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)

You said there was only one important fact about KM. You also said that everyone already knows that fact. If that's so, then I guess there's nothing the reader needs to learn, and we don't need an article. According to your logic, anyway. EEng 06:20, 27 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)

" … 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 (see, for example, [3]). 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 no 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 [4] is a piece of artillery, Mr. Grammatical and Semantic Errors and Framing of the Argument.

@EEng: The late John Paul Stevens, with whom I share an alma mater, is someone I respect; however, he is not a grammar or style reference. A "rash" is "a large number of instances or manifestations in the same period." (Webster's Unabridged, the dictionary of last resort for AmE.) Your error was in placing side by side the adjective "recent" and the noun "rash" after the present perfect "has been." If you want to indicate the time precisely with the present perfect, you can use the adverb "recently," as in" "Quite recently, we have seen a rash of archaeological forgeries ..." (adverb in the front position) or as in "We have quite recently seen a rash of archaeological forgeries ..." (adverb in mid-position) or "We have seen a rash of archaeological forgeries quite recently" (adverb in end-position). But you cannot say, "We have seen a recent rash of archaeological forgeries." It is incorrect for the reasons I have explained above; at the very least it is redundant and confusing. I'm by no means a prescriptive grammarian, but we can't discuss issues of grammar by running harum-scarum for counterexamples that are offered without explanations.

I note that we all make such errors, and we cut others slack for such errors when made during purposeful communication, but when the errors occur in long run-on sentences (as your first post was), with relentless reference to yourself or your activities, not to mention abusive asides or rarely used Latinisms, we are not communicating purposefully. (Type "relevancy" in Webster's Unabridged and watch it take you only to "relevance.") Communication, after all, is the purpose here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

PS As for "cannon" and "canon," typos, which I do admit to making, are not the same as errors of grammar or coherence. Please see, for example, "... and under which the Buddha is recorded in the Pali canon to have sought enlightenment." in the biodiversity section of my FA India) for correct usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I note that you also don't know what a run-on sentence is, though as the author of It is also now commonly worn with an Indian blouse, or choli, which serves as the primary upper-body garment, the sari's end, passing over the shoulder, now primarily serving to break the upper body's contours, and to cover the midriff [5] you might want to avoid the whole subject, Mr. Hare 'Em Scare 'Em Featured Article. EEng 13:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, you are not going to win the argument about a grammatical point ("recent rash" etc) by floundering for examples everywhere. That sentence is not run-on: it has an extra comma, a typo: It should be: "It is also now commonly worn with an Indian blouse, or choli, which serves as the primary upper-body garment, the sari's end, passing over the shoulder, now primarily serving to break the upper body's contours and to cover the midriff." The main clause is followed by a long appositive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my god, it's unbelievable. I didn't say it was a run-on; I said you didn't seem to know what a run-on is, and exhibited a sentence of your own of the kind that you apparently thought constitutes a run-on (though you seem to have since gotten clear on the definition). I'm not trying to "win the argument" – remember, Wikipedia is not about whining – but I'm now really interested to see how long you'll keep digging. EEng 16:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course you did. Moreover, you couldn't hack the discussion on grammar here, so you want cherry-picking elsewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sad. EEng 08:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've even corrected it (see here) and thanked you in the edit summary; but that was not a run-on sentence, just hard to parse with the extra comma. And I thank you again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. EEng 16:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: RE Christ, the ridiculous things people choose to get exercised about. If anyone here is “exercised”, the vehemence of your language suggests 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)

I didn't say your position is ridiculous; I said getting exercised about the question (and, especially, seeing in it grave issues of US-centricism) is ridiculous, and it is. EEng 05:26, 27 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)

That's rarely stopped us before. EEng 05:37, 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)

I have no idea why we would compare the biography of a major monarch who has been on her throne for almost 69 years with the biography of an American politician (there I said it) who has been in elected office for 17 years and only achieved widespread fame in recent months. I think we should write the first clauses of the first sentences of our biographies in the most simple and most informative and direct way, for the benefit of young students in Malawi or wherever who just got internet access. I understand the arguments to the contrary and they are worthy of discussion. What I don't understand is the vehemence and scathing tone of the conversation, introduced by my friend EEng, in the editor's comment at 05:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC). Why conduct such simple conversations about a relatively trivial point in such a confrontational way? Let's tone it down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps my friend Cullen didn't review the post by F&F to which I was responding. You know how I despise ignorantly pretentious high-handed grammar lectures (unless coming from me, of course). EEng 06:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You are so extremely intelligent and highly educated that I am compelled to tell you the same thing twice, EEng. Please tone it down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar lecture give Hulk flashbacks! Hulk angry!

