Talk:Katherine Harris

Town meeting

August 7, 2003 Bradenton, FL town meeting sources:

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If Merecat or anyone else has violated the 3RR, please report them at WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]