Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Kamala Harris: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 185: Line 185:
:Sorry, I have pings disabled. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 12:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
:Sorry, I have pings disabled. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 12:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}
Recommend we follow the results of the Biden RFC, as Biden & Harris are the incumbents. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


== Kamala Harris is not African American. ==
== Kamala Harris is not African American. ==

Revision as of 03:13, 26 July 2022

    Template:Vital article

    The consensus version

    I don't know where I can add a message requesting an edit to Kamala's wiki page, but I would like one of the mods to add a hyperlink to the 2010 California Attorney General's election that is in the second paragraph: "Born in Oakland, California, Harris graduated from Howard University and the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. She began her career in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, before being recruited to the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and later the City Attorney of San Francisco's office. In 2003, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco. She was elected Attorney General of California in 2010 and re-elected in 2014. Can you link 2010 to the 2010 Attorney General's election? Thanks, Rhein Amacher, Tue May 10th 8:01 PM PST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhein Amacher (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Bodney, archives, linked at top of page. —valereee (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Should we tweak the FAQ? It says South Asian American throughout, which could be confusing. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Fowler&fowler, can you clarify what you mean by new status? —valereee (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Rklahn, diffs please? I'm still not following. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    How do you think the Afro-Jamaicans wound up in Jamaica? Magic? Volunteer Marek 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the FAQ at the top of the page. This has been answered countless times already. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    One issue that deserves a lot more attention in this article is her relationship with Willie Brown. While a 29-year-old deputy district attorney, Harris had an affair with then 60-year leader of the California legislature Willie Brown. While they were dating, Brown appointed Harris to two paid commission posts, and effectively jump-started her political career. As she would likely never have had a political career otherwise, an item of this significance should be prominently mentioned, perhaps in the lede. Certainly it deserves more than part of a sentence buried deep within the article. Vinny Gambino (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have discussed the Willie Brown connection many times, and seemed to reach a consensus that presents the facts in a balanced encyclopedic way with an appropriate amount of weight. That being said, if you have a proposed edit, let's talk about it. Rklahn (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I also have a few of questions regarding Harris' past employment history, specifically her being hired as Alameda county Deputy DA in 1990 (she was 26-years-old). Two of the requirements for that job is almost always to have clerked for a judge and have experience as an attorney in private practice or as a Deputy DA. Harris had neither. In fact, she never had a job until she was given her Deputy DA job. It should be noted in the article, in my opinion, that she had a resume that should have precluded her from getting that job. She claims to have gotten "involved" with Willie Brown in 1994. Well, the lack of a worthy or notable resume seems to indicate someone - someone of considerable influence - pulled strings to get her that Deputy DA job in 1990. Willie Brown was certainly someone who at that time, being Speaker of the CA Assembly, could have arranged her employment as a Deputy DA in Alameda county. Alameda county was in his district at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:6201:a79b:2913:a3bc:f1d3:c561 (talk)

    Your opinion of the matter has no bearing whatsoever on a Wikipedia article. If you have an actual suggestion of an addition to an article, then by all means produce one, sourced to a reliable source. Zaathras (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the requirements are that high. See for example Indeed's list of open positions.[1] IIRC, there was little interest among graduates to work for the county DA. In any case, you would need a source that said their was something exceptional about this. Otherwise, it's just a case of a law grad getting an entry level job that paid below average. TFD (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "49th and current"