Assuming no more lectures from Miss Snodgrass's minions, or bullshit about wording that "privileges Americans", you'll find me good as gold. To your original question (why we would compare the biography of a major monarch who has been on her throne for almost 69 years with the biography of an American politician), the answer is: because the common principle that applies stems from the nature of the office, not the prominence of the office-holder or the length of their incumbancy. An example quite (I think) avoiding your objection is Naruhito, whom we describe as Emperor of Japan, not (say) a Japanese guy who is Emperor of Japan. EEng 07:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Re why we compare Elizabeth II to Kamala Harris: In the case of any head of state, our reader–even young students in Malawi who just got internet access–will discern that a head of state is a member of that state. Thus, the Queen of England is English. The President of the United States is an American. Similarly, a head of government is a politician. Even Malawian students, if they know what the word "politician" means, will know that the President of the United States is a politician. The words "American politician" add no meaning to, and further no one's understanding of the words "President of the United States". Same with Vice-President. Same with Queen, King, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and similar ranks. Everyone knows the President of France is a French politician and the Prime Minister of Canada is a Canadian politician. The Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party? Our readers will understand that he is a communist Chinese politician.

I don't want to keep beating this horse, but put me down for preferring this lead, which says "American attorney and politician", without requiring the use of those words:

Kamala Devi Harris (/ˈkɑːmələ/ KAH-mə-lə; born October 20, 1964) is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California. Prior to her election to the Senate, she was Attorney General of California.

Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Treating this 'one' article different from the rest, is a non-starter for me. Suggest having a use or don't use "American.." RFC, covering all US presidents & vice presidents bios. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line thus far is that there is no temper, mood, or argument here for changing the Wikipedia standard: "KH is an American attorney and politician who is ..." MelanieN notes that she does not want to include "attorney" in this discussion thread, i.e. restrict it only to "politician," and I'm fine with that too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Since it's been mentioned. We treat monarch intros differently in this manner, compared to presidents. Something that I'm content with. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Better watch it before F&F gives you a lecture on sentence fragments. EEng 13:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

:) EEng. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good point @GoodDay:. I haven't read the discussions for those in MOS, but monarchs whether they are absolute monarchs (and thus have all attributes of power) or constitutional ones (and have no real attributes of power) don't really specialize in anything, and for the most part, do not have an occupation (other than being monarch) that is notable. Compare Charles I of England (monarch) for example, with his successor Oliver Cromwell. But kings or emperors who have had an independent career earlier such as Napoleon may have their nationality and occupation mentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Another reason why we don't specify citizenship or profession for monarchs may be that historically many monarchs were NOT actually citizens or natives of the land they were ruling. Think of the kings of England who were actually German or Norman, for example. Think of the children of Queen Victoria; they figure in the family trees of royalty all over Europe. Just a side note to an off-topic but interesting conversation. (And an illustration that I, too, know the value of sentence fragments.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it's RFC time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Then let's have the RfC on some other talk page, and leave this one to follow the standard format until your objection to it is supported by an RfC in some more general venue. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to have one RFC on this page about this article's lead. After all, I don't think anyone has a problem with (nationality) (occupation) as general MOS guidance, and I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea to replace (nationality) (occupation) with some other one-size-fits-all rule to apply to Vice Presidents. We don't need to have an MOS RFC to confirm that we can make exceptions to the MOS, and we don't need to change the MOS to make an exception here. (I think this content dispute is an example of why MOS is a guideline and there's never consensus to promote it to policy.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

We should have an RFC to covering all US presidents & vice presidents. At the very least include Joe Biden, since he & Harris will be serving together. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No. See below. EEng 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I am perfectly OK with settling this right here with a local consensus. My suggestion "take it to a more general forum" was based about the suggestions here (if I understand them correctly) that we should remove "American" from ALL presidential and vice presidential articles. IMO a decision about the Kamala Harris article does not require the launch of a new RFC, since in effect we have been having an RfC for days now. Personally I hate it when a long, thoughtful discussion is overridden by a brand new RfC, so that we all have to either repeat ourselves or get ignored. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if MOS were policy it would change little for present purposes, since every MOS page starts by saying it's best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply – qualifications all too many editors can't seem to keep in mind. EEng 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yabut who are the Wikipedians who write "best treated with common sense" into our PAGs and expect that it will actually mean something to someone??? Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Why? Every article has its own considerations. Holding an RFC elsewhere before we can decide on a particular article, or insisting that we have to come to some global decision about all bios of a certain type, presupposes that articles are supposed to follow a rigid format, like filling in blanks on a form. But hey, if you want to go over to MOS and hold an RFC on changing the CONTEXTBIO wording from its current should usually and most cases to "absolutely must" and "no exceptions", then I'd enjoy seeing people's reactions. EEng 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Remember, you're the one who started this whole thing ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And I'm happy to finish it -- here. I have an idea. Let's cast back two weeks to

