This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontrealWikipedia:WikiProject MontrealTemplate:WikiProject MontrealMontreal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesUnited States Presidents
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California
This article was created or improved during the following events hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Brief mention of debate in Lead (based on past precedent)
I think it is a very notable aspect, as evident by its wide reporting across WP:RS national and international media, where in Harris was declared the winner by political analysts, including those from The New York Times and CNN, among many others. Hence, it should be briefly mentioned in lead per WP:LEAD. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the wide national and international media coverage and reporting of the debate, it would qualify as a major event of her life.
Especially, as this a WP:BLP article, and WP:BLPBALANCE applies, therefore the paragraph that includes her loss in the presidential campaign should also include the successes of her campaign, if widely reported. And, almost all political analysts from NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, and atleast 10 more declared Harris as the winner. Also, several surveys on debate performance declared Harris the winner.
Also, it is well covered in the article body, and therefore needs a mention in the lead per WP:LEAD (summarization), along with the WP:BLPBALANCE for the last paragraph.
The presidential debate and fundraising in this case didn't change the outcome of the election. If the debate had changed the outcome of the election (such as the July debate that led to the president at the time dropping out of the race), then it could make sense to include in the lead. No other articles on recent presidential candidates, except in the case where the debate contributed to the candidate dropping out of the race, contain information on the debates in the lead. Additionally, stating that a candidate lost an election isn't something negative that needs to be balanced by something positive in the same paragraph. It's just a factual description of the outcome of a particular election. If the candidate had won the election, it wouldn't be necessary to say something negative for balance. Onyxqk (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree that Winning a Presidential debate is not a notable aspect, or highlight related the Harris and her presidential campaign. Also, the debate was one of the most widely reported events of the presidential campaign.
I can agree about removing fund-raising numbers, but there has been no reasonable argument provided for removing the debate mention.
The issue is not just losing the election, but larger success and failure of the presidential campaign, which is the topic of the last paragraph. I think debate mention deserves a mention per WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:LEAD and WP:RS given its important mention in the article body and very wide coverage in national and international media. Thanks. 08:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Debates are always one of the most reported aspects of any presidential campaign. They always receive very wide coverage in national and international media. No other articles on recent political candidates have mentioned the presidential debates in the lead unless they had an impact on the actual election outcome. Onyxqk (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that debates are one of the most reported and highlighted aspects, then you should not have any issue in its breif mention per WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:LEAD. Merely because some other articles are not following WP policies is no reason to make the same mistake on this article. Thanks. 09:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think this article should follow the same standards as other political articles. WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:LEAD do not automatically mean the debate has to be in the lead or that the other articles are violating those policies. Onyxqk (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DUE, debate is a widely reported aspect. and per WP:LEAD, it and has been well covered in the article body.
I do not agree that this debate had no impact of the election or election campaign, either way it was an important part of election and election campaign. Following same standards is a very broad generalization, does not mean notable aspect such as debate should not be included. Thanks. 09:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The perceived results of the debate are not relevant, nor are the nationwide polls, which were proven incorrect in November's general election. Debates and polls are always widely discussed, but never have historical significance that supersedes the election itself. It may be enough for the body, but not the lead. Making a statement of 'she beat him in the debate but lost the election' is WP:UNDUE in its most primal form. If we're talking about WP:DUE here, then where are the details on the election itself e.g. losing all swing states? Having more detail on murmurs and perception before-the-fact is not DUE here. The election result dwarves pre-election commentary, which is far more DUE. WP:BLPBALANCE really does not support your case. WP:LEAD also does not promote its inclusion here, as it is mentioned once in the body. MB243715:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is supported by WP:LEAD as there is a full paragraph in the body, along with the wide coverage in National and international WP:RS sources; making it one of the most notable aspects of the presidential campaign.
On September 10, 2024, ABC News hosted the presidential debate between Harris and Trump in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the debate, Trump tried to portray Harris as a "radical liberal". Harris's sharpest criticisms of Trump came on abortion rights, where she said she would restore women's rights to what they were under Roe. Harris was declared the winner of the debate by several political analysts, including columnists from CNN, Politico, The New York Times, and USA Today. After the September debate performance, polls remained very close and showed Harris had a hard time conveying that she would represent a "change", due to her being a part of the Biden administration.
Further, a brief mention of debate results does not in any way mean that it has superceded election results. This is a WP:BLP article and neutral and balanced reporting are fundamental for any WP:BLP article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does fail balance if we detail the election buildup and not the election itself, which also has its own paragraph. Mentioning her perceived debate performance here feels like editorialising. MB243712:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not ignoring election results. I am happy to add another line on election result about losing swing states, and balance it with a brief mention of debate.
