Talk:Katherine Harris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Katherine Harris is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.


Contents

[edit] Town meeting

August 7, 2003 Bradenton, FL town meeting sources:

[edit] 2000 election

Was she, or was she not, chair of Choicepoint - the bunch that made the voting rolls for FL and just happened to omit thousands of voters who just happen to tend to the Democrat - and W's FL campaign manager while she was supervisor of elections for JEB? Some people - we're not all on fluoride yet - think there'd be some sort of conflict there.[1] If it's true, I think it should be mentioned; if not, it's a common misperception which should be straightened out. 142.177.15.190 01:00, 18 Apr 2004

Harris' role as a state co-chair for Bush deserves to be mentioned, but to put it into context, Florida Attorney General Bob Butterorth was likewise a state co-chair for Gore. He deserves an article as well. Somehow, he was of less interest to the media than Mrs. Harris, whom it was easy to charactuire as a "dragon lady". Rlquall 16:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Forgive me, but how was the Florida Attorney General involved in running the election? As I understand it the Secretary of State has "oversight responsibility" for the election. AlistairMcMillan 00:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Very biased encyclopedia, which by definition should list facts, not opinions. - unsigned comment from 216.170.129.121
Please identify what specific problems you have with the article. Gamaliel 21:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion to restore cat Policy Positions

I re-inserted this category and the excised text. It's not at all clear why the politician's public policy positions would lack relevance to her wiki article, would you please discuss your take on it? Thanks Flawiki 09:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV disputed on Policy Position edits

I thought Gamaliel's compromise handling of the situation with regard to the stem cell matter was superior to the conflicting treatments given it by either myself or any of the three other coordinating editors. Today's edits restored a POV version of the paragraph that was previously edited to something more NPOV. Would the editor please revert to Gamaliel's no-POV version? Flawiki 20:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

There being no discussion I've pulled the POV tag and reverted the arguably POV passages in the Policy Position section back to Gamilel's version. Flawiki 21:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
That passage was not POV, the paragraph is actually POV without it. The passage simply tells people the reason Congresswoman Harris voted against the measure. I'm putting it back into the article. It balances the section! -- Voldemort 12:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Regret you've elected to revert yet again the offending passage prior to engaging in any discussion. Reverting that sentence simply exposes a POV on the underlying fact. Moral disputes pertaining to stem cell research seem appropriate for the stem cell article, not a section concerning the congressswoman's positions. I've reverted it back to bare facts, replaced the POV tag, and requested a third opinion. Flawiki 14:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I concur that this article is not the proper place for covering all the moral aspects of that particular issue, or any political stance at all, beyond Harris' specific voting stance. Gamaliel 16:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
In response to Request for third opinion -- It is not POV to point out the simple fact that a member of Congress has voted for or against a particular bill. If you want to add statements explaining the vote, then it would be NPOV to quote the member of Congress, or representatives thereof. Parker Whittle 18:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I added references to the text of the bill, the official record of the vote, and borrowed wording for the summary of the bill from an AP article (also referenced). The new wording may serve as a suitable compromise to anyone considering the previous wording somewhat POV (regarding "potentially useful" lines of embryonic stem cells). Parker Whittle 18:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I concur in the compromise language. Thank you for taking the time, and for expending the effort required, to reword this in a neutral way. Flawiki 23:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've reverted Voldemort's ressurection of the offending passage. Flawiki 12:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is horribly POV. There's almost nothing on how she would be the second most sextastic senator in the country, second only to Landrieu from Louisiana. And you keep putting in relevant facts about stupid things she's done! For shame! --BarrettBrown 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cadillac incident

This should be in a seperate section perhaps one describing the 2004 race (there's stuff to put in here on Schneider for ex). If the above section regarding the stem cell situation is ever resolved I'll volunteer to fix it if 201.58.189.189 doesn't want to. Flawiki 20:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC) New sections added about about a week ago or so. Flawiki 21:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

According to an article by David Park Musella of the Skeptical Inquirer, when Harris was Florida secretary of state, she ordered a formal study of "celestial drops" as a remedy for a citrus crop disease. The product was 100% hogwash. I'd like to add this to the article, but I'm not sure whether it should get its own section or what. Comments?

If you can find a place to stick it in please do. Remember to cite the source using footnotes. --Mboverload 06:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, does ordering a formal study on a product that is then proved hogwash a bad thing or a good thing? I would have been much more horrified if "celestial drops" had been bought by the government without a study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.108.123 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stem cell research

Is there a reason why this categorical justification of stem cell research opposition should be noted here and not on its own page? It doesn't say anything about whether this was Harris personal motivation for voting against the measure.

No answer and off it goes.

[edit] 2000 Presidential Election

I revised the "2000 Presidential Election" section from "Because Vice-President Gore had (barely) won the nation's popular vote" to "Because Vice-President Gore had won the nation's popular vote". It seems as though including "(barely)" would constitute a bias.


I don't think the word "barely" is an accurate description of a 543,816 popular vote margin, so yeah it seemed pretty biased to me. Thanks for the edit. Mtmelendez 14:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed untrue statement whose citation does not verify it

"This seemingly far-right Christian movement seeks to remove the separation of church and state tradition of American government." This statement isn't true as the separation of church and state is not in the US Constitution, which is the basis of American government. Nor did I find it on the website. Not to mention somewhat of a bias that those not up on American political talk would understand. Thus was it removed.

And replaced. The website DOES, in fact, state that, and the fact that she aligns herself with a group with what is generally characterized as FAR right views such as the dissolution of church and state IN pertinent factual information. ThuranX 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, nowhere did the article state or imply that the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution. It referred to a "tradition," which does indeed exist in the form of Supreme Court interpretations of the Establishment Clause, not to mention the writings of most of the Founding Fathers. BarrettBrown 03:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
given that the whole section has since been edited and agreed upon by consensus, your comment is moot.ThuranX 03:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
And thus your reply to my comment is super-moot. I was simply trying to back up your position for the record, anyway; perhaps you misread my comment. I was referring to the Wikipedia article, and pointing out that the article was fine before the first poster removed it. BarrettBrown 02:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent changes

Tonight, I made quite a few minor edits and a few major ones. Please dialog with me here if you take issue with any or all them. I ask that each here afford me the courtesy of not "blanket" reverting all my edits in toto. I've put much thought into them and I am trying to be NPOV. thank you. Merecat 08:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the numerous edits damaged this article. As all of the material excised was negative or at best, neutral with respect to the Harris, despite being factual, the sheer weight of material removed renders the edits taken in toto as nearly a form of POV pushing. Would gently request that you consider reverting the edits voluntarily and perhaps working on the massive rewrite in sections, over time. --Flawiki 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (+NPOV added Flawiki 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

Your condemnation of my edits is too broad to be addressed en masse [2]. Please link diffs one at a time here with your objections to each diff and I will reasonably dialog with you towards a jointly acceptable resolution for each of your objections. I suggest that we start with the three edits which bother you the most. Merecat 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Overnight you made 26 edits overnight on the article, and over the course of <=2 minutes you made three edits to add the above 2 sentences to this Talk page. Addressing each the 26 edits would be absurd. Kindly restore the material excised regarding the 2000 election, Riscorp, conflict of interest, the Saturday Night Live material, and the info on the May 12 deadline for competitors to run against Harris. Thank you in advance for your consideration on restoring factual material accidentally removed from our encyclopedia. You may wish to consider using the Show Preview button more frequently to avoid superfluously recording excessive numbers of edits. --Flawiki 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that making demands of the type you are making is either fair or productive. See this link Talk:Florida Central Voter File to see how effective talk page dialog occurs. You may not be up to the task of consensus editing, but others are. And frankly, I take umbrage at your tone. To me, you sound condescending, verging on hostile. Merecat 02:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, making two dozen edits and then asking for a discussion doesn't seems like the most efficient way of shaping up this article. -- Sholom 03:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You've not responded in any meaningful way to support removal of the factual and relevant material pertaining to Riscorp, the 2000 election, conflicts of interest, and the SNL stuff. Although not all of the edits are harmful, it seems to me the net effect is the sanitizing of unfortunate facts that tend to cast the subject in a less-than-favorable light. --Flawiki 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please state for me why you think each of those should be re-inserted. Please take into account the ES I made for each repsective edit. I think my changes arre correct and have stated reasons for them with individual edit summaries. Merecat 02:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The rationale for reverting the excissions made to each of the four aforementioned areas are identical. In all four areas factual, relevant, noteworthy material was removed. The ongoing absence of argument supporting a proposition that the material removed was false or irrelevant or lacking in noteworthiness strongly suggests that the removed passages ought be restored to the article. --Flawiki 02:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I made edits, I supported each edit with a distinct Edit Summary. Blanket dismissals don't suffice. Merecat 07:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

When the edit summaries match the action taken I agree, blanket dismissals don't suffice. But regarding the four areas I've identified above, the supplied edit summaries appear to be simple facades that don't support the wholesale removal of material that actually occured. A very recent example of whitewashing under the guise of a facially noble edit summary: there is no citation which says this "stirred some conteoversy" - assertion deleted - do not re-insert without proof of controversy resulted in the complete nuking of any mention of the subject's notable, factual involvement with the Reclaim America for Christ 2006 conference, even though other elements of the material were not implicated by the edit summary or were trivially checked to locate off-WP cites. Each of the four areas I mentioned in my 2:41 29 March 06 talk item above were subject to this same sort of mandhandling. --Flawiki 13:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Flawiki, your POV is coloring your edits here. While you may consider it controversial for a politician to address a religious group; absent confirmed reports from neutral, reliable sources who contend that he speech resulted in controversy or was itself controversial, your characterization of it as such is incorrect. And, if indeed she spoke there as a headliner, supply a citation. And, if indeed that talk stirred controvery, supply a citation. In fact, you only supplied a link to the group itself, but no link to any information about the event she spoke at. So, Harris spoke at a religious group? Big deal? Do they vote? Are any members of that group in FL? If she wins, she will be representing the whole state. Is she supposed to not speak to those people? Why, because what that group stands for offends you? Merecat 15:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss prior to scrubbing the article of relevant, verified facts. I have no idea whether or not her appearance at that conference is controversial. The passage you excised refers to courting religious conservatives, which is objective and documented in another link you excised. Why do you find it controversial? Perhaps the article could do with an explanation about what you find controversial about its mention. It's rather disingenuous to go on to delete the link to the 2006 conference site that unambiguously lists Harris as a conference speaker and then to take me to task for not providing a link. --Flawiki 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Flawiki, your complaints need to be more specific. I disagree that your revert of those edits was warranted and I have restored them by reverting you. Merecat 07:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried but apparently failed to be responsive enough. Would you consent to mediate? --Flawiki 11:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, contingent upon you 1st listing three specific things which concern you the most. Merecat 19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How about one? I'd like to try to resolve things without bringing 3rd parties in, if possible. For instance, the redaction from a few moments ago, summarized as "this is simply too POV - if you want to put in pros and cons on this point, ok. But not cons only)". The material removed
Several additional staffers have resigned from her campaign, with Harris promising to hire new ones. Republican pollster and consultant David Johnson has said of the ordeal, "I've never seen staffers go like this. It's just imploding."[3]
This appears to be factual and completely neutral, yet the edit summary cites POV. Do you hold NPOV to require a quantitative balance of "pro" and "con" lest the material be redacted? If so, I disagree. I don't believe the NPOV pillar mandates any such balance since it may be impossible. Sometimes, the truth hurts. --Flawiki 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The net result of including this is to push a POV view that Harris campaign is failing. You can't do that. You also have to quote someone who says it's doing well. Merecat 23:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I strenously disagree. Assuming you can locate positive facts, it is incumbent on you, not I, or anyone else who posts relevant, factual data, to quote the these so-called "facts". --Flawiki 23:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong. If you insert material, the net effect of that maertial has to be NPOV, or others are free to remove it. If you fail to address the shortcomings I have pointed out to you, I will delete that meterial. Merecat 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be incapable of understanding the difference between NPOV and partisan commentary. If a politician is implicated in a major scandal then the net effect of NPOV descriptions of that involvement are inevitably going to have a net negative effect on their bio. At this point there are no political commentators that rate Harris as a viable candidate Democrat or Republican. --Gorgonzilla 05:10, 2 April 2006