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

I actually have no objection (subtle reasons -- details on request) to American when adjoined to attorney, but surely, SURELY readers don't need to be told that the US president is a politician. So how about

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

--? Can we live with that? EEng 17:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I for one can live with that. Possible grammar quibble: should we say "...who is the vice president-elect..."? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. If Susan Rice, a strong contender for VP, had been chosen instead of KH, the lead sentence would have read, "SR is a former American diplomat, policy advisor, and public official who is the Vice President-elect of the United States," not because she would a fortiori have become a politician, but because she would not. KH, on the other hand, has been a politician for quite some time. Had she not been anointed VP by Biden, the lead of her WP page would have begun exactly as it did on 10 January 2019, "KH is an American lawyer and politician serving as the junior senator from California since 2017." Being anointed VP has made her not a whit more political, at any rate, not yet. For the record, I prefer "lawyer." "Attorney" is more AmE usage; "lawyer" is universal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ummm... F&F, what does "of course not" refer to? Of course we don't say the before vice-president elect? Or of course we can't live with EEng's proposal? Or something else? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. It means we can't live with EEng's proposal. This is because the term VP or VP-elect does not subsume the term "politician," Susan Rice being a case in point. Had she been chosen by Biden, we would certainly not have used "politician" for her, but only because she has given scant evidence of being one thus far. She would not have magically become a politician by someone else's choice. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and RFK pages have both "politician" and "attorney" (or lawyer) because they had significant independent careers as politicians and lawyers. Jimmy Carter has had one as a politician and philanthropist; Eisenhower had one as a politician and soldier. To give another example, if four years later a President Kamala Harris has chosen Bill Gates as her VP, we won't say "politician" for him either because (very likely) he would have had no history of being one. His page would begin: "BG is a/an (former) American businessman, entrepreneur, and philanthropist who is the Vice President-elect of the United States." But if she were to choose Mayor Bloomberg, the latter's page would begin: Mike Bloomberg is an American politician and (former) businessman who is the Vice President-elect of the United States." (After a VP-elect is sworn in as VP, the last part of the phrasing will change: ... has served as the VP of the US since ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Off topic. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What exact 'word' are you objecting to? GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Dropping "politician." I'm afraid I see dropping either "politician" or "attorney" to be a case of KH being held to a different standard on account of being a woman. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Fowler&fowler, how very dare you assert that we're holding Harris to a different standard because she's a woman? Shows what you know! Personally, I'm holding her to a different standard because she's African American/Asian American! Here, let's take a poll: pinging Levivich, MelanieN to indicate the source of their bias below. And GoodDay, AleatoryPonderings: though I can't tell where you two come down on the attorney question, no doubt wherever it is it's for some biased reason, so please enter your name below to tell which bias it is. Thanks! EEng 02:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Editors holding Harris to a different standard because she's a woman: Editors holding Harris to a different standard because she's African/Asian American: EEng Please, EEng, don't do this. It's wildly inappropriate. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Ive been searching for about the last 5 minutes on how to say this. But Ill make it short. I agree with AleatoryPonderings, wildly inappropriate. Rklahn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC) @EEng:: Please don't overdo the male adolescent high jinks. Please also don't make silly comments about ratios and percentages. You don't know enough to take me on, just as you did not about grammar. Would you like to meet at Sylow theorems or Galois group or Stone-Weierstrass theorem or the Riemann Hypothesis? That's only undergraduate material. If you can't then please don't presume to tell me about percentages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Certainly looks like I hit a nerve there. It goes without saying that you don't know who you're dealing with either, but I repeat that I'll be there for you when you're ready for a refresher on percentages [6]. Listen, the amusement's beginning to wear off so from here on out you'll just have to flail and sputter on without me. EEng 08:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) @EEng: Please also remove that pathetic joke of a caption, "She's had a long career under several distinguished commanders," you have added to the picture File:Khajuraho-erotischerFriess.jpg on your user page. Khajuraho is a UNESCO world heritage site of Hindu and Jain temples with sacred and secular erotic art. If you don't understand it, please don't make fun of it. If you do not remove it, I will report you at WT:INDIA. Enough is enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Oooooh, you're going to report me! At WT:INDIA! I'm frightened! (For those playing along at home, the reference is to the image halfway down the page, center, of [7].) EEng 08:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) We need an admin intervention here. MelanieN and valeree are involved, but what about @RegentsPark, Drmies, and Vanamonde93:: can you stop EEngs abusive behavior? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC) User:Fowler&fowler, as an admin I see no more abuse in EEng's language than in yours, and in neither case does it rise to a blockable level. As a fellow editor, I would have to say that I don't understand why you are so adamant here and so combative over a very minor matter. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC) I'm sure they'll be very interested in your casual and baseless accusation of sexism against multiple other editors [8]. EEng 08:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Can you both please stop fighting over irrelevancies? You're distracting me from writing an article that I suspect will be of great interest to F&F (as it involves Indian mathematics). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC) A pleasant surprise hearing from you @David Eppstein:! It's been a long time since our first interaction on Indian mathematics (or was it elsewhere: Fowler's book? Primitive triples in Plimpton 322?) I haven't really done anything on Indian mathematics in 13 years. Perhaps I should at least update the middle portion (which I have not written) from Kim Plofker's book ... As for all this, I'm happy to disengage, but someone with administrative heft has to tell EEng to hold his horses. He seems to be under the impression that only he has the license to use intemperate language (including the use of expletives) relentlessly in the discussion here and to chalk it to figurative or satirical usage. Please examine upstairs and below how many times he has been warned by different people (Cullen, MelanieN, Rllahn, AleatoryPonderings, ...). I went to his user page only because he invited me to see on his user talk page (to which I thankfully never got) the evidence of his mastery of English grammar and usage. Wikipedia might not be censored but we are not at liberty to bend what rules it does have. Hypermasculine insouciance, allusions bordering on misogyny, or verbal aggression, here or elsewhere, make people uncomfortable; it makes them reluctant to engage in discussions. This has to stop. Examine also the number of times he has interrupted a discussion thread with a later addition which is not especially indented for comprehension. The "interrupted" template I've just added gives an idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC) This post especially indented for comprehension. Sawing a lady in half: an illusion that might be said to border on misogyny. I removed the {interrupted} you inserted; you don't seem to know what it's for. I made no claim of mastery of English grammar and usage; rather, I said 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. And you've performed beautifully in that respect. Hypermasculine insouciance – Now there's one for the wokescold record books! Tell me what hyperfeminine insouciance looks like and I'll happily employ that instead. I'm really looking forward to your promised report at WT:INDIA. See you there! EEng 18:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, since she's been a US Senator since 2017. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, four years. Thank you for clarifying it @GoodDay:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I support E's suggestion as an improvement over the current lead (but it could be improved further). Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm holding her to a different standard because she's an attorney. —valereee (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Heck do it like this - "...is an American politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States...", which we'll (at Noon EST, January 20, 2021) change to "...is an American politician who is the 49th vice president of the United States...". GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence options

