Talk:Jane Harman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
WikiProject Southern California
California Portal
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Southern California, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Southern California, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
This article is also supported by WikiProject California.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Jane Harman is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
person This article is about one (or many) person(s).

I added the new material related to Pelosi overseeing the 2002 waterboarding and the WP report on the Harman letter opposing waterboarding in 2003 as I felt it was important related to that discussion. For experts on this, please revise and extend.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Jane Harman (hence me checking her Wikipedia bio), but it seems rather biased and makes a lot of unsourced statements (see sections about how she misses meetings, has staff problems, etc.) . Does someone who knows more about want to shed any light on the issue? Or sources?

---

I attempted to condense the biography down to something more objective and coherent.

Padjet1 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone appears to be on a mission to post unverified and irrelevant information on what should be a brief bio. I've restored the article to its previous version.

Padjet1 16:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


---

Why should hers be the only entry in this entire encyclopedia that must be "brief"? There apparently is a lot to say about this Congresswoman and her husband. This is supposed to be an informational tool, not a hagiography. Plus, just because something seems biased doesn't make it untrue. I've seen plenty in this Free Encyclopedia that is unsourced and it remains unaltered. Maybe the information about her missing meetings and having staff problems was supplied by one of her former staffers who prefers to remain unnamed. Just a thought. Semperfidelis 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

---

This is getting ridiculous. I stumbled upon Harman's entry, saw that it was completely inappropriate by Wikipedia standards, and tried to pare it down to a properly relevant, objective, form. I have no stake whatsoever in Harman's success, but I'm frustrated that the time I put in revising and verifying the entry was apparently a waste given the desire by some here to abuse this forum and arguably slander the Congresswoman.

I won't itemize the full extent of the inappropriateness here, but I will give a few highlights:

  • Harman's bar status is unsupported and irrelevant.
  • The reference to Senator Tunney's office is not only irrelevant, it is an extended direct quotation (mid-paragraph, no less). Plus, using adjectives like "eager" is typically evidence of editorializing, not encyclopedic writing.
  • Listing Harman's congressional activities is of course appropriate, but the stuff about her work ethic, her tactics, her personality, and her relationship with Nancy Pelosi is just plain gossip.
  • "She lost to the most non-charismatic and uninspirational politician ever seen in American politics--a man whose name describes him--Gray Davis." Did someone really think that a sentence like this belongs in an encyclopedia?
  • Finally, on top of all this, the writing quality is atrocious.

So, once again, I'm replacing this version with the neutral one I originally drafted. And if I can figure out how, I'm reporting this entry to the Wikipedia admins. Padjet1 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

The repeated reverting to an inappropriate and non-encyclopedic version of this article has risen to the point of vandalism. I have previously explained my reasons for reverting, so you should do the same. Please discuss the differences between the gossipy version and the NPOV versions and advocate for your changes on this page, and please do not just automatically revert -- it degrades the quality of WP and arguably libels Congresswoman Harman. -- Padjet1 15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is vandalism. This behavior is ridiculous and unacceptable on Wikipedia. Sandover 16:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Harman and the AIPAC

I removed this from the article:

by a margin of 63% to 32%. despite the fact that prior to the general election Time, Newsweek, The Washington Post, the New York Times, and FoxNews, but strangely NOT the LA Times, all have reported that it has been confirmed that Jane Harman is being investigated for influence peddling for her efforts to get the US government to go lighter on two accused Israeli spies in return for a major Israeli lobby organization, AIPAC, to influence her continuing appointment to the House Intelligence Committee as its Chair when the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. Initially Harman denied the fact of an investigation, but she was later directly contradicted by federal officials, according to these news reports. ((http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html; http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401446.html; http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A16F83C5B0C778EDDA90994DE404482; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225085,00.html))

.. mostly because it's unencyclopedic and reeks of POV ('NOT the LA Times', what is that supposed to mean). Later this evening I will probably take a stab at writing this into the article properly, but of course someone else might get to it first. Eliot 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

--

To Getthingscorrect: Let's actually look at some of these articles. You seem to be making a mountain over what is- currently- a molehill. From the WaPo article:

they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.
Although the case is still considered open, officials said, the allegations have not been substantiated, and there has been no significant investigative activity on the issue in recent months.
the Harman inquiry was an outgrowth of the ongoing criminal prosecution of two former AIPAC lobbyists

From Newsweek:

A senior law-enforcement official said that Harman “has been looked at in a very preliminary level” because officials are obligated to pursue tips when they come into the Justice Department.
They also came at a time that Pelosi, in line to be House Speaker if the Democrats win, was signaling she does not want Harman to be chairman of the intelligence panel; reports of a FBI probe into Harman would presumably give Pelosi cover (emphasis mine) to deny the chairmanship to Harman—a moderate Democrat whom Pelosi feels has not been aggressive enough in challenging the Bush administration.