(UTC)

Wrong again. If the net effect of quoting only certain persons makes an article lean towards one POV only, then it's reasonable to look for balancing comments from other persons. This particular quote is obviously being opushed to advance the storyline that Harris's campaing is failing. There is no objective NPOV evidence this is true, so to include the suggestion that it is, without seeking out commentators views who disagree, you are rowing with only one oar. On political article especially, it's important to row with both oars, left right, pro, con. If we use only pro quotes or only cons experts, we are taking sides in a partisan fight. That is a no-no. Merecat 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually I removed the 'failling' statement from the introduction even though that is certainly the view of the GOP at this point. All signs point to Harris winning the nomination unless she gives in to the pressure from her party to withdraw. Her campaign staff has resigned en masse and the press are describing her campaign as 'imploding'. The two sides here are Harris and the GOP, icluding Rove, Jeb Bush and the President. Removing the critical statements does not make the article NPOV, it makes it biased. --Gorgonzilla 22:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what those shortcomings are, 'cat. You've stated quite clearly that the lack of quantitative balance renders contributions POV, but that is a novel position unsupported insofar as I know by WP policy. Please document the basis for your stance along with cites to and arguments based on WP policy supporting an extension of NPOV doctrine to justify such a restrictive, fact-hostile doctrine. --Flawiki 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Outside View Let me state first I have never contributed to this or any US political article. That noted, the comment made above The net result of including this is to push a POV view that Harris campaign is failing. You can't do that. You also have to quote someone who says it's doing well. Merecat 23:01, 1 April 2006 is very disturbing and lays open the editor's contributions to serious question, with respect to his/her own POV. I would advise recourse to mediation, since Merecat is clearly operating outside the spirit of WP and hiding behind WP:NPOV to WP:POINT. That is unacceptable. I suggest reverting the editor's contributions indicated above & then seeking protection for the page. Eusebeus 14:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree.
To Merecat: I happened to notice your contributions when I saw your edit summaries on some other articles on my watchlist, which might be considered uncivil. (e.g. "this template is biased POV crap" and "stop with these crappy POV templates!") I also notice that in the vast majority of these cases, you have not copied removed content to the talk page for commentary. You have also inserted the {{NPOV}} template without adding commentary to the talk page (e.g. Team Abramoff). You will notice that the {{NPOV}} template states "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
As others have clearly pointed out, much of the content you have removed without discussion is verifiable and factual. If you feel the need to balance it, it is not helpful to simply remove and state that others must "link diffs one at a time here with your objections to each diff".
In the above referenced removal of a quote from pollster David Johnson, the point is clearly attributed to Johnson and his credible expertise is stated. If you feel the need to balance that with other verifiable material, then you must find a contrary opinion with equal verifiability and credibility, and cite it.
I feel that others are well justified to revert many of your deletions, and if I had more time, I would review all your contributions as I believe that you are laboring under a false understanding of Wikipedia's policy on NPOV.
Regards, KWH 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Mericat's position over the MZM/Cunningham scandal seems to be that a politician's invovlement in a scandal is not notable unless they are actually indicted. Most political commentators would dispute this standard. If it was taken seriously we would have to remove the article on Whitewater altogether. --Gorgonzilla 18:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to second (sixth?) the notion put forth by KWH.Laikalynx 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Enough is enough. With Harris in the news, this is an important topic and many people will be visiting this page. The childish, partisan POV-pushing needs to end now. POV pushing is unacceptable no matter where it is found. The repeated tagging of this article by Merecat is disruptive, and attempts to justify this edit war by suggesting that the recounting of facts needs, as a matter of course, to be balanced by some competing (i.e. pat, political, spokesman-speak, pandering, sugar-coated) view is ridiculous and unencyclopedic.

User:Merecat's statement I cited above is a disturbing demonstration of a fundamental miscomprehension about what WP articles need to achieve; I believe deliberately so, stretching the ability to assume good faith. As a result, I believe this should be taken to mediation and a request made that the issue be reviewed; ideally, Merecat will be prevented from these disruptive edits and what amounts to a violation (in effect) of the 3R rule. I have looked through the edit history of this article, and I don't see how accusations of systematic POV pushing can be justified wrt any of the other good faith editors of this article. Please respond if there are reasonable objections to mediation, but not of the "unless we have counter-balancing quotes from Harris' campaign spokesman this is POV"-kind which is not helpful. Eusebeus 00:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please choose from among yourselves a "point man" and assign to that person the task of talking with me regarding all your concerns. When you have done that, I will dialog here until that party is satisfied and all issues are concluded. As for any more edits, I'll probably skip this article for now. Also, be honest with yourselves, at least several of the edits I made here improved this article. I'm sorry we've disgreed on others. Let me know when your team's point man is ready. Merecat 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If Merecat or anyone else has violated the 3RR, please report them at WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dcrub lists

I removed the following because there was no clear connection what this content had to do with Katherine Harris. Well documented though, but seemingly unrelated. If whomever author re-adds this, please make relevance more distinctive. After Miami mayor Xavier Suarez was removed from office in 1998 due to absentee ballot fraud, state election officials hired Database Technologies Inc. (DBT) of Boca Raton to scan the state's database of registered voters for felons, who are prohibited from voting by state law, and for dead people.[1] The felon "scrub lists" were supposed to remove 8,000 registered voters, but some private investigators have claimed the number is as high as 173,000. Choicepoint (the company that has since acquired DBT) claims that these numbers are "simply wrong". Choicepoint asserts that many who claimed to have been "scrubbed" had attempted to vote at precincts in which they were not registered.[2]

Those removed from the voting rolls included people with no criminal convictions but who had the same names and birthdays as the felons; others were convicted only of misdemeanors, which should not have deprived them of the right to vote. Some, such as Thomas Cooper, even lost the right to vote because of alleged crimes committed in the future (Thomas Cooper's conviction date was January 30, 2007). On Election Day 2000, some persons, including those claiming to have been erroneously listed as felons, were reportedly turned away at the polls. The use of felon "scrub lists" was strongly criticized as an attempt to disenfranchise poor and African-American voters in particular.[3][4] More than forty states permit ex-felons to vote after they have served their time; others require a civil pardon. Florida has a complex process which requires a released prisoner to apply to a state commission, the Executive Clemency board, for a restoration of civil rights.


[edit] "alleged" benefit

Regarding the word "alleged"; the sentence in question reads "[w]ould have benefited...". Suffice it to say, that's speculation. Unless a) the bill passed and b) there was actual benefit, then it's only "alleged" as to what the effect of the bill might have beeen. Think about it. Merecat 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, we can't use the phrase "would have" on Wikipedia, ever. Or anywhere, ever. Sorry, doesn't work like that. The phrase "would have" itself implies a speculation over an event that didn't actually happen to begin with. Otherwise, we would use the phrase "had." Or is that "allegedly would have used the phrase 'had'"?. If you have notable sources explaining why Riscorp would not have benefitted, feel free to list them. -Schrodinger82 00:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's us as editors who are making the determination of what "would have" happened, it's a no-no because that's original research. On the other hand, if a reliable source says "would have", we can quote them. We are not to prognosticate. And in my view, an unsourced "would have" is also inherently a WP:POV violation and as such, should be barred on that basis as well. We would do best to simply quote the article that's being cited. Merecat 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And you would have a point if the articles already cited didn't already include the desired information. -Schrodinger82 10:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
For crying out loud, Merecat, the citation that you removed was to a newspaper article entitled: "Harris backed bill aiding Riscorp". This is not an unsourced "would have", this is not "original research", and we _are_ quoting it. -- Sholom 12:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the newspaper story should be quoted, not paraphrased. And the title of the newspaper story is a summary, not a fact. You must quote from the body of the newspaper article. The edit I objected to was not doing that. Merecat 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, I object to your harassment here. First you argued that if a reliable source says "would have", we can quote them. I did quote it. You wrote that an unsourced "would have" is also inherently a WP:POV violation, but it was sourced -- except that you removed the citation. Then you wrote We would do best to simply quote the article that's being cited.. That's exactly what I did. Now you are saying: the newspaper story should be quoted, not paraphrased. And the title of the newspaper story is a summary, not a fact. You must quote fron the body of the newspaper article. The edit I objected to was not doing that.. That is patently incorrect. Indeed, I even anticipated your objection and I did not quote the title, but in fact, I did exactly what you are demanding: I quoted from the body of the newspaper article. How in the world can you say The edit I objected to was not doing that., when in fact I did quote from the article? -- Sholom 12:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The first three paragraphs easily support the complained-about paraphrasing. This article asserts, at best, the appearance of serious impropriety. [4]:
TALLAHASSEE - Needing help in the state capital, Riscorp insurance company turned to a lawmaker they had helped with thousands of dollars in campaign contributions: Sen. Katherine Harris, R-Sarasota.
Harris obliged, sponsoring a bill in 1996 to block Riscorp competitors from getting a greater share of Florida workers' compensation market.
She also pushed a proposal that would hurt a particular competitor.
Regarding the alleged positive fact in this subsection, the exculpatory conjunctive in the terminating sentence (below) is unverified. Assuming it remains unverified, it seems to me it ought be removed from the article:
However, no wrongdoing on her part was charged and she won the election handily.[citation needed] --Flawiki 03:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding Riscorp

"Harris ultimately returned the money, and said in a 1997 interview with the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, “In hindsight, I wish I had been more aware of how much money they were giving me.” Harris was never charged, but William D. Griffin, the founder of Riscorp, was and pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy." [5] Merecat 13:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Harris denied any knowledge of the scheme, was never charged with any crime and was cleared of wrongdoing by a state investigator." [6] Merecat 13:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding MZM

"Neither Harris nor Goode appeared to know the donations were obtained illegally, U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein said on Friday." [7]. Merecat 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Harris probably should have known that something was fishy about the donations, particularly because of her history with Riscorp, said University of South Florida political science professor Susan MacManus. But, MacManus said, Harris can't be entirely blamed for taking the money. The whole campaign finance system is rife with problems, making it hard for even the most vigilant candidates to sniff out questionable donations, she said.'"You almost have to have a full-time investigative reporter on staff," MacManus said. [8] Merecat 13:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There was no quid pro quo - Harris was cleared of wrongdoing by a state investigator