Here are the options that have been presented above for the first sentence of the lede, plus one of my own (option 5). We should settle on one. If there are any I have missed, please add them. I think these cover most, if not all, of the logical possibilities.

• Option 1: Kamala Devi Harris is the vice president-elect of the United States.

• Option 2: Kamala Devi Harris is an American attorney who is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California.

• Option 3: 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. (in the article since 14 December 2020)

• Option 4: Kamala Devi Harris is an American attorney and politician who is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California. (In the article with minor reordering or appropriate rephrases from 3 January 2017 until 14 December 2020)

• Option 5: Kamala Devi Harris is the vice president-elect of the United States and the junior United States senator from California.

Survey

• I prefer option 5. It's simple, clear, and to the point. "Politician" is obvious in context, and "attorney" is uninformative (she has been an elected law enforcement official for most of her career, which is not what I think of when I think of attorney). After the inauguration, this can be transposed to Kamala Devi Harris is the vice president of the United States. Before her election as vice president, she was the junior United States Senator from California and Attorney General of California. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 was in place in the article for nearly four years. It was changed to the current version on 14 December 2020 on a whim, without the wisp of a consensus, by an editor whose authorship of the article is insignificant. Option 4, therefore, is the precedent, the STATUS QUO, the existing state of affairs. It is also the version found in Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. There is no reason to change it just because KH is now the VP. Also Harris's is a historical candidacy, the first woman in 245 years; every bit of her professional competence—independent of her office—needs to be highlighted in the first sentence. For it went into her attaining the office. The apt comparisons here are to the Mount Rushmore four—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• "politician" before "attorney" is fine too (per GoodDay's version) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, with politician before attorney - per Bill Clinton & Barack Obama intros,
  or Option 3. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 5 — We don't say "Michael Jordan is an American athlete and former professional basketball player", or "Elizabeth II is a British monarch who is Queen of the United Kingdom". "American politician" is already stated in the lead by the words "vice president-elect of the United States", and "attorney" is already stated by the second sentence of the lead, "Prior to her election to the Senate, she was Attorney General of California." Everyone knows the vice president of the US is an American politician, and that the Attorney General of California is an attorney. That we state these redundancies in other articles' leads is no reason to make the same mistake here. So 2-4 are out for me. 5 is better than 1 while she remains a senator. I agree with AP about the update post-inauguration. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Royalty is treated different, in this matter. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation not required. Merely look over the monarch bios for visual proof. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion in the section above about why monarchs are treated differently. (I think Levivich may have been making a joke here, since they used a "fakecn" tag rather than a regular "cn" tag. It's always so hard to detect sarcasm online.)

