts", so rather than first South Asian-American VP-elect, first Asian American was what we went with. For the senate, first South Asian-American. My question was only whether that needed to be further explained in the FAQs. Not that anyone reads them, but it's good to document what current consensus is. —valereee (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Im not sure such a consensus existed, but I am also not the Oracle of consensus. That begin said, yes, there is value in documenting what the current consensus is. I think it moves us closer to consensus having some of the attributes of Stare decisis. I think that this idea floating around Wikipedia that consensus can be achieved, and in the next moment ignored, counterproductive. Rklahn (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn, I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're getting at with that final sentence. —valereee (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Please tweak the FAQ to reflect her new status. Yes, it should be the first female, first African-American, and first Asian-American, in that order. In my view, Af-Ams takes precedence over As-Ams in the context of the US, not only because they go back further in this history of the US (indeed on average they precede even European Americans), but also because they have played a major role in the creation of the American ethos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

PS She is and will remain the second female African-American senator and the first South Asian American (senator) in US history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, can you clarify what you mean by new status? —valereee (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, The point Im getting at is that true consensus on Wikipedia is illusory. On this very page, on this very subject, I worked hard with a group of Editors to achieve a consensus, which we did. Out in the open and on these Talk pages. Less than a week later, that consensus was ignored. So, any move that gets us closer to consensus meaning something is welcome to me. Rklahn (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn, diffs please? I'm still not following. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

By new status I meant from senator to VP-nominee (and VP-elect and eventually VP). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee I cant even find the consensus Im referring to in the Talk Archive. Im reasonably sure it happened before the Talk pages were archived at all, so maybe it got lost in the shuffle. I think at this point the best move for me is to drop the point, which is minor anyways, and to say that I support efforts to document the consensus, whatever it is. Rklahn (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

please read the FAQ above--RegentsPark (comment) 13:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

First African American is disingenuous (at the very least) to say she is African American. Her father was Jamaican...how is this a qualifier for African American inclusion? The last I checked Jamaica was in the Caribbean and not on the continent of Africa. My asking this question and pointing out the obvious probably makes me a racist and surely a half dozen other socially stigmatizing labels. Though an answer would be appreciated. Signed an unimportant IP address editor.2600:1700:7610:41E0:C5FD:ED64:EB06:3ADA (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC) How do you think the Afro-Jamaicans wound up in Jamaica? Magic? Volunteer Marek 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Read the FAQ at the top of the page. This has been answered countless times already. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Wow! what a friendly and courteous answer from a arrogant and aggressive editor. I asked a question and I get sarcasm. Though in your response you do agree with me and yourself call her Afro-Jamaican and not African-American...hmm...interesting...don't ya think? This is probably why this article and many others do not get improved and only sink deeper into the abyss. The second response was much friendlier and appreciated. Thank you. Though I still find it inaccurate and barring a family tree likely inaccurate to be described as it is. Wouldn't one of the terms Black Caribbean, Afro or Black West Indian or Afro or Black Antillean or Afro-Jamaican (as the first respondent used) to be more accurate in describing her ancestry seeing as no documentation or family tree is provided or cited within the article itself. I would think an encyclopedia should be as factual and reference filled before taking a large leap (of faith with assumption) such as this article has done. Thank you and have a blessed day. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:64D8:8847:54E7:E855 (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC) I am Australian and only drop in here occasionally. To answer the comments above, her father was Afro-Jamaican. As she is American, that makes her both Afro-American and Jamaican-American. In Australia, we have politicians who were child immigrants from Malaysia, but they are both Malaysian-Australian and Chinese-Australian. As with many people, if you look at enough generations, you find all sorts of interesting history. --Scott Davis Talk 10:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC) This is well covered ground. Countless editors have spent a long time discussing this, and 2600:1700:7610:41E0:64D8:8847:54E7:E855, you have brought nothing new to the conversation, and ask the same questions countless editors have asked. Please take the time to cover the discussions in the archives. And what the heck? Ill repeat this too. You are confusing race with ethnicity. Race is grouping based on society's view. Ethnicity is grouping based on how people see themselves in common with others. Ms. Harris race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount. She is African-American and South Asian-American. Rklahn (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Start with vice-president elect?