Regarding the Riscorp issue, please understand - I take issue with the attempts by some here to imply that there was a quid pro quo. Harris was cleared by a state investigator. Insinuations that she did wrong regarding Riscorp, are a) false and b) POV. Elected officials submit favorable legislations all the time for local companies. Stop being so quick to only insert an anti-Harris line here. The anti-Harris partisans here are mucking up the honest history. The honest history is that sleezy companies think they can buy influence - and it's often the case that they think this. However, it's not often that elected officials knowingly take $$ either personally or via campaigns for specific acts or for legislation. The official state investigation regarding Harris/Riscorp concluded that did not happen here. Please stop trying to infer that it did! -- "Harris denied any knowledge of the scheme, was never charged with any crime and was cleared of wrongdoing by a state investigator." [9] Merecat 14:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Who here is trying to imply that there was a quid pro quo with regards to Riscorp? I know I wasn't. The point was that it looked fishy. C'mon -- she did accept illegal donations from Riscorp, Harris' own treasurer helped change some of the addresses on the checks in question, and Harris did propose legislation that would have helped them. That's why there was an investigation, after all! And this, in itself, is noteworthy, particularly because it appeared something similar happened with MZM. I don't think anyone here every tried to assert that Harris did anything illegal -- we all know she wasn't charged.
Look, what's important here is to present the facts, and let the reader decide. Prior to now, it seemed that you were unncessarily disputing everyting that looked bad for Harris -- even though the material you were complaining about was 100% factual. I am happy (for real) that you found an actual quote from a local paper that she denied wrongdoing and was cleared by the state investigator. That adds to our knowlege. And, indeed, that was an important fact missing. Thanks for getting it. Indeed, the fact that this was missing in itself made the paragraph a bit biased against Harris. I agree with that. However, the proper way to fix that is what you seem to have done today -- to add knowlege, rather than try to subtract from what was there. I'm not anti- or pro- anyone here. What I am in favor of is letting the harsh glare of sunlight fall on the activities of our public officials. We do pay their salary after all. If they do something that has the appearance of impropriety (which his a standard that everyone in the legal field is supposed to adhere to), then they need to be called on it. If they are cleared of wrongdoing, that needs to be included, too. I sincerely hope we're a lot closer to being on the same page now -- Sholom 14:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your statement of "If they do something that has the appearance of impropriety..." (the emphasis is mine) betrays that you misunderstand the nature of the Riscorp controversy. The "doing" involved there pertained to the receiving of defective contributions to Harris' campaign account. But it's important to understand that Harris was not personally involved in the "doing". And while her staffer may have been - as evidenced by the fact that Harris was cleared by a state investigator - Harris had no personal knowledge or involvement in the defective contributions transactions. Therefore, when you say that she needs to "be called on it", your are missing the point. The "it" which she can rightly be called on is poor oversight of her campaign staff, not the illegal act(s) by the contributor. An when you say "[i]t appeared something similar happened with MZM", you betray a biased intent to weave a misleading tapestry. With Riscorp, regarding Harris herself, the only thing which "happened" to her is that she was cleared of any wrongdoing. Now, if that's what you are saying is similar to MZM, I say your comments are premature, as MZM is still an open stinkpot. However, if you are saying that the "similarity" is that there are accusations and fingers being pointed about the illegal actions of others (not Harris's actions), well then, ok, there is some similarity. However, the similarity is passive. This is something which has happened to Harris, not something which she did. You are simply wrong in your premise of "if they do something". Harris did not "do domething" in the Riscorp issue, so by definition, there can not be something "similar" which she "did" with MZM. Regardless of what or if Harris "did" with MZM, it cannot be similar to Riscorp because the official determination there is that she did not do anything. If you are driving your car and drunk drivers hit you on two two different occassions, its true you were in two drunk driving crashes. However, if the 1st investigation clears you and states that you were sober, then the only possible similarity is that the other drivers were drunk both times - becaue you were sober the 1st time. Suffice it to say, we are still waiting to see if Harris was "sober" the 2nd time too. It think she was and time will tell. However, in the meantime, stop trying to infer that there is a tapestry of similarity here. There is not. Harris is innocent is regards to Riscorp, period. That is the end of the Riscorp story. There's no "similarity", there's no "irony", there's nothing. MZM and Riscorp have nothing whatsover to do with each other. Merecat 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy fails because it was not _completely_ passive. It was the receipt of bundles of checks. Should she have known? Perhaps, because of the Riscorp incident, she should have been a bit more wary. But this isn't my idea -- it's from the papers of her own district. To wit (from three different newspapers):
  • If anyone should know to question such gifts, it's Harris. This should have been a deja vu moment for Harris, for she had gotten caught doing exactly the same thing 10 years earlier. [10]
  • If, on the other hand, Harris was not aware of the illegality of the donations, then one must wonder how that could be. Having been involved in this same situation in the past with Riscorp, she would have to be awfully dim and/or incredibly politically naive to not question the implications of such a donation. [11]
  • Her claim of naivete about the bundled checks might be more plausible if it were not a sleazy replay of what happened in 1994 during her state senate campaign. [12]
So, please stop accusing me of bias here. The idea that there is a "tapestry of similarity" isn't mine -- it's what many are saying in her district. The "similarity", which you deny, is that she received bundles of checks from the same corporation and those very bundles were illegal. (Actually, there are more similarities, including the fact that there was "co-mingling" of staff from Riscorp and Harris' staff, and MZM and Harris' staff, but I digress). The difference is that Harris has been exonerated re: Riscorp, but not yet from the MZM incident. Oh well, I had hoped we were closer to being on the same page. Did you notice that I praised your inclusion of exculpatory material? -- Sholom 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have an agenda to push POV, the fact she was fully exonerated in Riscorp must be emphasized more that the partisan sniping of pundits in the media. Harris has been officially proven innocent regarding Riscorp. Therefore, to run with suggestions that it's "similar" to MZM - where there is still investigating under way, is simply false. If you can't get that, then I don't know what to tell you. If Harris had not been deemed innocent in Riscorp, then the snide conjectures from the media which you quote above, would have more weight. But, as it stands, they are no more relevant than if the media said she's got three heads. There has been an official factual finding of actual innocence. This is a very powerful and superceding truth. Get up out of the gutter of the media's false aspersions and look at the facts which have been proven true - not at a bunch of opinionated and false media hype. Merecat 16:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar - Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical. Related in appearance: she (a) accepted bundles of checks that were illegal donations (b) she subsequenty attempted to promote legislation that would have those donors. Not indentical: she was exonerated in one and there is an investigation in the other. I'm sorry, I fail to see why similar is an inapprorpiate word, or why it seems to important to you. In any event, the entire Riscorp incident takes up a grand total of four sentences in the article. Might we be able to move on? -- Sholom 16:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The episodes, from our editors' standpoint, are not "similar". Harris is innocent in Riscorp. Therefore, anything she did there, simply is not notable so far as the angle of "scandal" goes. Innocent means just that - didn't do anything wrong. Your breathless recitations of what did or did not happen, are aimed at implying she did do something wrong. You know that's what you are doing and you ought to stop it. Merecat 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The piece cited as authority that the subject is innocent and was cleared by a state investigator appears to be an opinion piece that doesn't pass WP:RS muster. The clearing claim ought to be supported by more than an op-ed column; details about the investigation, even the name of the investigator, these sorts of things are certainly pertininent. In an attempt to reach a compromise I've ident'd the source as a column but left the exculpatory quote in place. --Flawiki 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this archived article from NBC6.net (an NBC Afilliate [13])"Five Riscorp executives were indicted on charges of making illegal contributions in 1997, but a state investigation cleared Harris and other politicians of any wrongdoing. [14] Merecat 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the same story on the web site of another FL news station [15]. I'm guessing these two news stations may be affiliated with each other. But, even if that is the case, it does not diminish that this is a news story, not an opinion piece. Merecat 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • So where are we at now? I would say on the basis of these two sources [16] [17] it may be fair to say that the "1997 investigation cleared her of wrongdoing", but the sheer number of sources that mention this show that this scandal and Harris's involvement or non-involvement in it is grounds for inclusion in an article on Harris. It happened, and people talked about it. I also read a source earlier today that indicated that Harris returned the $20,000+ from Riscorp, but it somehow went into an Election Trust... I'll see if I can find that source again.KWH 00:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The plot thickens?. I'm not so sure we ought to close the book on this one just yet. Drop a state investigation cleared Harris into google and out pops this link (6th one down) of questionable utility under WP:RS claiming that the source of the phrase was a WaPo article citing a Katherine Harris press release. I'll try to dig up some more later or tmw. --Flawiki 01:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) I've dug a little more and am associating the wrong bits in the piece with a press release. I therefore concur with KWH. --Flawiki 02:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, either we accept as a fact that she was cleared or we don't. It's impossible to write coherent history, if we don't agree on the facts. If the facts are clear, we must accept them. It's only when the facts are in dispute, that we equivocate. In this instance, there can be no equivocation: Harris was cleared by a state investigation. And, since she was cleared, inferences that any open investigations of MZM are "similar" to the closed investigations of Riscorp must be avoided. There is no 'continuity of shenanigans' as the article has tried to imply. In fact, if we follow the logic of her being cleared previously, it's more likely than not that this "Neither Harris nor Goode appeared to know the donations were obtained illegally, U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein said on Friday." [18] is going to be the end result of the MZM issue as well. Suffice it to say, I feel that the anti-Harris editors are leaping to conclusions here and trying to paint a picture of personal corruption where none exists. In fact, just a few days ago, this edit with the outrageous "Cunningham Scandal" template, which at that time looked like this was being inserted by Gorgonzilla into the Harris article. My aim has been to thwart POV mongers from painting with a broad brush here. There is simply not enough factual evidence being posted here which proves any personal corruption by Harris. If the editors want to focus on the poor oversight angle, which is obviously valid, then that's ok. There is no dispute that Harris' campaign failed to watch the donor gate carefully enough and allowed in $$ which was tainted on two occasions. However, I do object to and will oppose any ongoing efforts to vilify her personally as corrupt because of that. There is no proof of personal corruption and that editorial take must be foreclosed until (if ever) there is. Merecat 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You say that they are not similar, but then that they are similar in that in both cases, Harris's campaign was guilty only in not "watch[ing] the donor gate carefully enough". It's really not clear what you are arguing at this point as I think we can clearly say that the state investigation cleared her of wrongdoing, although we want to find the best citation for this (a press release from the investigating body or reference to the report might be best).
If you are arguing that this should not be mentioned at all, I would point out something that I've learned - if you want to remove mention of Riscorp (or even MZM) from the article just because you think it's non-relevant since she was cleared, then someone will come along and insert it later in their own words when you aren't looking; a month later, or a year later. If you don't want people to "paint with a broad brush", as you put it, then you should paint the same picture with a fine brush. If you tell the full story in NPOV with verifiable citations that make the situation clear, then the preponderance of Wikipedia editors will make sure it stays in the article. Good, NPOV, verifiable writing tends to push out bad writing.
Also, you're not assuming good faith much when you use terminology like "POV mongers", "anti-Harris editors", etc. I agree that inclusion of the "Cunningham Scandal" template might have been a bit much, given Harris's peripheral connection with MZM money, but we are all allowed to make mistakes. Just take it easy - the net result of this conflict has been that all persons have done a lot of research to further clarify the facts, and that verifiable research can only add to the article. KWH 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wade scandal

Rollins has started attacking Harris over the Wade/MZM scandal. In particular accusing her of lying over accepting a $2800 meal from Wade. This is an absolutely blatant violation of Congressional ethics rules that even a junior staffer knows is illegal. The gift limit is $50, no exceptions, especially meals.

