![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
How is it that the page has a protected notice, but it's being edited? Merecat 19:43, 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 harm, no foul. Merecat 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
With this 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)
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)
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)
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)
Could we get a better picture, please? This one looks terrible. Later!!! Chili14 ( Talk) 23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
Well, its such a small thing but flounder doesnt just mean the fish...here is founder:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Here is flounder:
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)
... 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)
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)
When referencing long links, please format it so it doesn't break 800x600 resolutions. - Roy Boy 800 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 21:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Where is she now? -- 93.82.9.129 ( talk) 11:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
All assertions need to be backed up with sources or may be removed. Parkwells ( talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
How is it that the page has a protected notice, but it's being edited? Merecat 19:43, 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 harm, no foul. Merecat 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
With this 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)
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)
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)
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)
Could we get a better picture, please? This one looks terrible. Later!!! Chili14 ( Talk) 23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
Well, its such a small thing but flounder doesnt just mean the fish...here is founder:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Here is flounder:
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)
... 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)
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)
When referencing long links, please format it so it doesn't break 800x600 resolutions. - Roy Boy 800 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 21:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Where is she now? -- 93.82.9.129 ( talk) 11:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
All assertions need to be backed up with sources or may be removed. Parkwells ( talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)