Talk:Jane Harman

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

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

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

---

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

Padjet1 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Padjet1 16:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

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

---

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

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


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

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

--- Why should the tape of her interference with criminal investigations in return for AIPAC support not be mentioned here? Does her background make her exempt from criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who you are, since you commented anonymously, but there's an entire section in the entry on this. We're debating what to include in the scope of the entry down at the bottom of the page, which is where conversations that did not happen in 2006 happen on a talk page. So you can take your smugness somewhere else. ivan (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

--

To Getthingscorrect: Let's actually look at some of these articles. You seem to be making a mountain over what is- currently- a molehill. From the WaPo article:
 * they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.


 * Although the case is still considered open, officials said, the allegations have not been substantiated, and there has been no significant investigative activity on the issue in recent months.


 * the Harman inquiry was an outgrowth of the ongoing criminal prosecution of two former AIPAC lobbyists

From Newsweek:


 * A senior law-enforcement official said that Harman “has been looked at in a very preliminary level” because officials are obligated to pursue tips when they come into the Justice Department.


 * They also came at a time that Pelosi, in line to be House Speaker if the Democrats win, was signaling she does not want Harman to be chairman of the intelligence panel; reports of a FBI probe into Harman would presumably give Pelosi cover (emphasis mine) to deny the chairmanship to Harman—a moderate Democrat whom Pelosi feels has not been aggressive enough in challenging the Bush administration.

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

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

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

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

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

Response from Madamax

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

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


 * Well, you're certainly correct that this article is light on the details and fluffy. However, there's a reason for that.  Note the BLP policy at the top of this talk page:


 * This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately


 * If you go to Biographies of living persons, you'll note that it mentions that WP policies like Verifiability are applied strictly to living people. It is better to have no article (or a very fluffy and general article) than a bad one.


 * Now, Curt Weldon has quite a bunch of bad stuff at his article, which is good. However, he was involved in a major scandal (which got him kicked out of office and had Feds getting warrants and tossing his place) which is all well-sourced in the article.  I went and read the sources kindly provided by the person trying to introduce the more negative slant, and the statements made in the article are simply not supported by the articles themselves.  They confirm that there's an investigation, yes, and they also say that it is no big deal, that no damning evidence has been found, that it was started on procedural (and quite possibly political) grounds, and that it isn't expected to go anywhere.  This is not a hidden subtext; this is directly said in the articles.  Now, if this changes in the future (they find something and bring up), or if you can find reliable sources which believe that these charges are more serious, then that will change things.  I'm not averse to negative material being in the article, just negative material that misrepresents the source.  (I should add that I'd never heard of Jane Harman until the very recent Intelligence Committee snub, and have no particular investment in her doing well or poorly.)


 * As for the External links... I think that the labor site doesn't qualify as a reliable source or a quality external link.  It seems to be one small group's hatchet job on Harman.  To put it another way, I could put up a site with a free webhost that claims that Harman is actually an Al-Qaida mole, but that doesn't qualify as a reliable source any more than a blog entry that claimed Harman has magical healing powers and a saintly aura.  I exaggerate, but we should keep things to reputable websites.  See External links and Reliable sources for more; note that a website that fails the reliable source test is not typically a good candidate for an external link.  If you can find the website of a large and notable group criticizing Harman whose facts are impeccably in order, that would be a reasonable EL to add.


 * Lastly. Saying "Of course" is bad style, because it is the author saying that the following reason is obvious and implicitly correct (a contention incidentally not supported by the sources, but it's bad style even if it was). SnowFire 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Jane Harman tags US Iraq veterans as extremist. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/napolitano_right_wing_extremists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.126.202 (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

She's in trouble...more AIPAC stuff
This is a must-read. I'm sorry, but I'm too lazy to edit the wiki entry, but this is certainly worthy of inclusion:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003098436&cpage=3