There can be no excuse for not mentioning the Wade issue in the introduction. Harris has been mentioned in court documents, she has lied over her involvement repeatedly, the local press is attacking her for having lied. This is page one stuff. Burying it in the article is POV.--Gorgonzilla 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Rollins is biased within the GOP fold towards his own agenda, whatever that is. Not every shrill attack by every partisan should set off a new re-write of the intro. Merecat 15:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ed is certainly partisan, but he is a partisan Republican. Karl Rove, Jeb Bush and now Ed Rollins have all made clear that they want Harris out of this race. In this case Rollins is a former senior staffer making a very clear allegation of corruption and lying. --Gorgonzilla 12:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ed clearly has an axe to grind. Republican or not, he's not supporting Harris. In fact, he's against her and that makes him a biased partisan. Merecat 07:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Merecat keeps trying to edit this article in a highly partisan fashion to eliminate references to the MZM Wade scandal. He repeatedly removes any mention of the scandal in the introduction despite the fact that Ed Rollins, the top GOP political consultant has stated that this was the reason for him quiting the Harris campaign. --Gorgonzilla 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact, I'd say it's the other way around, with Gorgonzilla being at fault. - Merecat 20:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it's Merecat. anything which puts a clear light on Harris' behavior and the fact taht much of it appears to be unsavory is being removed. She spoke at the national convention for a group seeking to remove searation of church and state, AND establish a christian protestant nation, and he removed it, DESPITE a clear source with her picture right there saying 'headline speaker'. Merecat is quite CLEARLY pursuing some agenda here other than 'being NPOV'. I don't know on whose behalf he's revamping her WIki image, but it's a clear bias. ThuranX 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Christian bigotry has no place on the wiki. Many Muslims support Sharia. Should a politician not speak to Muslims because of that? So then, even if what you say is true, is Harris not supposed to speak to those Christians? It's simply not notable and not controversial except in a few editor's minds. Merecat 07:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. The adherence of a person to a given religion is the mere factual statement ' bob is en episcopalian.' And that, generally, is all that wiki needs. However, 'bob believes that episcopalianism is the way all of america should be governed, and maintains that as a part of his public policy' is perfectly germaine to an article about a political figure. That's what that entire section represents. She believes that the separation of church and state should be torn down. Given that she's freely and publicly affiliated herself with a group with that exact advocacy, it's fully relevant. Imagine wanting to know her politics and comign to Wiki. Knowing she's allied herself with a specific christian philosophy would be a fact of interest to the potential voter/reader. therefore, it belongs. ThuranX 00:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanket Reverts

I ask other editors here to stop making blanket reverts of my edits. I am making individual edits, so as to allow for maximum consensus editing opportunities. Please afford me a similar courtesy in return. Thank you. Merecat 18:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

We ask YOU to stop making 15 separate obnoxious biased POV edits, sticking one valid one in, and being falsely outraged when we throw the whole mess out, bringing back some 'horrific' typographic mistake. stop being so biased, we'll stop reverting.ThuranX 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, lay off the POV pushig and the self-righeous attitude and you might find that people didn't need to revert as often. You have shown zero interest in consensus, you keep deleting relevat facts on the slimest premise an inserting irrelevant PR puffery. -- Gorgonzilla 12:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You, two, ThuranX and Gorgonzilla really can't be serious. Cut the Democrat Party takeover of Wikipedia. You are really asking for more than an edit war. Seriously knock it off. If anyone finds this comment to be inappropriate or offensive. Tough. If you find it uncivil, I would check out the actions of 'civilized' nations and people. They are most often the least 'civilized' of all peoples in history. (Like yourselves) thewolfstar 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thewolfstar, I am serious. Merecat's entire premise is that we're throwing out his good with his bad, but he cloaks his good in with his bad, then screams foul. He's repeatedly redacted cited additions to the article in favor of either contradictory cites or just unsupported talk. As for your desire to escalate this into a flame war by casting me and gorgonzilla as fascist democrats ignorant of all the strife on Earth, and threatening us, that's simply uncalled for. Grow up. This is about getting to an unbiased middle ground, which is failing miserably in this article right now. If you can't participate in the big project that is Wiki in a civilized manner, please just step away and find other hobbies. Threatening us isn't mature nor proper wikiquette. ThuranX 19:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please dialog about specific edits and stop all the complaining. Merecat 07:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this article is full of opinion and propaganda

What more can I say? thewolfstar 07:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidently you can't give actual examples. Having seen your handiwork trying to insert diatribes on the second ammendment into the Democratic party article it does not appear that you are adverse to propaganda or opinion if it matches your own prejudices. --Gorgonzilla 12:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, What I inserted was actually fact not propaganda. The Dem party article states (now reworded a little):
"The Party advocates civil liberties"... as if it were fact.
In reality the Dem party does not support all civil liberties. By it's own admission, in reality and in the article, it supports gun control. By supporting gun control, it automatically does not support the 2nd amendment , which unequivocably states that the 'right to form a militia and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.'
So the article statement is misleading and NOT FACT (POV). What I inserted made it factual. thewolfstar 16:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article reads like an editorial - not an encyclopedia article

In reply to Gorgonzilla

First, to set the record staight, I personally detest Katherine Harris, all her cronies and everything she stands for. You apparantly do, too. However, this, like any article, should be unbiased, not a reflection of the opinion of it's editors.

This is an encyclopedia article. It should be well rounded...not biased in any direction.

These are sections in the Harris article. Here is how they read. They are statements of fact. I don't even doubt that. But it comes off like an editorial in a publication, rather than an encyclopedia article.

Florida Senate & Riscorp: dirt on Harris.. blah blah blah

International travel: dirt on Harris..blah blah blah

2000 Presidential election: dirt on Harris..blah blah blah

Attire and appearance: dirt on Harris..blah blah blah

2002 and 2004 races: dirt on Harris..blah blah blah

Controversy from the MZM Scandal: dirt on Harris..blah blah blah

Then, a little later on..

Sexuality criticism: dirt on Harris..blah blah blah

If some of this stuff was left in, along with other neutral sections, I wouldn't have any objection to it.

Also, the bias starts right in the first section. "In 2005, Harris' campaign accepted contributions, later shown to be illegal, from defense contractor Mitchell Wade. In March 2006 many of her staff resigned, including Ed Rollins. In response to widespread speculation that she may quit the race, Harris pledged to continue the campaign with $10 million of her own funds." This is way too much to include in the opening paragraph of an article

I hope you find what I wrote helpful. thewolfstar 16:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What changes to the lede would you suggest? As to the other bits, we've been around the block a few times on the bad_facts>good_facts issue, before even the most recent frictions. I think the biggest problem is that the subject has a lot of history and has created many citable facts, many if not most, bad_facts. I don't believe it'd be proper to toast the bad facts on grounds the good facts aren't present because they don't exist. --Flawiki 17:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right about good facts not existing. I would be surprised if good facts could be found. Just put some more neutral stuff in it. You asked "What changes to the lede would you suggest?" I just said what changes I would suggest. Take the whole bit out of the lead:

"In 2005, Harris'...." and move it down to another place on the page. Thanks thewolfstar 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Harris is my US Rep but I can't remember anything factual about her that's worth adding in here that is neutral, most anything factual pertaining to a politician is good or bad: If it isn't, mightn't it be too trivial to mention? Regarding the lede, it's definitely far too long. Please compare with the lede in the Tony Snow article (almost a random example), Snow's is short & sweet & with the current "big story" right up front (press secty apptmt rumors). Do you think MZM/Wade (or something else?) belongs in a nice tight one para only lead? --Flawiki 20:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Thewolfstar and Flawiki are speaking honestly here. This article is a mess, but some progress has been made. Let's keep trying to make progress. Merecat 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if it's all true I don't see a problem with it. Honestly I can't think of another use for an article on any politician other than legislation they have actually passed. --Mboverload 22:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the sexulity criticism section should probably be knifed. The material there is essentially just a repeat without attribution of the Jon Stewart send up, which though richly deserved is impossible to explian in words. The rest however is simply a consequence of the fact that she is a scandal plagued politician. The standard metric for pol in trouble is when their own party is attacking her. That is what is going on here and the article should reflect it. The various scandals could probably be combined into a single section on 'Allegations of corruption' and the 2005 count should probably be little more than a link to the main article. --Gorgonzilla 10:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur. --Flawiki 20:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody have at these suggested changes and let's see how they look. Merecat 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is a total hatchet job on this woman; worse than anything I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Is there one decent thing said about her here? If so, I can't find it. CsikosLo 14:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

the article has plenty of citation to support the criticisms. If she didn't want to look like a 'bad person', perhaps she shouldn't have made the choices she made. The consequences of her choices are fully documented, and that's it. There's a common misperception on wikipedia that articles have to balance the good and the bad. A quick look at Adolf Hitler makes it clear that even the changes to German economy wouldn't balance his 'good' against his 'bad'. We'd have to put in a dozen paragraphs about his innovative house-painting technique to redeem that article at all, but it's all facts, all true, etc., etc. We don't have to make bad people look 'not so bad', jsut be fully sourced If you can find legitimate good stuff, add it. Henry Ford is a good example of all his Pro-american and Pro-industry works, his world war 1 efforts for the allies, and all the great things he did for the USA being balanced against his use of the Dearborn paper to reprint the Protocols of Zion, a distinctly anti-semitic propaganda piece. When people do good, and we can cite it, we can, and do. Same goes for their 'misdeeds'. Harris just has a LOT of controversy and apparent 'misdeeds'. No one's gone after her, we just can't find citation for her efforts to kiss every baby and snuggle every kitten and puppy. ThuranX 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I wouldn't have any objection to it, if it would read more like an encyclopedia article and less like an editorial or something you might find on a blog. Can't more neutral facts be found...just plain facts that don't support or incriminate her? Maggiethewolfstar 04:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think notability and/or significance of facts properly cited is a much better criteria for inclusion rather than simple neutrality. --kizzle 08:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Both matter. Merecat 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

the latter is derived from the former. Kevin Baastalk 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the former trumps the latter. Do we weight the Hitler article based upon a 1:1 ratio of positive/negative notable facts? (NOT saying Harris is anything like Hitler, so don't go there, just listen to my point). --kizzle 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the actual bit of content which is under discussion here? Because I know that these sort of arguments usually go nowhere if they're not actually discussing a piece of the article, so let me save you the time: pick a word, sentence, or paragraph to discuss the merit of. The usual abstract debate on the philosophical nature of truth/verifiability/notability/good/bad tends to get old. Best, KWH 06:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's "POV" about being wealthy and/or influential?

"Harris is a member of one of Florida's wealthiest and most influential families. Her late grandfather, Ben Hill Griffin, was a citrus baron and state legislator, and one of the state's largest landowners."[19].

Since when is such a fact "POV"?

"She is also one of the heirs to the fortune of Ben Hill Griffin Jr., a citrus and cattle magnate. Griffin, Harris's grandfather, is also the namesake of the stadium where the University of Florida plays football."[20].

Why do statements that revert reference to these facts keep getting deleted? -- Sholom 18:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While nobody answered the above question, I will provide more references. Here her father is listed as one of the top 50 more important Floridians of the century. In that article you can read how his father was a US Senator, that he ran for the governorship, that he controlled nearly 300K acres of citrus, he chaired a blue-ribbon commission (appointed by the person who defeated him for governor), he donated $20 million to U. Fla., the stadium is named after him, and an auditorium at its Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred; and he was ranked as one of the richest men in America. (Here I see a public school is named after him.) Umm, wouldn't you say that the combination of all this is "wealthy" and "influential" ? Particularly when two news sources also mentioned that (i.e., showing that this is not original research). What in the heck is POV about that? What bias is that? I can't even tell which direction the bias is supposed to be. The Kennedys are rich and influential. So are the Bushes and Rockefellers. What's the bias? I don't get it! -- Sholom 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the POV problem in referencing Griffin. He's well known and remembered as influential in Florida (yes, that statement is both biased and is original research, but I ask for judicial notice as coupled with next bit) and the Ben Hill Griffin, Jr. article indicates some, but sadly not all, of what Sholom found. (In other words if you don't add those additional facts and cites to the BGHjr article I probably will -- thank you for picking them up!). --Flawiki 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If a reliable source calls her family "influential", we can also call them that. But it must be cited. If her parents were wealthy and you can cite it, then do it. These edits were made by another and I agree with them. Either cite these characterizations or leave them out. Merecat 00:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

They _have_ been cited. And these cites have been removed more than once. -- Sholom 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My Lord, the CBS story says that and was cited until you removed it again. Why are we even arguing about this? Gamaliel 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh, election year on Wikipedia. Shit's going down. --kizzle 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misread the cites. Could you repost them here? I'll reply right away. Merecat 04:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Harris is a member of one of Florida's wealthiest and most influential families. Her late grandfather, Ben Hill Griffin, was a citrus baron and state legislator, and one of the state's largest landowners."[21].