Vice-president elect is the more important title, so it should probably go first. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 05:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This non-American, like most of the rest of the 95% of the world's population outside the USA, would never have heard of her had she not been a Vice-Presidential candidate. Definitely the most important part of her bio. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m sure if the wmflabs showed countries in the page views, the majority would be coming from the United States. At any rate, she’s still a Senator until January 20, 2021. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Trillfendi (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Not concretely until January 20, 2021. She can resign as US Senator anytime, between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Saying "Vice-President Elect" does not require a crystal ball. She is absolutely, definitely that at this very moment. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, that much is true. I’m talking about sentatorship, we have no way of knowing if she will resign before the Inauguration. Trillfendi (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

She has to resign from the Senate, before Noon EST on 20 January 2021, if she wants to become U.S. Vice President. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a Californian and clearly its far more notable that she is Vice President-Elect than a Senator from California. Rklahn (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's only a title, where's a Senator is an actual position. Anyways, order them in any manner yas can agree on. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I prefer using a temporal sequence of past, present, future. She is currently a U.S. senator and will become the vice president. So senator should come first. TFD (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, VP-elect is more noteworthy and should be listed first. – Anne drew 21:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• It seems to be taken as given that the "most important" thing should come first. But that's not obvious. Various approaches may be appropriate: less important to more important (or the reverse), general to specific (or the reverse), earlies to latest (or the reverse). It all depends. EEng 05:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat my point from above. The ONLY reason, not the most important reason, people outside the USA have even heard of Harris is because she was a VP candidate and is now the VP elect. Those people outside the USA are 95% of the world's population. This is a global encyclopaedia. To emphasise anything but being VP elect would be classic US centrism. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Well by that reasoning, the fact that she's the VP-elect is the thing readers least need to be told. But anyway, you're completely ignoring my point by continuing to act like it's a given that the "most important" thing has to come first. That's just not true, regardless of who we think the reader is. And how 'bout if we skip the part where a minor editorial decision gets blown up into a question of global social justice? We're talking about the order of points within a single sentence. EEng 20:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not talking about the most important thing coming first. I am talking about the ONLY important thing (to at least 95% of our readers) coming first. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well since nothing else is important, we'll just end the article there. In fact, since as you say everyone knows the one thing that's important, there's no point in an article at all. EEng 21:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• VP-elect, and in 99.9999999999% likelihood VP in a month, is the most noteworthy position. There are 100 senators, but only one VP, and the VP has the tiebreaker over senators anyway. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has 'reverted' back to having US Senator listed first, so apparently there's no huge objections to the change. The intro will be changing 'slightly' again in four weeks. So no big deal. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Padilla

Padilla has not yet succeeded Harris, he has only been designated as the successor, so it should say "designate" by his name, unless there is a policy in this area. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

We won't be adding Padilla to the infobox, until he's sworn in as US Senator. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That works, too. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

semi-p

I've semi-protected this talk page for a bit due to vandalism. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

" … is an American politician"

I agree with EEng's now reverted change to the lede. It is definitely unnecessary to say "American politician". GoodDay reverted with an appeal to the lede of Joe Biden—but that may well not make sense either. I would support returning to EEng's version. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Many (if not most) of the intros to the US presidents & vice presidents use American politician. Personally, I don't care if we use it or not, but we shouldn't single out Kamala Harris. We should have some kinda standard intro for all these bios-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Donald Trump doesn't say "American politician" either (although that's maybe a special case). I agree in principle that articles should be consistent, but not at the expense of unnecessary verbiage. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It's being considered though, at the Trump bio article. If American is removed from the intros of all the US president & US vice president bio articles? I'd be ok with it. After all, you have to be a natural-born US citizen to serve in those two offices. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP. Consistency among articles is the weakest of arguments, because without deviation from the norm progress is impossible. Anyway, Biden doesn't say that anymore. (And before your revert finger gets itchy, that's been discussed.) EEng 00:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've already opened up (a few days ago) a discussion about what should be in Biden's intro, when he becomes US president. By all means give your input there. As for the 'two' bios? go ahead & (again) remove American from their intros. Indeed, the exclusion will highlight the general discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for this change? If "American politician" and in specific cases another profession of consequence ("lawyer," "soldier," "philanthropist") is good for FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and other general descriptions (involving nationality and professions) are being used for the giants of the modern era such as Gandhi, Churchill, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, how have you divined an exemption for Kamala Harris? Another example of an arbitrary edit inadequately argued, which I won't revert just yet, but I expect the other discussants here to do so. Worse yet, it privileges Americans to be an anonymous default who are expected to be sufficiently well-known the world over to not require a description of nationality or general profession. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to say exactly what Fowler said. We should say she “is an American attorney and politician" because that's what she is. And follow it with her current position(s), because those are things that change with time - they are not a permanent condition or description of her. Starting with the nationality and the profession is encyclopedic. That’s how we begin almost all biographies. For a random sample, see Dr. Seuss, Joe Namath, Anthony Fauci, Chevy Chase, Dolly Parton, Mr. T. For politician examples see Gavin Newsom, Lindsey Graham, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pete Buttigieg. Chose a dozen random examples of your own and you’ll see. This is how we do it. There is no justification to invent some different approach for her, which I see is a very recent change.[1] I am going to revert to the longstanding standard format while we discuss it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

