Jump to content

Talk:Kamala Harris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incumbent, until Jan 20, 2025

Please oh please. When we know who Harris' veep successor-to-be is. Let's not change "Incumbent" to "Outgoing", in Harris' infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Now that Harris has been soundly defeated by Trump in the general presidential election, her successor will be J.D. Vance. TopShelf99 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - revert "Exiting office" in the info box

I request that "Exiting office" and the Jan 20, 2025 date is reverted back to "Assumed office" with the date she was sworn in as VP. "Exiting office" sounds silly, and the info box should have the date she assumed the role, not the date two months from now that she's leaving it. Luminism (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved --Super Goku V (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to write in the lead paragraph now that KH was defeated

Suggested change: Change "Harris lost the general election to her Republican Party opponent Donald Trump" to "Harris was soundly defeated in the 2024 presidential election by her Republican Party opponent, Donald Trump. Harris lost the electoral vote 226-312, and garnered over 4.5 million less popular votes than Trump." TopShelf99 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Becasue we try to keep it neutral. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - What I am suggesting is both factual and neutral. I don't want this article to be completely laudatory about Harris, and I don't want it to be completely defamatory like the Trump article. TopShelf99 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you do not want it to be negative, by saying she "was soundly defeated"?, Sorry that makes no sense, we say totally neutrally she lost. That is all we need to say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She WAS soundly defeated. That is more factual and neutral than referring to Trump lying, racist, misogynistic, and one of the worst Presidents in history, and those terms were all allowed in the lede in the Wikipedia article on Trump. I can understand your disappointment about the election results and voters' repudiation of the damage Harris and Biden have caused for four years and what she stands for, but you and your fellow editors and administrators shouldn't let your liberal bias continue to influence Wikipedia articles. TopShelf99 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This not about Trumps article, it is about here, and we do not engage in tit for tat WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful not to use talk pages as a WP:SOAPBOX. You can disagree, but your personal political opinions are irrelevant to the discussion. That being said, Trump's lede says "Scholars and historians rank Trump one of the worst presidents in history" as that is reflective of the opinions of scholars and historians, at least for his first term. The same is said for James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. estar8806 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's to re-write? She lost the 2024 election, that's it. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donald, is that you? In all seriousness, can we please skip to a WP:NOTHERE block? @TopShelf99's contributions since their account creation have largely been reverted or been talk page soap boxing. Certainly not enough to warrant letting them continue. Note also the warnings and discussion on their user talk page. —Locke Coletc 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wp:ani is the place to discus user conduct, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
soundly defeated - i think these adverbs are not entertained in Wikipedia. Hajpo (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, folks,

I was looking into an editor's contributions and came across this subpage they created. Is this typical for politician's articles, do other high profile politicians have these pages? Or should there be a deletion discussion at MFD about it? Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a copy of Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias with two changes: Donald Trump article → Kamala Harris article & sources are widely critical of Trump → sources are widely positive of Harris. The Trump sub-page has been linked to on 44 talk pages prior to this edit, though most are the archives of Talk:Donald Trump with some on other pages like Talk:2024 United States presidential election/FAQ. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wage theft

A Politico article on her campaign just reported, "... the campaign’s decision to stop paying many senior staff as of Saturday, even those initially told they would be paid through the end of the year."

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/16/kamala-harris-donors-00190020

This was worth mentioning when Trump stiffed people that he owed money to, so it's worth mentioning when Harris did the exact same thing.

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"when Trump stiffed people" Which Trump? The Family of Donald Trump has included several shady businesspeople. Dimadick (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was it, or was it in fact different? Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged fraud and alleged insolvency are not the same thing. And notice as well that the campaign is raising money to pay off debts, not filing for bankruptcy protection in order to avoid them. The allegations against Trump if true were criminal. TFD (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KInd of irrelevant as many of his companies did declare bankruptcy, which means they did not pay all their debts. Alo Trumo has been prosecuted for fraud, it's not just an allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is not the topic of this talk page. Shouldn't "the campaign's decision" belong on the campaign talk page, not this one? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just making the point "its not analogous". Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to point the reply at you directly, Slatersteven. That point is for everyone. Surely there are differences between this and what Trump has been accused of doing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not subscribe to the "fairness doctrine"-esque notion that because something is mentioned in regard to the conduct of one politician it ought be mentioned in another politician's article, wage theft has a specific legal connotation, and until such is adjudicated, it is best to surmise the state of the campaign as having "encountered financial difficulties" rather than "engaged in wage theft". Moreover, the phrasing of theft invokes a particular scienter and moral status for which does not appear justified in application to this concern as of now.Irruptive Creditor (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]