Now Dave Thomas has removed the word "wealthy" as POV. Ben Hill Griffin was on the Forbes 400 list of the richest people in America. If he was not wealthy, then the word has no meaning. Seriously, why are you people wasting everyone's time with this nonsense? Gamaliel 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On this point, Gamaliel is partially right

Regarding this:

"Harris is a member of one of Florida's wealthiest and most influential families. Her late grandfather, Ben Hill Griffin, was a citrus baron and state legislator, and one of the state's largest landowners."[22].

I support Gamaliel's desire to see this reinserted, with the exception that I prefer it read:

Harris was born in Key West, Florida. Her grandfather was Ben Hill Griffin, Jr., a wealthy businessman in the cattle and citrus industries who served in the state house and senate. The Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at the University of Florida is named for him.[23]

Let's discuss this. Merecat 05:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of rich people merely serve in the state legislature. Griffin was an powerful and important figure and the article should say that, and if it does not it is inaccurate. Gamaliel 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all attempts at accuracy pass the POV smell test. I sense there is an attempt underfoot here to paint Harris as an elitist. I am therefore, suspicious about too much family detail. It has no bearing on her merit as a candidate and it's her political career which makes her notable. Look at the John Kerry article. The Forbes family were drug smugglers. However that's not Kerry's fault so we avoid saying it that way. Look at Ted Kennedy. His father was a rum runner and a likely mafia associate of Sam Giancana. That's not Ted's fault. Harris's grandfather may have been wealthy, but "baron" is often a pejorative when applied to wealth. Surely you must know that? Merecat 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ben Hill Griffin was rich (on the Forbes 400) and politically powerful. These are facts. There are rich people on both sides of the political spectrum. Is someone allegeing something about Griffin I am not aware of? Has someone called him a smuggler, or even a baron, in this article? Griffin has been called one of the most influental Floridians of the 20th century. To mention this is not "too much family detail". All this "detail" is a couple of sentences, and to not mention these facts is to have an inadequate, incomplete bio. Gamaliel 06:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Coming here from the RfC... I don't have a problem with "Harris is a member of one of Florida's wealthiest and most influential families." and the rest. Yes, "most influential" is slightly subjective, but assuming its true, its OK to include. The rest is fine too, except that I would not user the term "baron". Although use in this way has a long history, it's just a tad informal (he's not an actual Peer) and has just a bit too much negativity associated with it. How about "citrus grower"? The opening sentence and "...state's largest landowners" makes it pretty clear that we're not talking about some shlub with a little grove, here. Herostratus 06:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he's wealthy. I disagree that we should call him a "baron" anymore that we should call the Forbes' drug smugglers or the Kennedys rum runners. Merecat 06:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

CBS called him a baron, not this article. Plenty of glowing biographies of Griffin describe him as a baron and mean it in a complementary way. But that's beside the point. Nobody wants to call him a baron, we'd just like to mention the fact that he was wealthy and influential, and that was what you and Dave have objected to. Gamaliel 06:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Last go round, I put wealthy back in. It's "influential" and "Baron", etc., I have trouble with. Also, are you saying if I get a mafia source for Kennedy, that should go in? No! Just 'cause "CBS reported that", does not mean it passes our POV test. Merecat 06:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
CBS reported that Kennedy was in the mafia? --kizzle 07:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to Gamaliel's assertion. I accidentally omitted quotes. Merecat 17:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"influential" is accurate. baron might be a loaded word, but I never put that word into the article, even though it appeared in the news source I was citing. Clearly her family's wealth is an important factor -- after all, she's talked about using her $10 million inheritance to finance her campaign. -- Sholom 13:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
For its upcoming film exhibit, the Fla. Dept of State's Museum of Florida History describes BHG as follows: June 10, 2006 - The Great Floridians Film Series - Ben Hill Griffin, Jr. was a powerful influence in Florida politics and business in his career as citrus grower, cattleman, and state representative. Griffin is the focus of this month's film. Times are 11:00 am and 1:00 pm. [24]. --Flawiki 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
regarding the word 'Influential'. Assigning a specific 0 to 100 level scale to influence is impossible, as influence is often a real, yet intangible quality. Consider Kerry or Kennedy in the current Congress. It is not untrue or unreasonable to describe them as Influential Senators, especially as compared to say, Menendez, Junior Sen. D-NJ, or Lautenberg, Junior/Senior/Junior/Senior Sen. D-NJ. Neither of them has the pull and weight of a Clinton, Kerry or Kennedy, despite the fact that none of those five is Harry Reid, whose position clearly asserts a significant level of influence. I'm afraid that finding numerous quotes citing it, from those who CAN do 'original research', unlike wiki editors, is going to have to suffice. that evidence has been cited repeatedly. He was Influential. that's it. Put it in, and get on to better things. ThuranX 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialog with Gamaliel

To not mention that Griffin was influential and powerful gives the false impression that he was some run of the mill state legislator. Gamaliel 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Harris's grandfather was influential. But to say she was "born into a wealthy and influential family" is not precise. Who in the family was wealthy? When? And who says? And properly speaking unless her parents were "influential", her family is not - not fully anyway. If grand-dad was "influential" and we can cite that, then the sentence must be re-written to make sure that it's grand-dad being referred to, not some imprecise, vague "family".

Harris was born in Key West, Florida. Her grandfather was Ben Hill Griffin, Jr., an influential, wealthy businessman in the cattle and citrus industries who served in the state house and senate. The Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at the University of Florida is named for him.[25]

How this? Merecat 17:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

CBS News says: "Harris is a member of one of Florida's wealthiest and most influential families." Gamaliel 17:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you are joshing right? CBS is not NPOV and suggesting it is grows tiresome. Was it not CBS that foisted the Killian documents spoof on the viewing audience? So what if CBS says it? Are you saying we should quote every news source verbatim on everything and even with that, we will achieve NPOV? If you demand CBS, I'm going to have to insist that you quote it something like this:

According to CBS, "Harris is a member of one of Florida's wealthiest and most influential families." [citation needed] Her grandfather was Ben Hill Griffin, Jr., a businessman in the cattle and citrus industries who served in the state house and senate. The Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at the University of Florida is named for him.[26]

Personally, I feel that CBS is becoming a poor source at a rapid pace, but I'm willing to be flexible here, are you? Merecat 17:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Because CBS may have gotten something wrong in the past, they are incorrect on this totally unrelated matter simply because you think so. Come up with some counter sources, then we'll talk about being flexible. Gamaliel 18:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, it's not "absurd" and please don't say that. Frankly, CBS has recently begun to tatter around the edges in regards to objectivity and accuracy. If you deny that, you are denying the truth. Even so, I didn't say to not use CBS. Rather (no pun intended), I said regarding this particular point, if we use CBS, let's use a verbatim quote. Merecat 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with attributing the line to CBS as Merecat has done. --kizzle 23:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. We can cite it with a link just like we cite every other fact. We shouldn't single this one out because Merecat is still angry about the Killian memos. Gamaliel 23:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine. I honestly don't see what the problem is by either saying "According to CBS" or providing the citation to CBS, I have no problem with either. --kizzle 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you are leaping to harsh conclusions. I want that in quotes to point out that's the verbatim language. I do not want any paraphrasing on this because this line of description is only being editited in here so as to label Harris as an elitist anyway. Personally, I feel we are overplaying this aspect. But since it are including this, combined with the fact that CBS has less credibility lately, it makes sense to do a verbatim quote. Merecat 23:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it a fact, or not, that she is (a) from one of Florida's wealthiest families and (b) from one of Florida's most influential families? Disparaging a source (e.g., CBS) isn't a very good tactic for winning arguments. If you can find another source that you accept that says the same thing but is more "valid" in your mind, or find a source that says she's poor and her family are naught but powerless, unknown peons, go for it.
I suggest we could cite this Newsmax article which states "Harris and her husband, businessman Anders Ebbeson, had holdings valued at $7.8 million to $36.9 million at the end of last year, making Harris one of the wealthiest members of Florida's congressional delegation." Same article also refers to her grandfather "who controlled a cattle and citrus empire." The assumption is that Newsmax is more acceptable than CBS and that being called "emperor" is better than "baron."
-Quartermaster 17:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimmed lede

I took a big knife to the lede (hopefully not too big a knife) with the intent to address Thewolfstar's NPOV tagging as well as my own preference for short & sweet ledes. My intent was to remove only stuff repeated or (IMO, of course) more appropriately placed later in the article. If I toasted original stuff it was inadvertant, please go ahead and slip it back in. --Flawiki 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important that we mention the thing she is most famous for in the introduction, her role in the 2000 presidential election. Gamaliel 23:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Most people in the country don't even know her name. She's most famous in FL for having served as Sec State and Congress, not merely for her 2000 role. Without accurate NPOV polling proof of Gamaliel's assertion, I would oppose. Merecat 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely you can't be serious. Even in FL, she's still most famous for that. Gamaliel 23:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, and not only because that's her claim to fame in Fla., but also because of, for example, google hit's on a relevant search term, and this (apparently objective) article referencing the source of her notability. As the one responsible for excising huge portions of the lede however I won't touch it, subject to further discussion. --Flawiki 00:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: Most people in the country don't even know her name. The notion that she is "famous" for 2000 exists primarily in the thinking of political junkies. Merecat 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But to whatever extent that she is known nationally, it is primarily due to her involvement in the 2000 election. Why else is she attracting national attention? (It's the reason that a story such as Harris Campaign Leaking Staff can be found on page 4 of the Sunday Wash Post earlier this month.) -- Sholom 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Merecat: you should come up with a cite for that, perhaps a name-recognition poll. KWH 03:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Name recognition remained a problem for her, though..." -- March 29, 2006 Mason-Dixon Poll. [27] Merecat 05:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right - although that poll is Florida-limited, it does say that she has about 60% recognition to Nelson's 65%. The bit you quoted is about the fact that she has more unfavorable than favorable recognition. And that article also says "But her decisions upholding President Bush's 537-vote victory in the state made her a national star in GOP circles." KWH 11:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harris

The Dems are jealous? Merecat 05:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I love that picture! It's very flattering. --Flawiki 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Is Merecat saying this is an appropriate picture to use in the article? (It certainly demonstrates the "appearance" controversy) -- Sholom 14:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeb and the Pubbies do support Harris. They have not backed off from this. Merecat 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

More details to aid research. Merecat 05:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about the makeup issue, let's at least be fair to Harris and print her actual recent reply when questioned about that.