    @Novem Linguae:, would you also close the same RFC at Joe Biden's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    GoodDay. Done. Sorry I wasn't able to keep them in sync. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I find consensus to remove "...and current" from the intro of the Kamala Harris article. This option achieved both a numerical majority and a slight boost in strength of argument from MOS:REALTIME, which states Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date. I note the 5ish folks who stated that they'd like to keep the result here in sync with the Joe Biden article, although that may be easier said than done. Hope that helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    'Note': Same RFC being held at the Joe Biden bio. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    @Endwise: I considered combining the two RFCs at Biden's page, covering both Biden & Harris. But, didn't know how to do it. If someone knew how? I wouldn't object to it. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove As it is unnecessary to have current in the intro MraClean (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove Redundant and not in line with WP MOS as per MOS:REALTIMEWritethisway (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per my analysis at Talk:Joe Biden. I think it's concerning see a differing of consensus for here than at the Biden article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC This should probably be shut down. This is the exact question posed at Talk:Joe Biden. We should just use the consensus at the Biden page and apply it to pages like this. @GoodDay: maybe you should consider withdrawing this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd rather combine the two, under the Biden RFC. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Just saying she's the 49th president doesn't tell you if that is the one who is in office now or not. Someone might say it's too obvious, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be matter of fact, even for "obvious" stuff. Also, this needs to be consistent with every current officeholder whose page says "current". Useitorloseit (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove - what else could "is" mean here than is? When she leaves, there'll be was, right? Why not just "... is an American politician and attorney and the 49th vice president of the United ..."--SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC) ? The wordiness looks ridiculous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The numbers are meaningless (who cares whether she is the 49th or 490th Vice President). What is meaningful is that she is the current Vice President of the United States and we should clearly state that. Drop the number if you think it redundant, but keep the "current". --RegentsPark (comment) 16:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The relevant part is "current". Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove -pointless redundancy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - not sure why we're having a separate discussion here - whatever is decided at Joe Biden should automatically apply here too. But since we're here, I support retention of "and current", for the same reasons stated at Talk:Joe Biden.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do as the outcome of the Biden RfC dictates, for consistency and because the logic for choice of lead sentence is the same. My proposal at the Biden RfC involved rewording the sentence to mention the year she became VP, like we do at Jair Bolsonaro: [Kamala Harris] is an American politician who has served as the 49th vice president of the United States since 2021.. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I suggested we keep the "current" wording at Joe Biden's article and I feel the same way for this article, though I won't copy it over here this is my comment there. Like Endwise and LaundryPizza03, however, I will say that whatever the outcome of the Joe Biden RfC is, this article should reflect that one because the logic behind them is the same, and I think the consensus conclusion of that discussion should reflect Wikipedia-as-a-whole's consensus and not be article specific, and that it should reflect the way all similar articles should be addressed. - Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove Redundant. ~ HAL333 02:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (or rephrase) - (Copied from my !vote on Biden) In my opinion, the best policy to cite in this particular case is actually WP:IAR. I will fully acknowledge the manual of style guidelines to avoid the word "current" and other temporal language... the trouble is that with regards to Presidents of the United States (and 1st Ladies), the past tense is NEVER used. Once you are the 6th, 26th, or 46th President of the United States (or 1st Lady), you are ALWAYS, in the present tense, the nth President of the United States (or 1st Lady). As such, the current one needs some other language to distinguish it from past ones. Again, I think WP:IAR is an acceptable approach here, as the argument in the MOS is that the text should stand no matter when it is read, as who knows the next time an article will be updated... but we all know that there is a 0% chance of THIS text not being updated the INSTANT the next president is sworn in (if not sooner-- people jump the gun sometimes). Like Iamreallygoodatcheckers above (on the Biden RfC), I would accept an alternate rephrasing that distinguishes the current president from past presidents, but I oppose having the current president having the exact same descriptive text as all previous presidents... even if relevant distinguishing information is in the infobox. The lead itself needs to be clear. Fieari (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Whatever we do, it should be consistent with Joe Biden's article. I don't know why it was necessary to start two separate RFCs on the topic. -- Vaulter 16:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know how to combine the two. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    "is the 49th and current" -- "and current" is redundant, since "is" means "right now". If "and current" was not there, would it be ambiguous or vague? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree completely. "And current" is redundant with the present tense of the sentence. Why use two extra words that aren't needed? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It should remain with "...and current", until this is settled over at the Joe Biden article. Best not to 'force' changes, without getting a consensus & best to keep the Biden & Harris bios intros in sync. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you just violated the discretionary standards here; perhaps you should revert yourself and back off a bit. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I violated nothing. Would be better if you cooled off & let the RFC run its course & respect the 'current' status quo. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no RFC on this page, and you did two identical reverts in 24 hours. I only became aware of the discussion there when you mentioned it here. What do you mean "cool off"? You're the one aggressively reverting, not me. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's past 24 hrs now. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's removed. Would "49th vice president of the United States, since 2021", be an acceptable alternative? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like excessive information. If she's the current VP, obviously she she hasn't served as long in her office as Elizabeth II. TFD (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds redundant, unless we have some other VP's with different th-numbers also serving since 2021. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pauloroboto:, @Khajidha:, @LaundryPizza03:, @Fieari:, @ValarianB:, @Dronebogus:, @RegentsPark:, @331dot:, @Some1:, @Amakuru:, @Aoidh:, @HAL333:. Would you 'please' give you position at this RFC survey, seeing as you already have done so over at the Biden RFC survey. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I have pings disabled. ValarianB (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Recommend we follow the results of the Biden RFC, as Biden & Harris are the incumbents. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamala Harris is not African American.

