Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Talk:Kamala Harris
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
  • You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
Enforcement procedures:
  • Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
  • Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
  • Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
  • In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
  • Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Harris` interview on Fox News...

should be added, because of the clarification of her political positions. My poposal (without links to sources):

On October 16, 2024, during the presidential campaign, Harris took the opportunity to clarify her political position during an interview on Fox News Channel. “Anchorman” Bret Baier, who made the interview highly confrontational, turned it into a sometimes heated debate and raised questions related to illegal immigration, transgender health care for prisoners, and tax relief. On the important issue of the threat to American democracy, „the enemy from within”, Harris corrected the questioner and also stated that her presidency was not a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency. She stands for a new generation and will bring her own ideas and experiences into office. In doing so, she has made it clear that she wants “not a repeat of Donald Trump, not the continuation of Joe Biden, but something new”. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that this interview will be regarded as an important moment in all of Harris' life. It might merit some mention on 2024 Kamala Harris presidential campaign. No need to refer to Baier as "the questioner", just use his surname. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i feel that it was a de facto second debate with a trump surrogate Nohorizonss (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this seems more about her campaign, so should be three, is anywhere. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But wherever (if anywhere) it ends up, it certainly can't be saying stuff like She stands for a new generation and will bring her own ideas and experiences into office. In doing so, she has made it clear that [whatever] in WP's voice. EEng 05:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so , the political positions article needs to be updated too Nohorizonss (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's not appropriate language; I think it should go on the presidential campaign page, as it won't seem very significant on the main page in a year's time. 300AD (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut tree and accent

I fail to see the significance of this content in the article. In fact, I don't even the the point of either paragraph. They seem to be nothing more than standard, insanely shallow political nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48 I think it relates fairly well under 'public image'. Yeah, some of it seems stupid, but I think that weirdly enough, it concerns people enough to have them feel differently about her. Honestly, I see no harm in having it. The article can have the facts and people can form their own opinion of the political weirdness from it. Coulomb1 (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a single opinion piece by a right-leaning talking head dismissing the idea. If, as you say, it concerns people enough to have them feel differently about her, you should be able to find WP:SUSTAINED non-opinion coverage of it emphasizing its significance to her public image; but right now, the coverage makes it seem more like a single failed barb by Vance that failed to land. For articles on subjects this prominent, we don't cover every single political zinger that fell flat - only ones that got enough traction to have significant secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "consensus" based on an all-too-brief discussion

user:Antony-22 has interpreted this discussion to establish a consensus for including racial categories such as Afro-Jamaican or dubious ethnic categories such as Indian-American in the lead paragraph of this article. The discussion, in which four editors participated, lasted but two days (October 1 to October 3). The first three respondents (user:Jack Upland, user:JohnAdams1800 and user:Valereee didn't exactly agree with the user:Antony-22's proposal.

On the heels of an exhaustive RfC—which had begun on July 31 and was closed by user:S Marshall on September 26 and in which there was little support for including racial categories of descent—to claim that such a brief and perfunctory discussion constitutes a consensus for revision is a slap in the face of the RfC participants (who had cited dozens of sources). I have therefore undone user:Antony-22's changes in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We had an RFC, a discussion had between 4 editors can't overturn that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit the lead again. But I do want to point out that the RfC was specifically about the "Black" vs. "African-American" terminology, and there wasn't discussion there about whether to use "Afro-Jamaican". As I've mentioned, some readers seem to not be aware that Black Jamaicans have ancestors from Africa and aren't fully indigenous, and my intent was just that a link to Afro-Jamaicans somewhere prominent helps our readers learn that if they're not aware of it. Antony–22 (⁄contribs) 23:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamala_Harris&oldid=1255257058"