According to many WP:RS sources, debate success was the major highlight of the entire Harris campaign. It's not perceived by editor, it widely reported in multiple WP:RS sources, so I do not think its editorialising. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a perceived highlight, it does not and will not bear any historical significance beyond a few flash polls. This kind of detail would not make the lead of any other presidential candidate. Ultimately, there is no real achievable balance between losing a presidential election and a few polls saying she fared well in one debate. MB243719:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kamala Harris was the consensus winner of Monday’s presidential debate
"A CNN poll revealed that debate watchers declared Harris a winner by a comfortable 63-37 margin. A YouGov poll had Harris winning by 43-28 among registered voters. Even pundits at Fox News, the conservative TV network, agreed she bested Trump."
But those statements have no bearing on the event's notability, just that she had a strong performance… Also international WP:RS sources widely reported on this debate, which has never been done for any previous presidential candidate—this is a false claim. Al Jazeera (your example) reporting on previous debates: [1][2][3]MB243713:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for Wikipedia, one of the accepated indicator for event's notability is its coverage in national and interantional WP:RS sources.
Also, I did not mean that previous debates were not covered in international media such as Al Jazeera, but instead the scale and amount of international coverage. Any reasonable analytics such as Twitter analytics reveals immense difference between large scale coverage of Harris-Trump debate, compared to previous Trump-Biden and Trump-Clinton debates.
Anyway, more important is that reliable WP:RS sources consider it to be one of the most significant events in Harris's career, therefore per it qualifies to be included in the lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given its coverage in article body, and being notable aspect per WP:RS, it needs to brief neutral mention in lead per WP:LEAD. ( we can avoid mention that she won the debate)
In September 2024, her debate performance against Trump was commended by political analysts, and the polls indicated a close contest. But, she lost the presidential election to Trump in November 2024.
There is no consensus on the issue, and my reasonings and arguments for inclusion have remained unanswered for over a month, so please do not misuse this Consensus argument, unless you have counter arguments against inclusion. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this debate can be compared to Hillary Clinton or others, as none of the sources claimed that those debates were the best performances of their careers.
Also, its detailed in the article body, and therefore should be summarized briefly per WP:LEAD
On September 10, 2024, ABC News hosted the presidential debate between Harris and Trump in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the debate, Trump tried to portray Harris as a "radical liberal". Harris's sharpest criticisms of Trump came on abortion rights, where she said she would restore women's rights to what they were under Roe. Harris was declared the winner of the debate by several political analysts, including columnists from CNN, Politico, The New York Times, and USA Today. Some analysts noted that for Harris, this was the "best debate performance of her career," in which she forcefully highlighted her strengths and rattled former president Trump. After the debate, Harris got a prominent celebrity endorsement from Taylor Swift. However, the polls remained close and showed Harris had a hard time conveying that she could represent a "change".
Thanks for your reply, as I did not get any reply for a month on my last response here. To best of my knowledge, no one ( of so called 4) have provided any Wikipedia policies to oppose the inclusion of "debate" (which is among the most notable aspect of a Harris per WP:RS), except noting past precedent from Wiki pages of some prior presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton
As mentioned, Harris's debate performance has been noted as one of the most important aspects of her life by WP:RS sources ( therefore comparison with Clinton is unfair)
"this was clearly Harris’ best debate performance of her career, without any clear missteps".
That quote does not note it as one of the most important aspects of her life, it simply notes it as a good debate performance. It is a prime example of WP:UNDUE to state something along the lines of 'she won a debate, but lost the election'. MB243716:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would humbly request to examine the quote more carefully, as in my view a native English speaker will understand that the quote
this was clearly Harris’ best debate performance of her career
underscores that it was a very notable aspect of her career, and in effect very important aspect of her life.
This is a prime example of WP:DUE per wide national and international WP:RS coverage. Thanks for your discussing it in a civil manner. I appreciate the discussion. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your latest edit claiming wrongly
Clear consensus against inclusion.
There is no consensus and only a flawed reasonig that we should follow precedent that prior presidential candidates such as Clintons dont have debate mentioned in the lead.
Well, I would humbly request to examine the quote more carefully, as in my view a native English speaker will understand that the quote
this was clearly Harris’ best debate performance of her career
underscores that it was a very notable aspect of her career, and in effect very important aspect of her life.
This is a prime example of WP:DUE per wide national and international WP:RS coverage. Thanks for your discussing it in a civil manner.
Dear MB2437, It's only me vs you after I presented evidence from WP:RS sources that debate has been considered as one of the most notable aspects of her career.
"this was clearly Harris’ best debate performance of her career, without any clear missteps".
No other editor has raised any objection to that, and I would start another section, just to be more clear.
Anyway, your last revert was not okay per WP:CONACHIEVE and WP:TALKDONTREVERT
This section was mainly about a arguments to follow past precedents, and most editors stopped responding after I presented WP:RS quote noting debate to be most important aspect of her career.