Here's the original source:

  • Harris: "I haven't worn blue eye shadow since 7th grade and some of those photographs had me in blue eye shadow.
  • Fountain: "But you don't really think the newspapers doctored your photos?
  • Harris: "I just question why there was blue eye shadow. But it doesn't matter. Why are we talking about this? Kathy, that's so silly. Because people care about the issues. If the media wants to talk about appearances that's different, but I'm not going to talk about it. That's demeaning to women...They don't talk about men's balding or their weight, or their diminutive size."

Hmmm.... Maybe Harris knows something about Nelson she's not telling? Merecat 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

She did say that he's bedded down with Ted Kennedy. --Flawiki 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That must be a mistake. Teddy K is too busy porking the taxpayers. Merecat 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And this: "The late-night chatterers, many of whom either (predictably) voted for Gore, or (thankfully) did not vote at all, ridiculed the attractive Harris’s choice of clothes and make-up. Print reporters, generally not a very stylish crowd themselves, followed suit." Found here. Merecat 05:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality criticism

This section is gossipy trash, and has no place in the article. Aside from its obviously dubious notability, most of it violates WP:V by citing bloggers as its prime source. The Daily Show, also is not an appropriate source for this particular sections as it is a satirical program. I have therefore removed the entire section. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet another person comes in and makes massive changes without giving notice that we've discussed this a bit. TDC, don't you think mentioning it on the talk page before you did that might be more appropriate? (Please note, I am not discussing here whether the section should be removed, but that you did it without discussing it here first). -- Sholom 15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A cite to the blog is the optimal source for evidence of the blog's coverage. Accordingly, a WP:V transgression isn't implicated. At the risk of teaching someone to stuff beans, ISTM your concern would have been more properly directed towards relevance or notoriety... --Flawiki 18:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You've also deleted a cite from fox news, along with everything else, so even if WP:V applied as you think it does, that still wouldn't warrant deleting the info from the Fox citation. Gamaliel 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
So leave the Fox info in if you like, but its significance is primarily due to the other information which was in violation of WP:V, and if the other information is not there, I dont see the reason for the Fox link. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal. Others have already said they were going to do it (see above) but just never did. So now, it's done. Move along, nothing to see here. Merecat 15:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Tonight Show and Daily Show are cited only in noting the existence of their criticisms, not any factual assertion. Of the blog references, one exists to provide a link to the video, and the other two, Cox and Malkin, have clear notability in media outside of their blogs. Do you have any legitimate objection to the below under WP:BLP#Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors? KWH 01:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, that was in response to TDC, not Merecat, but anyone can respond. KWH 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance and attire

Harris has been the subject of jokes regarding her makeup, attire and photographs. On The Tonight Show, Jay Leno said that "they had trucks in Florida bringing the ballots to Tallahassee... It's the same trucks they used to bring the makeup to Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris."[28] During the 2000-2001 season of Saturday Night Live, comedian Ana Gasteyer did an impression of Harris.[29]

In January 2005, Harris told the Associated Press that "the jokes about my appearance–it's the computer-enhanced photos...It was like in a comic strip. They actually had blue eye shadow on front pages of newspapers and I haven't had blue eye shadow since Girl Scouts in seventh grade." On August 1, 2005, Harris was a guest on Sean Hannity's talk radio program on ABC Radio. Hannity asked Harris whether the jokes bothered her, and Harris told him that "I'm actually very sensitive about those things, and it's personally painful...You know, whenever they made fun of my makeup, it was because the newspapers colorized my photograph." On August 2, 2005, Harris and her staff were asked to point to a colorized photograph. According to spokesman Adam Goodman, Harris said that "I haven't worn blue eye shadow since the seventh grade when I was in the Girl Scouts". William March of the Tampa Tribune wrote "She didn't name a newspaper that showed blue eye shadow." When asked why Harris would accuse newspapers of altering her photograph, Goodman said "I think what she's saying is the number of photographs that were run that were unflattering was large, and that was unfair because the only reason this was made a caricature built around cosmetics was because she was a woman," [30].

(Note: The portion of this paragraph from "On August 2, 2005" to the cite note is sourced from other than a blog, namely the right leaning tampa trib. In my opinion, this instance speaks towards the subject's prediliction to make up pretend things as with, for ex., the phoney Carmel IN terrorist threat. --Flawiki 02:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Some critics have derided Harris for apparently trying to highlight her feminine attributes in campaign appearances. In particular, some panned an appearance on Hannity & Colmes in which Harris stood in profile for the entire interview (being shown from the waist up) as an attempt to feature her breasts as prominently as possible. Video of the appearance was posted on Crooks and Liars, and bloggers such as Ana Marie Cox have provided additional photographs of Harris, with criticism. [31][32]

The Daily Show recently satirized Harris regarding her bosom. On the show, Jason Jones cited the Hannity & Colmes interview and referred to her attire at a rodeo campaign stop as "tit-hugging spandex", along with other sexually themed comments about Harris.[33]. Harris supporters have rejoined that similar remarks about a Democratic candidate's sexual appearance would have provoked a media firestorm of allegations of "gender insensitivity" and "anti-woman" bias.

Political columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin recently rebuked Harris's sexuality critics, charging them with "liberal sexism."[34] However, some conservatives have also criticized Harris for her choice of tight clothing in campaign appearances.[35]

[edit] This reclaimamericagate thang....

This material

Harris was a headlined speaker at the 'Reclaim America for Christ Conference 2006' held in Ft. Lauderdale March 17-18.[36] The stated mission of the group is to 'come together to reclaim this land for Christ.'[37][38]

keeps finding itself wiped, restored, wiped, restored but moved, wiped again, and as of now, restored and moved back once more. It should remain (subject to further improvement) because it's sourced, it's verifiable, it's relevant, and it's notable (else why would the subject, mired in a difficult campaign, have attended?). A sage fellow editor indicated the most recent removal was because the subject headline implied that it was potentially scandalous. I understand that concern and don't necessarily disagree with it, however the material is still relevant/verifiable/notable etc. In an attempt to move on I've put it back in a temporal context where I had it a week or ago with the hope that in doing so the criticism is satisfactorily addressed. --Flawiki 11:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I added that info. The worst part of the repeated deletions is that it's been deleted repeatedly with the "assertion" that I'm implying it's scandalous, or that I'm expressing some 'anti-christian' vibe. It's clearly set under the SENATE RACE section, thus tying in to her campaign actions and her politics and alliances therein, relevant info every bit to her race. Merecat, Dave Thomas, and a number of others on this page are too busy pushing a right wing agenda of their own to debate any of this stuff. It's all about making her look 'great' here. It's like now that paid blogging's fading out, these guys are trying to create a new niche for 'paid wikieditors'. Unless they just get the same paid blogger paychecks... ThuranX 13:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me, why is the mission of the group notable enough to mention in this article? Uh, perhaps because certain editors here consider speaking to Christians to be scandalous? If not, why was this talk section given a "gate" name ("reclaimamericagate") ala watergate, plamegate, etc? The simple fact is that Harrris has not only a right, but a duty to seek the votes of all citizens. If seeking the votes of this particular group of Christians requires that she "headline" their meeting with a talk, then so be it. No one would dare make hay about anyone speaking at NAACP or ADL. To suggest that 'Reclaim America' is so notorious that their "mission" must be hung around the neck of anyone invited to "headline" is very offensive to me. Merecat 15:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

522 google hits suggests it's notable. I request the same consideration that you've often asked for in not reverting while this is under discussion. --Flawiki 15:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is the "mission" of that group being mentioned here germane to this article? Make an article for the group and mention it there. If people want to read more, they can read it there. This is nothing more than well-poisoning attempt. It's an attempt to make Harris seem vile for speaking to those who want to proselytize and convert others to their faith. It's absurd to suggest that Christians are vile enough that a goal of Godly government ought to be hung on the neck of anyone who talks to them. It's guilt by association. Where the proof that Harris herself wants to "reclaim America for Christ"? If and when she says that and we source it, then that can go in the article, but not this suggestive innuendo! For these reasons, the 2nd sentence of "The stated mission of the group is to 'come together to reclaim this land for Christ" has been deleted by me as being irrelevant and POV in regards to Harris herself. Merecat 15:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

READDED YET AGAIN. I will continue to re-add this information. As I have said repeatedly, the political and ethical positions a politician espouses and allies him/herself with continue to be germaine to said politician's campaign. That's as NEUTRAL a point of view as it gets. I'm sorry your manager at Harris Re-election central hates being tied to the christian right by her own words and actions, and sorry that you seem to think her affiliation is a political hot potato to be covered up, but it's all fact, all relevant fact, and it's all fact that will stay in. Stop deleting it, you're causing YET ANOTHER edit war. Stop it.ThuranX 16:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, I urge you to desist from making personal allegations about me. I find it offensive. Also, this speaking engagement was clearly nothing more than a campaign stop. If you want to assert that Harris is pesronally affiliated with this group and/or on a personal level, seeks to "reclaim America for Christ", then you must find reliable citations which substantiate that. As it stands, there is proof only that she spoke there as a candidate, but no proof that Harris is in league with these nefarious Christians and their zealous attempts to overthrow the Constitution in favor of the Bible. When you find a reliable source supporting your thesis regading this we can go with it, not until. The 2nd sentence should stay out. Merecat 16:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've quoted and sourced the subject's own statement at the conference urging attendees to "Win back America for God." I suppose there's a theological debate over whether 'God' and 'Christ' are interchangeable that is beyond the scope of this article. --Flawiki 16:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Second sentence stays in. She accepts donations from them and speaks at their events. You asked for more citations, Flawiki provided them. You simply will never accept that the information will meet your standards. Thus, you're never going to let it in, no matter what, simply because you've already decided YOU personally do not want it in. There's no 'standards' or 'pov' issue here. You've got your mind made up about Harris, and how YOU want everyone else to see her, and you've repeated redacted any facts which might lead a new reader to any other perception of her. End of story. As I have said, I will continue to re-add those facts. they ARE FACTS. They are cited and sourced. You don't like the facts, tough luck. Facts are facts.ThuranX 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If accurately cited to Harris, reporting her statements is fine. Merecat 16:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the sentence is staying in. Guess I DID do my homework first, Merecat. That the reclaimamerica website's changed int he months since I FIRST added the statement is irrelevant to me. At the time I added the info, The website was clear about removing separation of church and state and making america into a christian nation. that they've changed it is up to them. THe info's in about theit agenda, that was my goal. Now we can move on to the next section you'll censor.ThuranX 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No censorship has taken place, please stop saying things like that. You asserted your edits, I asserted mine and we met in the middle. It's called consensus. Also, the "sentence" you refer to was inaccurate and POV when I deleted it. Now that it's accurate, it's not POV. Frankly, I think you did a great job of helping the Harris message get out by triggering these new edits. Was that your intent? Merecat 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ALright, I've had it. The sentence goes back in, as ORIGINALLY CITED, with accurate content.ThuranX 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Had what? That you can't stand it when someone stands up to your bossing and your heaping of insults? Merecat 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

God haters RULE! ... on wikedpedia! 98.198.48.17 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection, and this reclaimamerica issue

I've {{protect}}ed after trying to represent both sides in that paragraph, in hope that the cooling off period thus invoked will stave off a bunch of 3RRs and let us try to resolve this on the talk page.