What about the Joe Biden intro? I took American out of that one. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Christ, the ridiculous things people choose to get exercised about. The change at issue is [2]

Kamala Devi Harris is an American politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California.

• I removed American politician because readers not mentally defective, from whatever geography or culture, will know without being told that an American vice-president-to-be is (duh!) an American politician – nothing to do with "privileging Americans to be an anonymous default who are expected to be sufficiently well-known the world over to not require a description of nationality". There's been a recent rash of this kind of knee-jerk scolding not matching the facts, and this American would appreciate a moratorium on it.
• Nor does it have anything to do with [blah blah blah blah bullshit about Americentricism] regarding omission of "general profession", because the prior text didn't give her profession (beyond "politician", which as already noted is painfully obvious, and isn't a profession anyway).
• Monkey see, monkey do -- appeal to what other articles look like -- is the weakest of arguments, because each article's subject has its own subtleties determining what best serves the reader's understanding, and without deviation from the norm there can be no progress.
• I always laugh when someone says something is or is not "encyclopedic", because that's a meaningless codeword for "I do/don't like it".
• I've reverted to the text before the change, not MelanieN's preferred version from twelve days ago.

EEng 04:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Very well, on that last point, I've reverted myself at the Biden article. Will wait to see, what gets settled here. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you could have left Biden so long as others were content to leave it as well. I only made the change I just mentioned, here, because Melanie had inappropriately changed to some version she preferred from weeks ago, and there was no way that was going to stand. EEng 05:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Oddly enough (or maybe not), this bio seems to get more attention then the Biden bio. I just go by this one, though as we get closer to the inauguration, Biden will possibly get the spotlight treatment, again. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: What or who you laugh at, who you consider "mentally defective," whether or not you claim the mantle of an "American," has no meaning in a WP argument. It does matter to a discussion though that your post above is laced with grammatical and semantic errors and you frame the argument incorrectly. The present perfect (has been) implies a connection with the present including the action of the verb taking place recently; there is no need for "There's been a recent rash." People who use it, do so incorrectly or redundantly. The "code word" (a euphemism) "encyclopedic," in your description, has the meaning of "I don't like it." It is therefore not "meaningless."

As for the framing of the argument, the consensus version is KH "is an American attorney and politician. She is etc. etc.)" MelanieN's reversion is the correct one. You can change "attorney" to "lawyer" (the more commonly used word) but you cannot remove it. It is an essential aspect of KH's career; she rose from District Attorney, State Attorney General, to a Senator who has focused on issues of justice (cf RFK). As for, "because each article's subject has its own subtleties determining what best serves the reader's understanding," we are talking about the lead sentence about which MOS:CONTEXTBIO is fairly clear. Further, it is not obvious to a general WP reader that an American office-holder is an American citizen with no other citizenship. This is not the case in several EU countries. George Papandreou, a former Greek PM, was Greek and American. A recent Governor of the Bank of England (their Federal Reserve) was a Canadian with dual British nationality. Going back further, Benjamin Franklin, a founding father, and head of the postal service, had dual British and American citizenship. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Followers of my talk page know that a sure way to humiliate yourself is to exhibit something you think is proof of your superior knowledge of grammar and style but which is really just one more clinker from the second-rate writer's slagheap of tired WP:MISSSNODGRASSisms. My go-to sources in such situations are the justices of the US Supreme Court, so despite your nonsense about the present perfect and so on, I'll take (as a random example) John Paul Stevens over you: "Admittedly, there has been a recent surge in scholarship asserting..." (553 U.S. 35, 79 n.13.) Plus, of course, there's the fact that under your ridiculous theory any formulation along the lines of "Smith has been, in the past, ..." would be impossible. (I'm a graduate of [name of breathtakingly prestigious postsecondary institution liberally supplied with complete assholes redacted] , so I've spent plenty of time around supercilious know-it-alls, and while I can see you're doing your best to compete in that department you haven't got the chops. It's painful to watch, so please stop trying.)
• it is not obvious to a general WP reader that an American office-holder is an American citizen – We're not talking about "an office-holder", we're talking about the president. And I didn't say it would be "obvious" the American president is an American, I said readers will naturally assume it unless told otherwise. (If the US president wasn't an "American" -- whatever that means, but that's the wording of the lead -- THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.)
• with no other citizenship – In point of fact there's not legal bar to the president having other citizenship (though there's undoubtedly a practical bar), and anyway the word American doesn't tell the reader anything about that issue either way. So this is a complete irrelevancy you've introduced, and betrays significant confusion on your part.