Michael Jordan is a poor example. He is a retired player who is now an owner. But there is a standard format for all current Chicago Bulls players. Example: "Lauri Elias Markkanen (born 22 May 1997) is a Finnish professional basketball player for the Chicago Bulls of the National Basketball Association (NBA)." or "Ryan Curran Arcidiacono (born March 26, 1994) is an American-born Italian professional basketball player who plays for the Chicago Bulls of the National Basketball Association." or "Devon Dotson (born August 2, 1999) is an American basketball player for the Chicago Bulls of the National Basketball Association (NBA)" Do you see the redundancy in all three examples? They don't say only, "... is a player for the Chicago Bulls of the National Basketball Association," which is equivalent to what you are proposing for KH. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Jordan is a great example. Probably the all time greatest example of a basketball player. But you've missed the analogy. We don't need to say "athlete" in Jordan's lead sentence because we say "basketball player". Similarly, we don't need to say "American politician" in KH's lead sentence because we say "vice president-elect of the United States". We don't need to say "attorney" because we say "Attorney General". Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm also good with option 6, below, which is option 5 with the order reversed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 Strongly preferred. Option 4 with politician before attorney like other prominent pages, OK. Option 2 only if it gets us consensus. Rklahn (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 5 per Levivich's trenchant analysis, though I could live with 2 in a pinch (since the Attorney General fact comes somewhat later, so that mentioning attorney up front doesn't seem too terribly redundant). EEng 08:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 - viewed with a global eye, every word conveys information which can otherwise only inferred with great knowledge of American systems. It needs "American", "politician" and "attorney" (or "lawyer"). I'm OK if the rest is made into a second sentence, or kept as part of the first one. Not all (vice-)heads of state are politicians - they aren't even all elected. For example, Elizabeth II has already been mentioned - she was not elected to the role, and it is not clear that she is a citizen of each of the 16 realms of which she is Queen. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4 (with politician before attorney, because that's her current and most notable occupation). Wikipedia's convention (as set out in MOS:BIO) should be followed here, and only options 2, 3 and 4 do that. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 6 I looked back in time to the status of Joe Biden as of Nov 5th 2008, as he was in a similar situation. His simply said "is the senior United States Senator from Delaware and the Vice President elect of the United States", so let's just do that - "is the junior United States Senator from California and the Vice President elect of the United States." ? ValarianB (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

But at 5:13 PM on November 4, 2008, it said only, "... is the senior United States senator from Delawre." On 23 August 2008 it said the same. The local consensus there was different. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Option #6? There's only 5 options. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I created my own. But if it does not catch on, Option 3 is fine. ValarianB (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• First choice: Option 4 with "attorney" and "politician" in either order. Second choice: Option 2. Third choice: Option 3. Strongly oppose Options 1 and 5. Reasoning: There is a very strong recommendation at MOS that we should put a biography "in context" by stating the person's citizenship in the lead sentence. This long-standing guideline recognizes that we are an international encyclopedia, not the Encyclopedia Americana. We have done this with all recent presidents, with the local-consensus exception of Trump, and we do it with all current elected leaders of other countries (see Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkell, Giuseppe Conte, Narendra Modi, Xi Jinping, etc., etc.) We do it even though it is “obvious”; we do it even though it is “redundant”. This format works, it conveys basic information clearly, and it was uncontroversial until the single exception made for Donald Trump. The reasons given for omitting the citizenship in the case of the American president are entirely unconvincing and amount to “of course any idiot knows he is an American and a politician”. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 As she was a politician before being VP (and after being anything else, but am not sure you stop being an atorney).Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Slatersteven: I don't understand your rationale, that she was a politician before she was VP and after she was anything else. In what year did she start and stop being a politician? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    • What I meant was she was (and is still) a professional politician, not a one-election wonder.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• What about prosecutor instead of attorney for the options where that is relevant? It's more informative and specific, IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd stick with attorney, as she's had a highly questionable performance as a prosecutor, pro-corporate wise. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• A few questions:
  • Shouldn't we promote this to a lvl2 header and add an RFC tag and question?
  • For those editors who favor saying attorney, why "attorney"? Why not law enforcement officer? A district attorney and CA AG are law enforcement officers. "Attorney" is a vaguer term that includes (and I'd suggest usually refers to) lawyers in private practice (the title "Attorney General" notwithstanding). But why describe her as "attorney" and not "law enforcement officer"? KH was never in private practice, or any practice, other than as a prosecutor. Which brings this back to AP's point above, why not prosecutor? That's a much more descriptive term than either "attorney" or "law enforcement officer".
  • Why is nobody talking about sources in this entire conversation? Do RSes describe her as a "politician", "attorney", etc.? Or do they use other words (like "former prosecutor")? Do any sources, even international sources, describe her as "American" (or do they not use that word because it's obvious to their readers)? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