Here is the material as it stood pre-protection:

Harris was a headlined speaker at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (Dr. James Kennedy, pastor) "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference held in Ft. Lauderdale March 17-18, 2006. The conference web site invited gatherees to attend in order to "reclaim this nation for Christ." [39] As part of her speech, Harris urged conferees to "Win back America for God." [40] The stated mission of ReclaimAmerica.org is to "To inform, equip, motivate, and support Christians; enabling them to defend and implement the Biblical principles on which our country was founded."[41]

Absent a ReclaimAmerica article I think the above could be expanded either to include mentioning its directory Gary Cass who seems to be notable on his own, or perhaps this article itself could use a religion in government policy position note as the subject's own speech topic at the conference was Bringing Faith to the Public Forum--Flawiki 17:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Stuffing in detail about ReclaimAmerica is not the wiki way. A new article is called for. Merecat 17:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to the title of this section as being anti-Christian bigotry. Accordingly, I have striken one word. Merecat 17:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with Flawiki's edit. It's better than Merecat's and Flawiki can handle a disagreement, which Merecat cannot. Thanks Flawiki. I've got gardening to do, so I'll be out doing that for a while. ThuranX 17:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (I was bumped due to conflicting edits, and have also removed the slashes from Merecat's behavior, which are nothing more than him trying to get a flamewar going on two fronts.)ThuranX 17:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
My intent was to bring some levity to this contentious debate rather than fanning the flames with the section heading. In that keeping this ignited was not my intent, I'm removing the reference to that "d" fellow from the section title. --Flawiki 19:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

More insults from ThuranX, thanks guy. Also, I too like the edit as it stands now. But, I don't know what a "religion in government policy position note" is and I think that might open a new can of worms. Also "Bringing Faith to the Public Forum" does not equate to "religion in government policy", at least no how I see it. Merecat 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

. and you're welcome. Stop picking fights and you won't be IN fights. I believe Flawiki is asking htat we establish a section regarding Harris' postion on role of religious groups and religious influence on government behaviors. seemed clear to me.ThuranX 18:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
ThuranX, what do you mean by "removed the slashes from Merecat's behavior"? Please elaborate. Merecat 18:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
it means I removed the slashes from your contentious and immature edit to the word devilish, but due to having to try 5 times to post my reply to to cross updating, the last update try didn't take with the slash removal. it's done now. Flawiki's humorous wording doesn't need your POV editing.ThuranX 18:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
(please note I've backed out the unintentionally inflammatory word per my comments above timestamped at this same time. --Flawiki 19:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] page protect edits at Katherine Harris

Mmmm...cooookie
Mmmm...cooookie

How is it that the page has a protected notice, but it's being edited? Merecat 19:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I did it right. Since it wasn't done properly I'm pretty sure anyone can back it out. --Flawiki 19:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to protect it or not? Do you know the correct procedure? Are you authorized to protect pages? If yes, yes, yes, then you should proceed apace. Merecat 20:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I do now, and no. Have at it! --Flawiki 20:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Only administrators can protect pages. Adding the protect notice by itself doesn't do anything. You have to activate the protect button too, which is a big red button under glass which only admins can see. ;) Gamaliel 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. "No, I do now, and no". Someone gimme a cookie. :( --Flawiki 20:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Tasty - thanks! --Flawiki 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Merecat 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Subsection for Political beliefs

This article remarks incredibly vague as to what her political ideology is. What is the point of mentioning that she voted against stem cell research unless you're going to list the rest to? I will create a quick subsection, and link it to http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/Katherine_Harris.htm where you can verify her positions on abortion, gun control, marriage, flag burning, free speech, fiscal ideology, foreign policy, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.83.146 (talk • contribs)

It seems that you can verify her votes there, not her positions. Merecat 20:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, I've seen more than a dozen political biographies on wikipedia using voting records to assess ideologies. I'll put it down and you can just change the wording to "voted to" instead of "supports" if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.83.146 (talk • contribs)

Ok, "positions" is fine, but not "beliefs". You can't know a person believes something unless they say so to a reliable source. "Positions" is the correct word for political stances and votes. Merecat 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs/Citations

I converted the {{ref}}/{{note}} citations and inline links to the <ref> style, which enables the footnote to contain full bibliographical cite information inline both to give credit to the author and to enable people to locate the source if it goes offline.

In case you aren't familiar with this, the general format is <ref>This is the footnote</ref>, or <ref>"Article" Example News Online, April 30, 2006.</ref>

You can also use the {{cite}} template to auto-format the citation. All of the items tagged with <ref></ref> will show as numbered footnotes, and the actual footnote content will appear wherever the tag <references/> is seen in the article.

Also, if you need to cite a source twice, give it a name as such: <ref name="Source1">First Cite</ref>, then to link it again use <ref name="Source1"/> KWH 03:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamaliel - "Appearance and attire" 1 May 2006

With this edit Gamaliel restored some material. I agree with his edit summary and I support the re-inclusion of this material. Merecat 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, I don't really think it meets the "important" criteria, but we have plenty of space left to grow on - there's no need to trim, so I'm indifferent. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harris has lost the support of Jeb Bush

As per prior talk page agreement, I have prominently made note of this as it is now very germane to her status as a candidate. At this point, since Jeb is so prominent, it's fair to say that the Harris campaign is not doing well. See this. Merecat 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you Rex, yes or no?--kizzle 19:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign not any better

The intro makes the misleading claim that the Harris campaign has been doing better since the primary. There is no evidence to support this claim or to suggest any improvement in the polls since Jeb Bush declared that Harris has no chance of winning. --Gorgonzilla 13:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sprotection requested

Due to the imminent revert war revolving around the Seth MacFarlane-related edits, I placed a semi-protect request up for this article, in hopes it will encourage the editor to stop warring, review the previous comments regarding satire, engage in discussion, etc. --Flawiki 12:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Could we get a better picture, please? This one looks terrible. Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's easy to just conjure up a picture that makes her look better. WP images have to be freely available, and if that's how the subject looks in her official portrait or another freely-available image we might be stuck with it even if more flattering images are available with more restrictive rights. --Flawiki 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should we? It's not as if a paparazzi photo, or one of the more controversial tight-shirt photos was used. A reasonable, official looking photo was selected, one that shows her in a dignified manner. to go too far in either a 'flattering' or 'unflattering' direction would be more POV than the current one. ThuranX 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If the witch wants to look like that in her own publicity shots her office puts out that is her funeral. It looks better than quite a few other shots where she is doing the Barbra Cartland act with her makeup. --Gorgonzilla 03:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
That's actually a very nice shot of her. I've seen quite a few that are downright scary. --George100 12:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
i.e. http://www.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/09/harris97.jpg Ribonucleic 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the photo currently used is from her official House of Representatives Web Biography. I would hazard that's not NPOV since it probably has been retouched to make her look better (retouching is commonly done with professional portraits). - Quartermaster 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
But it was probably retouched by the same gov't offices and employees who touch up photos on both sides of the aisle, and if it's all done privately, then oen could argue that most, if not all reps have the same access to a retouching, and so it's not particularly biased. Encyclopedias throughout history have used 'state' portraits of political figures, so I doubt that it's really not NPOV. If we let her reelection team submit a photo, it'd have her kissing babies with a halo and wings, and if we let her opponents submit one, it'd have her slaughtering babies while dripping like lady Bathory. Using her .gov portrait is about as NPOV as one can reasonably get. In fact, I'd prefer that that be the standard for Wikipedia - 'use the current .gov official photo.'ThuranX 15:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dead Girl" Controversy

Glend Hodas has now quit her campaign (I didn't spot it in the artcle above) and there is a new story in the Miami Herald about her reaction to Joe Scarborough's potential entrance into the race (i.e. bringing up the death of his staffer in 2001). Is that relevant enough to add to the campaign 2006? SSJPabs 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)SSJPabs

[edit] Wiki sees spam

I had to remove a citation becaues WIki had deteremined that cqpolitics.com is a spam oriented site, and wouldn't let me save the page with it in the description. if someone can find a work-around, that'd be good.ThuranX 23:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The L'Abri Connection

My apologies. I forgot to log in before I did the last four edits. According to the History page those entries were at 21:22, 21:30, 21:35, and 21:37, 23 August 2006. The first edit was to correct what was the Education section. The sequence of schooling and what was said about L'Abri needed editing. The second edit was changing the title "Early Life" to "Family Background." This new title fits the context of the paragraph. The third and fourth edit concerned what had been the "Education" section which included one single sentence called "Business Career." This "orphan" sentence was added to the "Education" section and together the section was renamed "Education and Early Career." I hope I have done some positive edited here. If not, I am very open for discussion. Thank you :-) -- Awinger48 22:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flounder or Founder?

Well, its such a small thing but flounder doesnt just mean the fish...here is founder:

  • 1 : to become disabled; especially : to go lame
  • 2 : to give way : COLLAPSE
  • 3 : to become submerged : SINK
  • 4 : to come to grief : FAIL

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Here is flounder:

  • 1 : to struggle to move or obtain footing : thrash about wildly
  • 2 : to proceed or act clumsily or ineffectually

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/floundering

I think flounder is more common and fits the articles context better. If you disagree, feel free to change it again. I wont revert.Jasper23 18:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

's'all right, Jazz. I'm good with either in this, since there's some thinking going on. I ofte nsee people use floundering when they mean foundering, and NOT know the difference. Floundering does work well. (also, I wiki'ed up your definition to be more readable.)ThuranX 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Family Guy" stuff