If you'd like me to make a further fool of you with respect to any other point in your post, just let me know. EEng 05:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. A canon is a rule or principle, while a cannon [3] is a piece of artillery, Mr. Grammatical and Semantic Errors and Framing of the Argument.

@EEng: RE Christ, the ridiculous things people choose to get exercised about. If anyone here is “exercised”, the vehemence of your language suggest that it’s you. Let’s try to remain cordial and collegial, shall we? My position is not “ridiculous”; it is based on Wikipedia’s standard format.

Here is the situation: You wish to change the standard style for the first sentence of this biography. That will require a local consensus. The standard style for a Wikipedia biography is for the first sentence to list the person’s nationality and their profession or what they are notable for. That is explicitly stated at at MOS:OPENPARABIO. It states, very clearly, that a biography’s opening sentence/paragraph should usually include “Context (location or nationality)”. This is further expanded at MOS:CONTEXTBIO, where it specifically says to name “the country of which the person is a citizen”.

That’s per MOS. To determine actual current practice, I and others looked at a random bunch of biography articles and found that all the ones we looked at do use the MOS recommended style; that is, they have as their first sentence, “Joe Blow is a (nationality) (profession)”. That format is followed almost universally, so it presumably has consensus as well as as an MOS guideline. Doing it some other way will require a local consensus for the change. Since you wist to omit the nationality and profession for this article, you need to find a local consensus to do it. This is not impossible; it was done by a local consensus at Donald Trump. But you will need to find better arguments.

I should add that I believe the MOS style is correct, because the first sentence of any article is supposed to define the subject, per MOS:FIRST. We define the subject by saying what they ARE - doctor, writer, attorney, or whatever - because that is a permanent thing about them, whereas the current position they hold will change with time and is not definitive of them. She has held multiple positions during her three decades as a public employee; the most recent three of those positions were notable enough for her to have an article, so she did not suddenly achieve notability by becoming vice president-elect. The actual position does not define her.

I’ll let the “attorney” question pass for now, although I do think it should be there. That’s another discussion for another day. First we need to determine whether there is a consensus here to use a non-standard style for the lead sentence in this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Same as my argument at Joe Biden: The introduction of an encyclopedia article should follow the "#1 thing rule". If there was one thing and only one thing we could tell our readers about Kamala Harris, what would it be? That she is the vice president-elect of the United States. Thus, the article should begin, Kamala Devi Harris (/ˈkɑːmələ/ KAH-mə-lə; born October 20, 1964) is the vice president-elect of the United States... Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a no go on any change from the house style for me. She became an attorney in 1990, a politician (in extended usage) around 2005. The lead sentence should remain: "KH is an American attorney and politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States." "American" is important because some readers might not be aware that a US Vice-President needs to be a native-born US citizen, in contrast, for example, to the governor of a US State (cf Arnold Schwarzenegger). Limiting the lead sentence to the most significant or notable biographical attribute might not be possible because it might not be possible to select such an attribute. What after all is Arnold in one attribute or two? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but re She became an attorney in 1990, a politician (in extended usage) around 2005. Actually, between 2005 and 2017 she was functioning as both an attorney and a politician: she was an elected official and thus a politician, but her elected position was as district attorney or attorney general and thus still a practicing lawyer. For 27 years out of her 30 year career, she functioned primarily as an attorney. So of course "attorney" needs to be part of our primary definition of who she is. But as I said, let's save that argument for a later section, and leave this discussion to be about "American". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"American" doesn't mean native-born US citizen. Every US president, by virtue of being US president, will identify as an American. "US President" = first citizen. "POTUS" is redundant of "American politician". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