To clarify whether we have response based on WP:RS notable aspect arguments, I have created a new section per WP:CONACHIEVE
Per @Onyxqk: The presidential debate and fundraising in this case didn't change the outcome of the election. Per @Slatersteven: it is not a major part of her life. Per @The Four Deuces: Not one of the most signficant events in her life. One quote does not overturn the consensus here. MB243717:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2025
…, after Hillary Clinton, and the second African-American, after Barack Obama.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2025
This edit request is being submitted for the “Post vice-presidency (2025-present)section of the Kamala Harris article. Please add, “On February 14, 2025, it was reported that Harris is a front-runner for the California Gubernatorial race” to the last paragraph of the “Post vice-presidency section. Thank you.
Restore long-standing "African American" instead of "Black American" changed without consensus to the lede 2A01:36D:1200:448B:CD61:9939:E962:3573 (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mention of debate in Lead (based on WP:RS notable aspect)
Previously, some editors opposed including a presidential debate mentioned in the lead primarily based on past precedents, such as prior presidential candidates Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney not having debates mentioned in their leads.
However, these comparisons are not appropriate as none of the WP:RS sources for those candidates mentioned debate as a prominent aspect of their career.
But, it's different for Harris as we have WP:RS sources that mention that this presidential debate was a notable aspect of her career.
"this was clearly Harris’ best debate performance of her career, without any clear missteps".
Also, its sufficiently detailed in the article body, and therefore should be summarized briefly per WP:LEAD
On September 10, 2024, ABC News hosted the presidential debate between Harris and Trump in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the debate, Trump tried to portray Harris as a "radical liberal". Harris's sharpest criticisms of Trump came on abortion rights, where she said she would restore women's rights to what they were under Roe. Harris was declared the winner of the debate by several political analysts, including columnists from CNN, Politico, The New York Times, and USA Today. Some analysts noted that for Harris, this was the "best debate performance of her career," in which she forcefully highlighted her strengths and rattled former president Trump. After the debate, Harris got a prominent celebrity endorsement from Taylor Swift. However, the polls remained close and showed Harris had a hard time conveying that she could represent a "change".
Per the clear consensus above, I oppose. The fact some analysts noted it was a good performance does not overturn this. The editors' concerns were not with analysis of her performance, it was the notability of the event in her life and it being WP:UNDUE alongside losing the election. You are repeating the same points as in the previous discussion. MB243717:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is UNDUE and that there is a consensus against it. Also, to RogerYg's point saying Harris got positive recognition in reliable sources for her debates and other candidates didn't, it's not hard to find reliable sources saying similar complimentary things about specific debates for other presidential candidates who lost elections. E.g. Politico, using literally the same words: "Hillary Clinton delivered the best debate performance of her career."https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-230067
As Wikipedia editors we have to follow what WP:RS sources are saying, and if WP:RS sources consider it best debate performance of their career, that makes it a notable event of their lives. Further, it is WP:DUE also becasue of the wide national and international coverage in WP:RS sources.
I think trying to editorialize whether it was a notable event based on possibly biased personal preferences, rather than WP policies, may be in violation of WP:OR.
I assume good faith of all editors on this page and fully appreciate the civil discussions on the issue.
However, based on the discussion so far, in my humble opinion, all the relevant WP policies justify including a brief mention of debate in the lead. Thanks again. RogerYg (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "if WP:RS sources consider it best debate performance of their career, that makes it a notable event of their lives", this is not actually necessarily the case. That actually is more in line with a violation of WP:OR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources". Reliable sources do not say they were especially notable events in the candidates' lives, just strong debate performances. As mentioned previously, every debate featuring major presidential candidates receives widespread coverage in reliable sources. Extrapolating beyond what the sources say to conclude that it is a central event of the candidate's life worthy of the lead leans in the direction of original research. Onyxqk (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would have to humbly disagree and note the flaws in your logic, as almost 99% of the Biographical Wikipedia events in the lead content is based on what Wiki editors consider important and notable. Mostly none of the sources explicitly state that some event was the most notable aspect of a person life.
With your logic, most of lead events of most article will have to be deleted.
Still, I am happy to not make any OR and quote excatly from the source
Harris's presidential debate was considered the "best debate performance of their career" by some political analysts.
For example, I am sure none of the sources say that her Senate hearing was among the most notable aspect of her life.
She gained a national profile while asking pointed questions of officials in the first administration of Republican president Donald Trump during Senate hearings, including Trump's second U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
Previously you stated editors should not "editorialize whether it was a notable event based on possibly biased personal preferences", now you are saying "based on what Wiki editors consider important and notable" that is what determines what should be put in the lead. I think there is a clear consensus in the talk page from all the other editors on this that it should not be put in the lead and various clear reasons as to why not were given. It doesn't seem like anything additional is being gained from the discussion at this point and the consensus is against including it. Onyxqk (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
You must be logged in to post a comment.