It's good practice to investigate people associated with known lawbreakers. However, in the US, it's innocent until proven guilty; there will be plenty of people who associated with criminals who are not criminals themselves. The fact that she was investigated speaks to the diligence of the authorities, not that she necessarily did anything.

I mentioned "liberal-leaning" because in this case, it's quite relevant. If Fox News supported Hastings, then you could argue that they'd simply prefer the less liberal and more moderate of two candidates. When the NYTimes supports Harman, it implies that it's due to competence.

Also, your External links in no way qualify as relevant or of the quality WP requires. YouTube? You should check out that video again now. It may suprise you. IndyMedia, the place that is notorious for reporting whatever it's given, including stories of US Tesla-Coil powered Tanks in Iraq wiping out entire towns? Uh, no. As for the labor site, well, see the YouTube clip. Sounds like they were wildly making stuff up anyway.

Lastly, not sure how to put it, but the placement and tone are wrong. Wikipedia is not a place for agendas to be taken out, and the AIPAC thing in no way deserves to go in the lead. Plus, the tone makes it seem like it's obvious why Pelosi did it, when your own articles suggest that it'd be more of a cover story.

If you want to add information, even negative information, to articles... that's great. Just be sure that it's done in an encylopedic style. I'd recommend reading over WP:NPOV. SnowFire 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Madamax

Note from SnowFire: I moved this to the bottom. Talk pages go from top to bottom on WP, and try not to erase previous content when adding stuff.

To SnowFire, et al: It just seems to me that Harman is getting "kid-glove treatment" by WP. When I compare other public officials Wikipedia pages, they are filled with information that slides into inuendo and press reporting that remains unproven yet reported for public consumption. Harman's page is nothing but history and one sided support for her. This page refuses to permit anything close to balance. Even a reference to the fact that she is under investigation, which has been confirmed by the press based on federal law enforcement authorities' information, I've noticed continues to be removed after posting. Have the federal authorities closed the investigation? The answer is no. That it is a preliminary investigation seems to me irrelevant. Has anyone compared Curt Weldon's page and the information that his home was searched...still just an investigation, but arguably by the authors "guilty as charged." And, isn't there some worth in knowing that she is apparently under investigation by the Justice Department because of the concern that as the Ranking Democrat, and perhaps to be Chair, of the House Intelligence Committee, that she is reported to have agreed with others to try to get the Justice Department not to charge two individuals with spying against the United States?((http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html; http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401446.html; http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A16F83C5B0C778EDDA90994DE404482; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225085,00.html)) The complete blind-eyed nature of the WP authors to any of this smacks of partisanship on the part of WP and if that is allowed to continue will do more damage to the credibility of the WP than its inclusion of someone's particularized sense of "non-encylopedic" material.

Well, you're certainly correct that this article is light on the details and fluffy. However, there's a reason for that. Note the BLP policy at the top of this talk page:
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately
If you go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, you'll note that it mentions that WP policies like Verifiability are applied strictly to living people. It is better to have no article (or a very fluffy and general article) than a bad one.
Now, Curt Weldon has quite a bunch of bad stuff at his article, which is good. However, he was involved in a major scandal (which got him kicked out of office and had Feds getting warrants and tossing his place) which is all well-sourced in the article. I went and read the sources kindly provided by the person trying to introduce the more negative slant, and the statements made in the article are simply not supported by the articles themselves. They confirm that there's an investigation, yes, and they also say that it is no big deal, that no damning evidence has been found, that it was started on procedural (and quite possibly political) grounds, and that it isn't expected to go anywhere. This is not a hidden subtext; this is directly said in the articles. Now, if this changes in the future (they find something and bring up), or if you can find reliable sources which believe that these charges are more serious, then that will change things. I'm not averse to negative material being in the article, just negative material that misrepresents the source. (I should add that I'd never heard of Jane Harman until the very recent Intelligence Committee snub, and have no particular investment in her doing well or poorly.)
As for the External links... I think that the labor site doesn't qualify as a reliable source or a quality external link. It seems to be one small group's hatchet job on Harman. To put it another way, I could put up a site with a free webhost that claims that Harman is actually an Al-Qaida mole, but that doesn't qualify as a reliable source any more than a blog entry that claimed Harman has magical healing powers and a saintly aura. I exaggerate, but we should keep things to reputable websites. See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more; note that a website that fails the reliable source test is not typically a good candidate for an external link. If you can find the website of a large and notable group criticizing Harman whose facts are impeccably in order, that would be a reasonable EL to add.
Lastly. Saying "Of course" is bad style, because it is the author saying that the following reason is obvious and implicitly correct (a contention incidentally not supported by the sources, but it's bad style even if it was). SnowFire 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shocking

I am shocked this article does not contain a reference to this incident. It's not really Wikipedia-worthy, but I'm shocked nonetheless. :) RobertM525 (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)