And we say it every time anyhow. Even though it's redundant. See Emmanuel Macron: "...is a French politician who has been serving as the president of France since..." See Pierre Trudeau: "...was a Canadian politician who was the 15th prime minister of Canada...". See every recent U.S. president: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan... well, you get the idea. I hope. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We need to stop. (nationality) (occupation) works fine most of the time—even almost all of the time—but not all the time. There are some biographies where something else is better. Biographies of heads of state/government are such examples. We don't say that "Elizabeth II is a British monarch who is Queen of the UK" because that would be dumb. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It is customary on almost every Wikipedia biography to put the nationality of the subject in the first sentence, even if it seems redundant. I think we should maintain this custom here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent trimming

Of the changes in the recent trimming, I object to the removal of the information about conviction rate under Harris. Yes, it could be due to any number of things due to her leadership, but the same can be said about almost any metric within an area under a leadership position (e.g. economy under a president, crime level under a police chief). The article for her successor mentions a rise in property crime, if precedent makes any difference. Otherwise, I thank those involved for their hard work. Typeprint (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I stand by this edit, unless there are sources that credit her in particular for the change in conviction rate. In a top-level biography of a major political figure, we shouldn't be including information that isn't clearly related to the subject herself. Moreover, I don't really see how this is that helpful even if it is linked to Harris herself somehow. Is a 20 percent increase in the conviction rate (which could indicate a change in: (i) the kinds of people charged; (ii) the kinds of people arrested; (iii) the number of guilty pleas; etc; etc) really that meaningful a metric? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

For the backlog of homicide cases at the start of her term, 32 out of 73 involved plea bargain deals while claiming that those cases shouldn't have been charged in the first place due to insufficient evidence, and for 2007-2008 homicides had been at an all-time high. However, the District Attorney's Office used it as one of its standards, and the 2008 Harris campaign website had a page for these statistics as one of eight platform planks. Harris also claimed that "the improvement" could be attributed toward a new focus on violent crime and gun and drug violations as a catalyst for violent crime. If nothing else, the official emphasis on it is worth mentioning. Typeprint (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

When she becomes Vice President, a lot of the minutiae will have to be removed anyway. Trillfendi (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Trillfendi, Or moved to Tenure of Kamala Harris as California Attorney General or similar. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Reversion

Fowler&fowler has now reverted my extremely selective trimming of this extremely long article (including a few selective, uncontroversial copyedits, and an addition of content), ignoring the specific rationales I provided for each edit. I don't really know how to respond to this blanket reversion because it ignores the individual rationales I provided for each removal, nor do I know how to seek consensus for each removal (including one by Neutrality) since they've all been removed as a group. Fowler, please explain how my rationales are inadequate. By the way, I specifically chose to do these edits individually, so that they could be reverted individually if someone has a specific objection. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The substantive diffs are:

1. Special:Diff/996009877
2. Special:Diff/996012768
3. Special:Diff/996026331
4. Special:Diff/996051759
5. Special:Diff/996052425
6. Special:Diff/996052540
7. Special:Diff/996052733
8. Special:Diff/996124462
9. Special:Diff/996124531