She is an American, is a politician & is/was an attorney. That's likely why nobody is disputing those facts. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not whether these terms are accurate. They all obviously are. It's which one is most appropriate. That would be settled by looking at what reliable sources most often say—do they say "attorney" or "prosecutor" or "law enforcement officer". My quick unscientific survey: a search for "kamala harris" attorney -"attorney general" -wikipedia turns up 9.5 million ghits, the top ones of which are mainly about Doug Emhoff; a search for "kamala harris" prosecutor -wikipedia turns up 11.9 million ghits including [9], [10], [11], [12]; and a search for "kamala harris" "law enforcement officer" -wikipedia turns up 317,000 ghits including [13], [14], [15] (paywalled). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Shouldn't we promote this to a lvl2 header and add an RFC tag and question? No, we shouldn't. RFCs are for issues where local discussion has been tried and has failed to reach consensus. See WP:RFCBEFORE. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Not "law enforcement officer", absolutely not. That generally means police and other agencies that actually ENFORCE the law - stop crimes, investigate crime scenes, arrest suspects, incarcerate convicts. A city attorney or attorney general is an officer in the equivalent of the federal Justice department; their job is entirely legal - analyze the facts of a situation, interpret the law in regard to that situation, decide whether to prosecute, and represent (i.e. be the attorney for) the prosecution in court. All of those are attorney jobs; notice the word "attorney" in the titles. Not "prosecutor"; the elected person rarely prosecutes cases in court; they focus more on administrative responsibilities such as supervising department personnel, assigning cases, approving the decision to bring a case to court, providing legal advice to the government entity they work for, etc. Those are still attorney functions, but not prosecutor functions. As for "was" an attorney, "was" is not used for any of the other presidents who are also attorneys. They can stop practicing law without giving up their identity as an attorney. Just as a physician remains a physician even if s/he retires, or stops seeing patients to go into research or teaching. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In nearly all United States jurisdictions the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of that jurisdiction (though adnittedly that's ). EEng 19:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The citations are in law enforcement officer, including for CA. Also, DAs and AGs are universally referred to by RSes as "prosecutors", even though deputy/assistant DAs and AGs are the ones who act as lead prosecutors ("first chair") on individual court cases. The DA/AG is the one who makes the decision to prosecute and is ultimately responsible for the prosecution, which is why they're called "top prosecutors". "California's top prosecutor" is the AG [16] [17]. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Top prosecutor" is part of their job as Attorney General - but not all of it by any means. Look at our section here describing her activities as AG: a great deal that large section is about her non-prosecutorial activities such as advising the legislature on new legislation, implementing police reform measures, etc. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, AGs have other non-prosecutorial, law enforcement duties, such as advising about new laws, advising judges about ongoing cases, and overseeing police. They also engage in civil enforcement actions, such as suing tobacco companies. Hence "law enforcement officer". But I actually think "prosecutor" is a better choice than "law enforcement officer" because it's much more widely used by sources. She's known as a prosecutor, because of her prosecutions. For example, the BBC (link below) describes her as a prosecutor-turned-politician (but not in the lead) and she's been quoted by multiple RSes as describing herself as a "progressive prosecutor". Whereas, I'm not finding many RSes that refer to her as "attorney" except in the context of the titles "District Attorney" and "Attorney General". Still, I think saying she is a former AG is enough and we needn't say "attorney", "prosecutor", or "law enforcement officer", hence my !vote for options 5/6, but if we are to use additional wording, it seems to me "attorney" is the worst of the three. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are some international sources: BBC, CBC, Toronto Star, Times of India, Al Jazeera, AFP via France24, AP, Reuters. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Those are huge articles - TLDR. What specifically are they cited in support of? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

They're not cited in support of anything. I'm sharing them so editors can see how some int'l sources describe KH, if they'd like to. It might inform their !vote, as it informed mine. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:07, 28 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)

For the record, that passage salves the feelings of novice editors whose edits have been reverted. It doesn't magically make every reversion OK. Your wasn't. EEng 11:17, 30 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 [18]. 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)

Well, this is unfortunate, but understandable, the wait was long. I have proposed edits at this point, and will make them through the Extended confirmed protection edit process. Rklahn (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection edit -> The Norsworthy sub-section

I propose the entire "Michelle-Lael B. Norsworthy v. Jeffrey Beard et. al." sub-section be stricken. Its in the actions performed as Attorney General of California section.

There are a number of issues with the text, and I will highlight just a few. The case may be notable, but AG Harris' actions in it are not. It boils down to she did her job, acting as the chief counsel in state litigation. The AG does not have the luxury of only acting as chief counsel for positions she agrees with, she must also defend positions she disagrees with.