... before we go through another round of reverts for the Seth MacFarlane quote, can we discuss it? Can we hear from someone who actually supports including it? Personally I'm against including it, because it's no more significant than any of the other 1,000,000 jokes about Katherine Harris, but since it's been added and reverted a few times we should probably discuss it before it turns into an edit war. Anyone? MastCell 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say leave it out. Not really noteworthy. Although it is pretty funny.Jasper23 20:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As you can see by my 2 attempts today to remove it, I disagree with it being in there. Being the punchline of a joke is not "Trivia". As I stated in my edit summaries, if we include this, we open the door to every Leno/Letterman/standup routine that uses Katherine Harris and that's not encyclopedic nor is it Trivia. The first item in "Trivia" is a great example of what is Trivia; connection to a family member that is also famous is exactly what the section should entail if anything at all. On top of its worth as trivia, its notability (as Jasper23 mentions) is limited as well. The speech was heard by the people in attendance and a number of internet users who sought out the speech due to word-of-mouth praise for its comedic value. It had limited/no impact on anything at all of pertinence, let alone Katherine Harris herself and therefore fails notability too. ju66l3r 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
had it happened inthe contexxt of family guy, I'd support leaving it out, as the sheer volume and 'triviality' of the sheer quantity of dropped culture hits on the show is too much to tag every article with a mention. This, however, was the creator giving a speech, and thus significantly more noteworthy. There seems to be a continuing movement among editors hee to do wahtever they can to spin this article towards the 'pro-Harris' line as much as possible, removing many critiques. That someone gave a speech critical of Harris is factual and noteworthy. Further, the MORE critical public speech there is, the MORE it needs covering. One voice is alone, a million is a movement, and all that. I support the inclusion of the material. ThuranX 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What makes a joke within a commencement speech more notable than a joke within a TV show? As for giving a speech critical of Harris, who did that? He was not giving a speech critical of Harris, he was giving a commencement speech with the subtext of getting a job and further subtexted into the politics of Florida to garner a laugh. You're hoisting this joke much higher in your comment than it was valued even at the time it was given. The speech was not even notable enough to warrant an article and when it is mentioned in McFarlane's article, this particular joke was not notable enough within all of the delivered jokes to be singled out or mentioned within its context there either. All that having been said, I don't like Harris or the views that she stands for, so I'm hardly to be counted as "pro-Harris" or in favor of a "pro-Harris" article. If you have complaints about what you perceive to be POV within this article, please add a new discussion section and work for consensus on NPOV there, but adding to a "trivia" section (not even a "criticism of Harris" section) about how Harris was the butt of a joke (particularly one as offensive as her being meaner than Adolf Hitler) does not somehow help balance the article in order to warrant its inclusion as that's not how NPOV or civility is created or maintained. ju66l3r 23:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am unconcerned with civility in the article, only on talk pages. It's factual information, and happens to be critical of her. It should be in. That's My vote. I'm one guy, with one account. If the majority consensus is 'out', then 'out' it is. I'm adding my opinion. Inasmuch as 'civility' is concerned here on the talk, you might want to read it yourself. accusing me of both ignorance and arrogance is hardly civil. ThuranX 00:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:Civil takes into account article edits as well as talk pages. If one person says "Harris enacted a great policy for keeping people from killing embryos" and the next creates a new section saying "Harris is worst than Hitler according to Seth McFarlane", then neither editor is being civil, nor is the article somehow balanced towards a more WP:NPOV, nor is the greater principles of Wikipedia being served (especially in the context of a WP:BLP). You suggested that a critique of Harris is noteworthy and important especially in context of other editors removing criticisms in what you view to be a "pro-Harris" movement for this article. In discussion of this issue for consensus building, I feel it's important to state that your reasoning for inclusion does not pass muster with the principles and guidelines of writing a good article on Wikipedia. I haven't accused you of ignorance or arrogance, so you'll have to use my talk page to discuss with me whatever offense you are taking to my comments on the topic at hand. Consensus building is not about each person's opinion being placed like a vote; instead, the object is to work towards the best line of reasoning for keeping or changing the article to best meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. ju66l3r 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Fact is the only major criteria for inclusion. IS it fact, is it significant fact, are there other cfactors which make a middling fact more or less worthy? Harris has loads of criticism, and during a major speech (harvard's commencement), McFarlane criticized her. I never suggested that a total lack of manners was acceptable, but you seem to think I can't read for context and meaning 'You're hoisting this joke much higher in your comment than it was valued even at the time it was given'. No, I get it. He made a timely and direct criticism of a public figure of some national recognition. He's not the first, and he's likely not the last. His criticism is on top of much other criticism. So far, we've got aspect one 'is it fact'? Yes. it's been reported, quoted, and i'd wager that a transcript's available if one were so inclined. There were witnesses and probably videotape. We can substantiate his comments as fact. Aspect two: Is it significant? If it were the only criticism of Harris, no. If McFarlane had a personal beef with harris and used the speech as a soapbox for a vindictive personal attack, no. If McFarlane were only doing it for ratings and such, no. But it's not, he doesn't, and he wasn't. so two is still vague. so we go to three. Are there other factors? Yes. Harris has recieved numerous criticisms. That the level of criticism has reached the point where a speech about 1300 miles from Tallahassee includes references might be. That it was given at Harvard's commencement, probably. That it comes from a TV producer who makes it his bread and butter to make timely (if crude) cultural references? Yes. The national media, and people throughout the nation, note when Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert take on someone. Is Mcfarlane as powerful? probably not, he's a step removed, and hidden behind the characters. But the show is notable, and I think it makes a good case for it. Finally, where in the article is it located? in the Trivia section. small little facts, relatively unimportant to the body. I believe it should stay.
Finally, I am aware that wiki is not always a 'vote' system. My point was I was giving my point of view. It was very kind of you to belittle that by mocking your perception that I don't understand wikipedia because I used a turn of phrase that was clear in it's message but which wasn't clear enough for you. I'll be clear. If you can't work civilly with others, and have to default to insults, then you should probably get another hobby. Wikipedia's fun,a nd it's worth working on. but if you can't even discuss the nature of wiki without jumping up whenever the word 'vote' is used instead of 'opinion' or 'two cents', then you'er too into the site, and should step away.ThuranX 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's take a step back. I think we're all agreed that McFarlane did in fact criticize Harris; the dispute is over whether that criticism is important enough to warrant inclusion here. The article already describes a wide range of criticism of Harris, and notes that she's been the butt of quite a few jokes. Does the fact that Seth McFarlane made a joke about her warrant inclusion? Probably not. You mention Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert; they've both made innumerably more (and funnier, and more incisive) jokes about Katherine Harris, yet no one feels the need to insert them here. In fact, it might be worth considering the creation of a new page entitled "Katherine Harris humor" or the like, in which these could be compiled and linked from here. But they really don't belong on Harris' Wikipedia page - there's plenty of damning stuff to focus on without quoting Seth McFarlane's relatively witless comment, which adds nothing to understanding why Katherine Harris and her brand of politics are so widely despised. MastCell 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, a lot of that sort of stuff has been edited out over time by the same 'pro-Harris' faction that seems to lurk on this page. It makes building a section about such difficult. The best thing to do is keep pushign for it at each opportunity. Eventually it may be possible to add it all back in one section, based on al lthe talk page discussions and the numerous edits and such. This page has seen months of this sort of (pro-Harris) POV vs. NPOV editors. Inevitably, arguments of triviality or irrelevance or POV get such things removed. SNL does a skit, out for POV. McFarlane says something? out for triviality. Over time, it builds up a general vibe that if anyone famous criticizes her, it's just liberal hollywood, and her supporters don't want anything like that in. Unfortunately, this means that a lot of criticism of her which comes from outside the Florida press is eliminated, edited, RV'd and so on. I'm not sure that anything can really be done about it. Similar things happen on a LOT of the libving person pages where the people tend to an extreme POV. reporting an extreme POV in an NPOV style is a hard enough balance. Doing it when hamstrung against critical sources and writing makes it worse. I'm fairly tempted to stop watching and editing these sort of pages, because this sort of thing keeps happening, but if I leave, it's one less NPOV oriented editor, and more protectors of the pro-Harris POV. I'll give on the Family Guy, but next time I see another big 'anti-criticism' thing going on, I'm going to go ahead and write up a lengthy 'Harris criticisms in the MSM' section, with SNL, The Daily Show, McFarlane, and anything else out there. ThuranX 05:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'd encourage the formation of a page on "Katherine Harris humor", or "Harris criticisms in the MSM", or whatever. There's plenty of it out there, and maybe that's the best solution. I do think the idea that there's a pro-Katherine Harris cabal at work here is a little paranoid. I doubt any of the recent editors are Katherine Harris supporters; I think this is more a disagreement about what's appropriate for Wikipedia rather than an attempt to make Katherine Harris look good (which, let's face it, is basically impossible). There's a difference between criticism of Harris' political views and actions, and a purely vituperative disparagement like McFarlane's quote. One belongs on her Wikipedia page; the other doesn't. Again, I doubt you'll find anyone with less respect for Katherine Harris' actions or what she stands for than me, but if it's not clear she's a loser from the description of her actions and politics, then a quote from a middling-talent entertainer comparing her to Hitler isn't going to do the trick either. MastCell 05:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

When referencing long links, please format it so it doesn't break 800x600 resolutions. - RoyBoy 800 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Over Religion

The BIG quotes for the article quote in this section were removed as not needed. The article was put in its context by adding the "Baptist sentence" that was just before the quote in the actual article. She was answering questions from a reporter for a Baptist periodical. Part of the paragraph after the quote was removed. All it did was repeat what was already in the quote presented (redundant). As always, open for discussion if needed :-) --Awinger48 20:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Those edits are fine. If you don't like the big quotes, we should probably at least use the <blockquote> tag (which I've added). Right now, it's formatted the same as using ":", but more appropriate for a lengthy quote. Thanks for leaving a message on the discussion page along with your edit. MastCell 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Post profile piece

Washington Post just did a profile piece on Harris [42]. It has lots of intereresting information. I am adding it to the external links section. Remember 13:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vern Buchanan

I've been trying to remove references to Vern Buchanan succeeding Harris in the infobox, because the election is not certified, and Christine Jennings has filed a lawsuit demanding a recount, which is still underway. The winner won't be certified until November 21 anyway, so why are people still reverting back? It's not correct information...yet. [43] Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Election Result

Shouldn't there be a section on the actual result of the election, saying how much she lost by? As it is it just sort of peters out limply. Darkmind1970 09:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Something for this article:

Reporter: "What measures have you created or supported in congress that will makes us safer, for us and our children?”

Harris: “Well, as you well know, there are all kinds of home land security issues that we are passing to support, um, our local law enforcements to be able to support this law. I sponsored, I personally sponsored, a bill so that we could have more courts in session, more judges...”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfe0c2Id-Ts&NR

14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)~ About the 2006 election debacle == I think it's worth mentioning that Harris's Senate race in 2006 was uncommonly lackluster. She announced her candidacy the same day as a space shuttle launch (with a female pilot) and, in repeated TV interviews, tried to talk it up as if she had something to do with the space shuttle; it was also noticed that in all these TV interviews she stood nearly perpendicular to the camera, the better to emphasize her bosom (a Youtube video showed clips of several of these interviews with the old rock song "I Know What Boys Like" as the soundtrack). She had originally claimed, even before the Republican primary, that Pres. Bush had "endorsed" her, confronted about that claim she backtracked a bit by saying he had told her she would be "a formidable candidate" - which seemed to be an endorsement if you squinted at it. Even after winning the Republican nomination, other Republicans (including Pres. and Gov. Bush) were only lukewarm about supporting her. In the last couple of weeks before the election, Harris let it be known that she was writing up her memoirs -- presumably they'd go to publication faster if she lost the election and had time on her hands, and the inference to be drawn was that this announcement was a not-too-subtle threat to reveal embarrassing facts about (inter alia) the 2000 election vote count. I have not heard of this memoir being published. 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divorced

In light of her opposition to various forms of gay relationships, isn't it relevant to mention in her bio that both she and her husband have both been divorced. This is easily sourced. http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/20/State/Katherine_Harris__mos.shtml 207.59.80.178 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Jeff Kelly

I fail to see correlation. If you were interested in the hypocrisy of defense of Marriage, perhaps, but even then that's axe-grinding. If she actively supported anti-divorce legislation, then you'd have grounds. ThuranX 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, for someone like Harris, who so openly speaks about Christian faith and uses it as a political rallying point (see her "legislting sin" and "get rid of the speration of church and state" comments), I think the fact that she went against the church's teachings (which is against divorce) is significant, as it highlights a contradiction in her words and her actions. Perhaps this could be characterized as 'axe grinding,' but is it factual? Yes. Is it relevant? As I said before, considering her reliance on religion as a campagining tool, yes, it is indeed relevant. Rudy Giuliani's divorce and personal life has come up in political discussions about his presidential bid, and we all know Bill Clinton's personal conduct was called into attention during his presidency, why not hold Harris to the same standard that we hold other politicians who claim the moral high ground?


Absolutely! Since NPOV is pretense whenever the person is conservative, blast this woman!

That the bulk of wickedpedia's contributors are anti-christian is common knowledge so rip her to shreds! No one will care... 98.198.48.17 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I felt compelled to remark is because the article on this woman is so blatantly NOT neutral that I thought I'd look to see who had complained. I didn't read all the comments, but saw enough to confirm my previous point. She represents herself as a Christian so make the woman look like a hypocritical bitch... and no editor bothers to examine the neutrality.

Wikedpedia is a joke. 98.198.48.17 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Draft Katherine Harris

Is it worth pointing out that someone has created a Draft Katherine Harris for President page? I must admit that my mouth dropped open when I saw it and I then had a bad attack of the giggles. Darkmind1970 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't worth pointing out unless Harris herself was involved with the page or pubicly commented on it. It is simply too easy to create a website for it to be considered noteworthy when one of these "draft ________" sites pop up during an election season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.252.145 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)