I leave for the community to decide whether "prior to" -> "before"—the only edit that Fowler specifically objected to—is preferable. For my part, I see no reason to use two words when we could just use one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You had removed one-seventh of the article. And before that another one-fourteenth. That's nearly one-fifth. We play by the same rules. For an article as much edited as KH, we discuss non-trivial edits on the talk page first, garnering consensus here. We don't make impatient hurried divinations of consensus either but allow all editors who have taken part in the previous edits to get a fair chance, and that takes time, several days if not a week. That has been the etiquette and precedent here. Neither do we dump links on this page; we explain the specific points in separate paragraphs so that those who bear the thankless task of maintaining this page are no more inconvenienced than they already are. We especially don't further specialize the content of a source: e.g. we don't change KH's statement about taking responsibility for all legal briefs related to transgender inmates and gender reassignment surgery to one for Michelle Norsworthy, whom KH did not mention by name (as far as I could tell in the source). As for preferring one word to two, I could chop that sentence down even further, turn the lead into a haiku. Why not prefer "Earlier she was the US senator from California," for example? While I'm at it, I think this article has matured enough that editors who add personal POV in their edit summaries such as ("clunky construction" etc.) should not be making them. If you cannot specify the point of grammar, style, or usage, then don't make the edit, at least not in the lead. This will be my only reply. As I've stated, I'm on vacation. Others who watch this page, and have participated actively, MelanieN, Valereee, DrMies, Muboshgu, Rklahn, ... eventually will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, Yes, we "play by the same rules". Those rules are found at WP:BRD, which specify that reverting is a last resort and that you should explain the reasons for your reversion with a view towards achieving consensus. Edits even to high-traffic articles such as this one are not settled on the talk first, because then no substantial changes would ever be made. As for the list of diffs: I clearly explained my reasons for each edit in the edit summary itself; I don't see why I ought to duplicate my explanation again.

As for the substance of your comment: you have provided a valid critique of one of my edits (Special:Diff/996009378), which could have easily been remedied by ordinary editing. With respect to the lede, both "prior to" and "before" are grammatical. Rather, it's a point of style or usage—brevity is generally preferable to verbosity.

Finally, it strikes me as rather disingenuous to revert my edits, citing WP:BRD, without actually engaging in substantive discussion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's point, I think, is well taken. It's a lot of substantive edits over a short period of time, and with this page being BLP and all, we should proceed conservatively. Also, with at least a third of the world going into Christmas and the holiday season more than the usual amount of time should be put into achieving consensus. I have some comments on the actual edits, and if we are going to be doing this, at least one other largish scale edit that has not been proposed, but am holding off for the time being. Rklahn (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn, I would be interested in hearing your proposed edit, as well as any comments you might have on the diffs above. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• For an article as much edited as KH, we discuss non-trivial edits on the talk page first, garnering consensus here. – What a lot of bullshit. WP:BEBOLD applies here just like on any other article; I cut Joe Biden by 25% singlehandedly over six days (and I only got halfway through it). If you object to certain edits, then do what other editors did while I was working on Biden: selectively revert the edits, or correct them, or build on them. Selectively. Mass reversion of others' hard work is asinine, disrespectful, and counter to Wikipedia's ethos.
  In fact, let me quote here excerpts from some excellent advice found in the essay WP:Revert only when necessary:

• Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.
• Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.
• Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad, and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. (To do this, you can use the "undo" button, then type back in what you want to keep). If a supporter of the reverted edit wants to save more of it, that editor can re-edit in smaller pieces and the article can converge on a consensus version that way.
• Do not revert an edit because you need more time to determine whether you agree with the edit.

Unfortunately the above isn't guideline or policy (yet); but BEBOLD is, and don't you forget it, you who think everything has to be done by plodding consensus. EEng 04:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, again, I cant dive into this topic in the depth it deserves, but find that I must say something. AleatoryPonderings made a lot of edits, some of which I would have made myself, some of which I would not, and as I already mentioned, would make additional edits along the same lines. But it's a lot to take in, and it's a major holiday period for much of the world. There is a time and place for everything, and I don't think that anything in be bold contradicts that. On top of that, the article is extended confirmed protected, not all of us can participate by direct editing, which I think a reading of be bold would imply. I think the best way forward here is for everyone to read assume good faith, civility, and especially five pillars, and hold off on major edits. The status quo will stand just fine for 24-48 hours. Rklahn (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the majority of editors watching are extended-confirmed, and no one has to hold off (though taking things at a moderate pace -- whatever that means -- and working in bite-sized, surgical edits is always a good idea). Any edits made will stand just fine for 24-48 hours until you can get around to taking a look; there are plenty of others watching. Even if not every individual edit is desirable, unless you can show that all the edits, taken in sum, make the article worse, then the article will be, during that time, as good or better than it was before. Maybe you should reread what I posted above. EEng 12:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

BEBOLD concludes with: "Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted. ... Instead of getting upset, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. After the reversion of your bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as to not start an edit war; see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more." I have reverted the BOLD deletions. I or others will discuss them here when we find the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

