Talk:Kamala Harris

This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

How do you stop an article like this from simply becoming a Wikipedia summary?

Right now there's nothing this article has to offer that Wikipedia doesn't do better. Shouldn't there be some criticism about the transgender stuff? I don't know enough about gender dysphoria to comment on that. Also I think the heading should specifically say "trans rights" and not just gay rights since the Democratic party has pretty much accepted gay, bi and lesbian rights already and trans rights is still a taboo subject. Dapperedavid (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You give it to Rob Smith so he can turn it into a hate screed like he's doing to the one on Conservapedia.^{— Unsigned, by: 71.194.214.72 / talk / contribs 20:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)}

Trans rights

This indicates that she does not view reassignment surgery as a legitimate medical need despite professional opinion stating the contrary, which could be reflected in her view of universal health care.

Something to look into further when writing this article. I saw a trans person on hbomberguy's fundraising stream explain how biased doctors and psychologists are about trans health, apparently in the UK you need to go through a shit load of traumatizing hoops and hurdles to be allowed coverage for gender dysphoria treatment. I'm too busy this week I'll see if I can continue this weekend. Dapperedavid (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (Edit: Thanks for putting this on the talk page I thought you could just add notes on the draft itself.)

@Dapperedavid If you want to add notes, use this code . Nerd (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You know, it made me realize that there's no wiki equivalent of an inline todo: like modern IDEs have. a {{todo|find out the names of the people who said this|date}} that silently adds that spot in an article to some central todo list would be awesome. I'm aware of the technical restraints on transclusion that make that very difficult, but it'd be cool. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Read✓✓ Dapperedavid (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Criminal justice

I'm a bit doubtful about the veracity of the criminal justice section. Ideally, attorney generals decide to prosecute based on whether the law was violated and and on the likelihood of obtaining a conviction, rather than politics. The reference given is a partisan one, and not the best one to use I think. Bongolian (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please rewrite that section in prose? The current bulleted list is best for her presidential candidacy sheet. Nerd (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd I put that section into prose; if you want anything more than the bare minimum I did, you'll have to do that part yourself.

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 20:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus

One or two people coming to agreement isn't a "consensus," @Bongolian. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Oxy’s edits seem pretty good to me. I support readding them.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that it has the same biased sourcing that we said should not be applied on the Joe Biden page. Is this a Biden-specific no-bias? If so, that doesn't make sense. So, is there consensus? Should this apply to all pages on living politicians? We need a policy on this in my view. I've had repeated problems about this issue across three pages: Bernie, Biden and Harris: left-biased sourcing has been allowed to the exclusion of centrist-sourcing. @DuceMoosolini, Flandres, GrammarCommie, AMassiveGay, Ariel31459, LeftyGreenMario, and The Crow ^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs}

Just because something is centrist doesn't make it rational. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely on that, but you're relying on far-left sources to criticize someone who is left-center. That doesn't convince anyone. There are centrist news sources that also do serious fact-checking that also report critically of Harris. You're fighting a losing battle by thinking any significant numbers people are going to be convinced by Jacobin who aren't already Social Democrats. You're being lazy by not at least finding fact-checking sources that corroborate your far-left sources. Bongolian (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian I didn't even add that, it was someone else. Multiple people here disagree that Jacobin isn't reference worthy. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Vice President

Does she already know who she's gonna pick for VP? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The 2024 Presidential Campaign section could use more sources

Seriously, just compare the amount of sources in each section relative to their length to the amount of sources in the '2024 Presidential Campaign' and 'Vice Presidential Election' sections. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)