Im not saying this case does not belong in this encyclopedia. The pages of Transgender rights is probably better suited than here. Rklahn (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

There's considerable controversy about prosecutorial discretion on topics ranging from immigration to the death penalty to enforcement of crimes against marijuana usage and possession, which is commonly discussed for the Attorney General of the United States position and for district attorneys. I don't see why Attorney General of California would be any different. In fact, Harris herself refused to defend Prop 8 on the basis that it was unconstitutional. Seeing as how all of these other issues have constitutionality as a component of the controversy, it's not unreasonable to say that the same reasoning applies to this case on the basis of cruel and unusual punishment. See https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-attorney-general-refusal-defend-state-laws.html which concludes "It may seem problematic to have AGs decide on their own which state laws can stand up to scrutiny, but ultimately someone has to make the call." Typeprint (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually there is a big difference between US AG and a California AG: The US AG is appointed by the President and may be fired by the President. The CA AG is elected and answers to no one but the voters. CA AG decides what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. So "The AG does not have the luxury of only acting as chief counsel for positions she agrees with, she must also defend positions she disagrees with" is . A state AG literally doesn't have to prosecute any case he or she doesn't want to (subject only to the political pressures of not getting re-elected or getting impeached for gross violations of duty). In any biography of an AG, major cases should be discussed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The citation needed here is California Code of Civil Procedure §401 Rklahn (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, if you think that's even remotely connected to what's being discussed here, you have no idea what you're talking about. EEng 18:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you are trolling, and Im not going to give a substantive reply. Rklahn (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything there supporting your position that the California AG is unique compared to all the other AGs in the Governing magazine article. It appears to only discuss the place of a trial, and even if I'm wrong, someone could say that if it's not constitutional, it's not provided by State law, and there's also "shall or may" language, but then again, I'm not a lawyer and interpretation is original research anyway. We could get into the exact nature of prosecutorial discretion in every single article on anyone who's held a position such as Attorney General or DA, or relevant subarticles, with regard to every major case within that person's biography, but I think it'd be easier to have it once in each article on the position itself to the extent it varies. Typeprint (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Harris' successor believes the California AG has prosecutorial discretion, and explicitly used that term, in any case: https://dataprivacy.foxrothschild.com/2020/06/articles/california-consumer-privacy-act/california-ag-wont-delay-ccpa-enforcement-but-may-exercise-prosecutorial-discretion/ Typeprint (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You are right, there is considerable controversy around this discretion. Some would even say that on Prop 8, the AG exercised a veto, a power its not even clear the AG has. If that discretion is unclear on the constitutionality of a state proposition, the discretion probably did not exist in Norsworthy. It's been proposed in another section that Tenure of Kamala Harris as California Attorney General be created and a number of subjects moved there. That seems a reasonable solution in this case. Rklahn (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I was considering cutting this too until I found this article from Washington Blade, which explicitly says Harris took "full responsibility" for Norsworthy's case and analogous cases. That strikes me as the kind of personal involvement that would be reasonable to include in a biography of Harris (which, it bears repeating, is what this article is—a biography). I would not object to trimming the section, but given that she made a whole speech about this and related cases, I think this belongs here in some form. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the subject belongs in the encyclopedia in some form, but disagree that this article is the place. The section would have to be significantly expanded to accurately reflect Harris' views, actions, and obligations in this case, which would result in giving the section undue weight. Tenure of Kamala Harris as California Attorney General or somewhere in Transgender rights is the right place, not Kamala Harris itself. Rklahn (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended confirmed protection edit -> The OpenJustice initiative

I propose the paragraph about the OpenJustice initiative, stricken in [19] on line 229, be restored.

The source discusses Harris' involvement, which was notable in the context of her career, and her successor kept the project going, implying its usefulness and notoriety. Rklahn (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

That's Special:Diff/996009877. I'm lukewarm about this. On the one hand, NYT describes it as "one of her [Harris's] most lauded initiatives"; the Chicago Defender also devotes some space to it. On the other hand, I can't find any particular indication that she was the one to spearhead it or even really talk about it. (The source referenced in the diff above does not mention Harris except incidentally, which is why I removed it.) OpenJustice is likely notable and important, but I don't know if it belongs in this article. A compromise would be to create OpenJustice (currently redirecting to Open justice) and include one sentence about it in this article, or in California Attorney General. Another would be to create Tenure of Kamala Harris as California Attorney General or another lower-level article to put stuff like this in. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Proposed split: Tenure of Kamala Harris as Attorney General of California