EEng#s I read what you said. I disagree with much of it. I think this article has found a workflow that seems to work for most editors. I think there is something to local convention with edits to articles. One has to take all the pillars, policies and guidelines, and make it fit to a particular situation. Its easy to make a claim that most of the editors here are extended-confirmed when one is extended-confirmed. I guess that as someone who is not, I just have to accept the fact that Im in a minority. Again, my advice, which no-one is under any obligation to follow, is to hold off for a little while, and be civil to each other. Rklahn (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The important thing for everyone to remember here is that I was right. You see, the reason EEng pinged me in his edit summary earlier saying I would find this interesting is because back when EEng made a rather significant copyedit to the Joe Biden article, I said to him that he's one of very, very few editors who could actually perform a significant copyedit of a high-profile article like that, because if any other ordinary, mortal editor tried to do it, someone would come along and revert it all and say that it all had to be discussed first. And voila! Thank you, AleatoryPonderings and Fowler&fowler for proving my case.

It has been thoroughly litigated, and recently, and is a firm principle that has global consensus, that unless an article has a Consensus Required restriction in place, nobody is required to obtain consensus on the talk page first before making an edit. Nobody is required to wait to make edits until other people can review them. Reverting an edit simply because it hasn't been discussed is not a valid grounds for reversion on any article that does not have the Consensus Required restriction. The objection to the edit must be made at the time of the reversion; not "I'll revert now and explain later". There is longstanding global consensus on these matters.

So, Fowler, I think you need to state your objections to these edits, please, or else they should be restored. Those you don't object to should be restored. If anyone thinks this article should have a "discuss first" rule, they need to get the Consensus Required restriction placed on the article (which can be done in various ways, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page).

Merry Christmas, Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

WP:SS has directions for reducing an oversized article; it does not involve deletion, but forms of higher-level precis writing, i.e. more qualitative summations of content using the same or better sources. When portions of the article are spun off, the highest-level summary is needed in the parent article. There was nothing of that sort in the edits I reverted. When new content was introduced, it invariably began with, "In 20--, KH was ..." signifying a simple narration of factual events. I'm sorry I have not read your self-congratulatory Wikilawyering, Levivich. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying the article is too large, and WP:SS has nothing to do with this. While we're on the subject, A.P. didn't cut the article by a fifth, as you say, but rather 8% (in word count). Next time, before you go stomping about upbraiding people take the trouble to get your facts straight. If you need a refresher on working out ratios, adding fractions, and other hard stuff like that, I'll be happy to help. EEng 05:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. Levivich. You are right. But I think the truly important thing that happened here is that there were edits, a reversion was made, and it did not result in an edit war.

That being said. Im against further sanctions on this page. But I must say, this idea of "global consensus" is new to me. Is this codified anywhere? Policies and guidelines I know about, and we seem to still be within the bounds of them. We try and avoid hard and fast rules here, but IMHO, dropping in large scale edits breaks local convention, and I think User:Fowler&fowler was completely in bounds to revert, and the reasoning in the edit summary was enough. In fact, IMHO, more than enough. Rklahn (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rklahn: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and see also WP:Consensus required, which describes that particular restriction. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: If the page were to be consensus required restricted, we would have to follow a process extremely similar to what was followed here. And I don't see how WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was crossed. That being said, Im now trying to find a way to address the substantive comments on the edits. Rklahn (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing substantive at all (well, see exception to follow) having been offered as to why any of AleatoryPonderings's and Neutrality's edits is a detriment, I've restored them, including any made since then except (1) my own removal of is an American politician who is (which is under active discussion), and the change from prior to to before, which F&F complained about in his edit summary [4]. I've reviewed the edits and, while I can't say I would have made all the same edits in the same way, the article appears better off with them than without them, certainly in sum if not for sure in every individual case. And some of the reverted changes are clearly indisputable corrections of errors, so by blindly reverting F&F reintroduced errors into the article – clear proof the he didn't bother to even look at the changes.
  Of course, anyone who can now improve the article even more by selectively reverting, modifying, correcting, or improving any of these changes, giving substantive reasons, should do so. Counterfactual assertions that changes can't be made without prior review, complaints about the rate of changes, and other empty non-justification justifications for rejecting changes which you personally can't be bothered to look at, aren't substantive. EEng 05:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)