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Despite the media’s plan to use, abuse, and erase the delineation of one of the longest living minority groups in the United States: African Americans. Kamala Harris is not African American. Her parents Donald Harris and Shyamala Gopalan Harris were not born in the United States of America. They are both immigrants who migrates to the States. Donald Harris is Jamaican and Shyamala is from India. Neither of these nationalities make up African America, but because of the race extremism that is devastating the United States and the relations of all races, the media and liberal leaning government officials have promoted her ancestry as African American, due to the obsessive study and appropriation of African Americans and their culture in the States. Kamala has not been vocal about the many Americans calling to light about her true history.

    African American is a term that was given to Black people who originated from what is now The United States of America. This term is also used for Black peoples who is born in the United States and whose ancestry has originated there. Kamala does not meet any of these standards.

    It is also important to know the United States received the least amount of slaves during chattel slavery, and Black people existed on the land before it was discovered by the Europeans.

    African American is a term that is being used less and less, as many African Americans strive to obtain the proper status and delineation that is true and authentic to their history. Many African Americans now call themselves ADOS, standing for African Descendent of Slaves, or FBA, standing for Foundational Black Americans. These terms are inclusive for the Black Americans who were born in the United States along with their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. Almost the entirety of ADOS people who may have ancestry in Africa or the Caribbean cannot trace their lineage back to any country in either area due to chattel slavery.

    Kamala Harris is not African American 71.222.27.140 (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. You aren't the first person to request this. In short, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and they use the term "African American" to describe her. Until that changes and they call her something else, that's what we use. You are free to lead a nationwide campaign to eliminate the term "African American" from society. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Donald Harris is a Jamaican of African ancestry, thus Kamala Harris is an American with African ancestry by way of Jamaica. Or, in short, African American. She is also Caribbean American through her father and Indian American through her mother. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many (suppose to be) reliable sources, describe Vice President Harris as being African American. If you still contest this? you'd have to find another place on Wikipedia, to either have the term's usage discontinued or re-defined. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See etymological fallacy: "an argument makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on that word's etymology." In fact, as you acknowledge, the term has a wider meaning. FYI, this issue came up in the Obama article, beginning with Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 1, sixteen years ago. TFD (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am puzzled by the view seemingly held by some that being Jamaican somehow means not being of African ancestry. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the question is whether someone whose ancestors were not taken to the U.S. from African should be called African Americans. OTOH, why does the term American Indian include people who have no connection with the U.S. while the term African American does? And why do they call them Indians when they didn't come from India? And what's with West Indians? It's because those are the definitions assigned to those terms. TFD (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will once again admit to being very confused by the racial labels Americans insist on giving to people. Perhaps it's easier if you grow up surrounded by this stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

    She is Indian Jamaican American, NOT African American! 73.55.10.6 (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamala_Harris&oldid=1100474939"