Per WP:SPLIT (for both prose size and content reasons), and my and Rklahn's comments above, I propose splitting off Kamala Harris#Attorney General_of California (2011–2017) into Tenure of Kamala Harris as Attorney General of California (or whatever the correct naming convention is). The prosesize script gives me 55 kB (8714 words) of readable prose, which is enough to justify a split according to WP:SPLIT. And even if there weren't too much prose, I think we still have a coherent topic here that would be worthy of a WP:CONTENTSPLIT. Plus, I don't know about others, but this article is so weighed down with cites, templates, and other bells and whistles that it's difficult for me to load and edit it (I'm on Firefox on a Mac). This article will only balloon more once she takes office as VP, so I think now is the right time to split off and decide about what to summarize and what to put in the new article. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Since the topic came up today, I think the summary should mention any major case that was controversial, including Prop 8, the trans prisoner case, the prison overcrowding and court filing against early release of prisoners, child truancy enforcement, the death penalty case currently on the political positions page. Harris' side in all of these cases except the Prop 8 one and the court filing she said was without her knowledge can be summarized relatively briefly as claiming that she was legally obligated. This can be done after all the other actions that are notable without necessarily being as controversial, such as enforcement on consumer protections and environmental law. Even though I think splitting is inevitable, I think we should wait as long as possible until the content is actually there. Typeprint (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Typeprint, When you say we should wait as long as possible until the content is actually there, what are you proposing, exactly? If there's something you think is missing, feel free to add it. But it's been three years since she left the AG's office, so there's been plenty of time for relevant content to make its way into the article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking until further into her vice presidency, but I don't feel strongly about it, and I'm all right with going ahead and splitting now. Typeprint (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Typeprint, Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I don't imagine much more material about her SF DA or CA AG tenure is forthcoming before late January, so I think splitting once we've arrived at an appropriate target works well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

How about Early political career of Kamala Harris or Kamala Harris' career before the vice presidency? That would be rather more comprehensive. Neutrality^talk 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, Generally works for me, subject to the following caveat. I like the proposal because it would also let us summarize Kamala_Harris#District_Attorney_of_San_Francisco_(2004–2011) as well, which is lengthy. I'm wary of it because it's WP:ORish to establish a line (say, between CA AG and Senate) that would constitute "early" career, and the Senate section isn't that long rn (in fact, I'm surprised it's not longer). Another alternative is just to make Political career of Kamala Harris and use that for everything. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, a near-precedent is {{Barack Obama series}}, which splits up every single office into its own article. Not sure we have enough for that, but it might provide some inspiration. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that plan is best and probably the eventual state for this article at the end of Harris' vice presidency in any case, based on Joe Biden's article before the 2020 election. Having an intermediary stage of splitting is only going to result in twice as much effort if the political career subarticle itself grows too long. Typeprint (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I prefer the treatment of each office separately, as the Barack Obama series does, but could go either way. Rklahn (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, so in that case, we will have the following. I note that the analogous Obama articles use "career", so alternative names on that pattern are also listed.

• Tenure of Kamala Harris as District Attorney of San Francisco / San Francisco District Attorney career of Kamala Harris
• Tenure of Kamala Harris as Attorney General of California / Attorney General of California career of Kamala Harris
• Tenure of Kamala Harris in the United States Senate / United States Senate career of Kamala Harris

We'd also presumably need Vice presidency of Kamala Harris as well. Is there consensus to create these? I note that the Senate career section currently at Kamala Harris#U.S. Senate (2017–present) is really not long enough to justify splitting (although that may be because some of it is already at Political positions of Kamala Harris. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Why bother with the words "Tenure of"? It seems clumsy, artificially formal, and makes the title unnecessarily long. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, So you'd prefer Kamala Harris as District Attorney of San Francisco and the rest like that? The "as" in that phrase reads to me as a perspective on Harris (à la A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man) as opposed to indicating a phase of her career, but I'm not necessarily opposed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the style I would prefer. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like {{Kamala Harris series}} already has the subordinate article themes, mostly as links to sections of the current main article. I prefer the "career" style of article titles, and it seems reasonable to create them for each of the different levels of elected office (city, state, senate, VP) at once. Early life and early career need some expansion to be useful as separate articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Field Poll as a reliable source

@AleatoryPonderings: I agree that the https://docplayer.net site seems a little sketchy, but the Field Poll was the gold standard in California Politics and Media until it shutdown. This is mentioned in Mervin Field's Obit in the LA Times. https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-mervin-field-20150608-story.html#page=1 Perhaps https://web.archive.org/web/20161228043107/http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2343.pdf is a better source for the same data? Perhaps you would reconsider with the new source of the report? Rklahn (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn, Yes, that new link seems fine to me. But there are already two secondary sources for the relevant claim, so adding a third seems unnecessary? Feel free to add back if you like, using the archive.org source, though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

If only so easily done. If I get sufficient motivation later, Ill write up an Extended confirmed protection edit section. Rklahn (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References