Talk:Katherine Harris/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

page protect edits at Katherine Harris

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)

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)

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)

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 Baas^talk 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Refs

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

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)

Washington Post profile piece

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

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. [2] Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "intern" :
  • "Story of 'Joe's dead intern' began Harris' slide, insiders say", ''[[Miami Herald]]'', July 14, 2006
  • <ref>[http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/11/State/GOP_can_t_elude_Harri.shtml"GOP can't elude Harris vs. Nelson"], [[St. Petersburg Times]], [[May 11]], [[2006]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

More Palm Beach probs

I was looking for this after listening to a recent Science Friday report on NPR:

Katherine Harris and voting irregularities just go together like PB & J. [...] The vote for who will succeed her in the House is completely screwed up. This time, electronic voting machines have lost 18,000 votes in a heavily Democratic district, the Palm Beach Post reports.

I don't know if this article is the most relevant place to discuss this, but it should probably be mentioned briefly. It relates to her tangentially and is tied to her in people's minds. (Of course that's a claim that would require more citation.) Is it stated somewhere else in Wikipedia, and what would be an appropriate way to link to that, without claiming that Harris had anything to do with it? Davilla (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of major endorsements

It is perhaps very significant that, even after she won the Sept. primary, KH had very few endorsements from well known Republicans. In particular, she was getting few campaign appearances with nationally known Republicans - George Bush being especially conspicuous by his absence - and lukewarm support from the party financers. About two weeks before the election she hinted, in one newspaper interview, that if she lost she would write her memoirs -- which some interpreted as a threat to the White House that she would reveal ugly facts behind Bush's 2000 victory. Whether it was a threat or not, it did not spur any more party support and did not help her campaign. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this paragraph?

This is a paragraph from the 2000 Election section...

"Harris certified that the Republican candidate, then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, had defeated the Democratic candidate, then-Vice President Al Gore, in the popular vote of Florida and thus certified the Republican slate of electors. The margin separating Bush from Gore was 537 votes. Harris ordered a halt after several recounts. Her ruling was challenged, and she prevailed in the first court of jurisdiction, and then overturned on appeal by the notorious liberals on Florida's Supreme Court; that errant decision, however, was itself reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. That Court ruled (5-4) that Gore's request to extend Florida's statutory deadline for ballot re-counts had no merit. This ruling nullified the state court's decision, upholding Harris' certification. The decision foreclosed any further court challenges by Gore and resulted in Bush's margin of victory in Florida being officially tallied at 537 votes. Therefore, Florida's electoral votes — and the Presidency - went to Bush.

Harris later wrote Center of the Storm, her own memoir of the 2000 election controversy, caused by Al Gore's failure to concede defeat."

What do you think, it seems very slightly POV biased but I can not confirm this myself; I am tired and don't have the time to make it sound more neutral. It very well may be fine, but I would like a second opinion.--Abusing (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Man accused of assault

Does anyone know what happened with the case against Barry Seltzer who was charged with assault for allegedly driving his car at Harris in 2004? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Now

Where is she now? --93.82.9.129 (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Palin Precursor

This lady was seriously a foreshadowing of Sarah Palin. The same spark of intelligence, the same beliefs, the same insane devotion to religion. They even look something alike. I wonder if they've met.--74.255.242.35 (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cites and sources

All assertions need to be backed up with sources or may be removed.Parkwells (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Voter Purge

I've removed the section. The entire section seems to be based off allegations from an opinionated book and are not facts, yet the section was written as though it was factual. These allegations have never been proven to be true (say, in a court of law), and neither has the subject been punished or admonished in any manner, making the assertion at best, a fringe theory. As per Wikipedia's policy on living persons, such allegations must be removed if they cannot be proven to be absolutely true.

A court of law only decides a legal outcome; not what reality is. If a court of law ruled that the planet was flat, that would not make it so. There were legal cases in the year 2001 involving the firm she used--Choicepoint--in which errors were acknowledged. However, the line between incompetence and fraud is difficult to prove, especially if the government is involved.184.88.80.1 (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Section blanking is the safest way to avoid infringing the policy. If this section blanking is too harsh a stance, it is possible to write it like "ABC alleged/accused/stated that XYZ did 123" to imply opinion, instead of simply writing "XYZ did 123", which implies fact. The source itself has a provocative title and is not a fair reporting; if it was to be used to support the statement as fact and not opinion, it would be an unreliable source even if it is a verifiable source. --219.74.85.176 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I realise that RunnyAmiga stated "Tapper's book presents facts, not opinions, and he's a reliable source" in one of the previous reverts. Well, the title of the book is Down and Dirty, The Plot to Steal the Presidency. Can we get a consensus here on who thinks that there really was such a plot? If not, the reliability of the source should be called into question. What makes this a reliable source, and are there other sources out there (say, newspapers or court judgements) to prove there was such a plot? The provocative title alone suggests that it is a conspiracy theory! --219.74.85.176 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)