24.98.20.220 (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just added it, building on an anonymous contribution. I also cleaned up a lot of other stuff in the article (hint: this is not an entry for Marcy Winograd). ivan (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, be really careful here. We're quoting a reliable source, which is in turn quoting an anonymous source, accusing a ranking political figure of committing a serious crime, where the investigation has been dropped. CQ is reliable, but how do we know whether their sources are? Reliability is not inherited. I think that the violation of WP:BLP is immense. Unless somebody in a position to know goes on the record as confirming the substance of the allegation, we shouldn't report anything. I'm going to post this to WP:BLPN to ask for a reply. Ray  Talk 15:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Harman is a US public figure and this is self-evidently an important story, so I do think it's appropriate to report its existence and to link to the CQ report (which, as you'd expect, is already being picked up and discussed in lots of other reliable sources). But in my view it is not necessary--and probably not appropriate, either--to rehash all the details here in Wikipedia.  And balance requires mention of alternate views of the story such as this JTA report which is also now also being picked up and discussed by other reliable sources.  Anyway, there are likely to be more rigorously reported news stories about this within hours so it will probably become more obvious how this should be reported.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the characterization is correct this will be an important story. If it is not, I expect maybe a week or two of news furor, after which it goes away except among the lunatic fringe. Wikipedia is not news is extremely sensible. What we have right now is a very convenient leak drawn entirely from anonymous sources, and our current article credulously reprints those allegations more or less in full. I do wish people had waited a few days, or at least for more media coverage, before deciding to write about it. The first report, after all, is usually wrong. Ray  Talk 17:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the controversy -- with the exception of the wiretap -- was reported by Time magazine in 2006 (as cited in the entry). I agree that it could turn out to be false, and I've been searching for more perspectives to add. I did include Harman's response (and AIPAC's response from 2006). One other note: It seems someone added a completely separate subsection ("AIPAC Scandal") duplicating what already exists ("Alleged Quid Pro Quo with AIPAC and Wiretap"). Given that "scandal" is a loaded word and all of the information exists elsewhere, I'm reverting that addition. 76.160.102.105 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC) oops, sorry, I wasn't logged in. This is me: ivan (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm open to better ideas for the title of that subsection. But "AIPAC Scandal" is definitely not neutral.ivan (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ivan, I agree that the AIPAC stuff is old, and reasonably reliably sourced. But the allegation of a NSA wiretap and transcript is new, and thus far only confirmed by anonymous sources. I don't like that; past experience following such articles tells me that while some of the article is probably true, the initial presentation is heavily skewed towards the agenda of the leaker (which is to say, anonymous sources tend not to be reliable -- quelle surprise!). Ray  Talk 18:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on the anonymous sources. I wonder, though (and I'm not enough of a Wikipedian to know this instinctually) how to treat something that's significant for being alleged by a major outlet (this isn't a blog making the claim) even if it hasn't been independently verified. If the NYT published a story saying Barack Obama or John McCain were captured on a wiretap saying ethically dubious things, even if they only quoted anonymous sources I'd think it was significant enough to warrant a mention. I tried to keep things neutral by using words like "alleged" but it seems significant enough to include *something* about. That said, I reordered the section so that the original information from Time comes first. So if things from the CQ piece do need to be removed or pared down, that original story can stand on its own.ivan (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the last section on the criticism from the ACLU seems pretty questionable. So some advocacy group criticized a bill she introduced...great. I'm guessing it was added by the same person who inserted eight paragraphs about Marcy Winograd (her 2006 challenger)... ivan (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ivan - I agree that we'll need to cover this somehow. I'm just worried about reporting something like this as possible fact -- I think your pare-down of the material decently summarizes the situation. I dislike smears of people done by purely anonymous sources, and regard them as likely to be unreliable -- on the one side you have somebody willing to put their reputation on something, on the other side you have people hiding behind reporters-as-mouthpieces. I'm going to leave the tags up on the article for the next few days, pending further developments and as a caution to other editors to abide by the BLP policy. Cheers, Ray  Talk 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the story has certainly developed. As I noted on BLP/N, the major details of the story (that she was recorded by the NSA supposedly discussing an arrangement involving AIPAC and the intelligence committee post) and their import have been independently confirmed by the NY Times. Their article, posted tonight, isn't a repost of CQ and should be given the weight we normally accord NY Times investigative articles - in other words, as fairly authoritative.

Should be noted that the Times article includes the opinion, among the identified sources and most of the anonymous ones, that she hasn't done anything illegal and that the investigation didn't make it past the first level of review. The CQ allegation that this was due to AG Gonzalez' intervetion hasn't been repeated. I can't get to it tonight, but the additional information from the Times article (particularly that which balances the strongly negative POV of the CQ article) should get in soon. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unclear
From this: "She has voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions, lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the Defense of Marriage Act, and banning indecent broadcasting." it is not at all clear what side she voted for, except for the first item. Can someone who knows rewrite the sentence? Thanks.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear. In standard English, the commas in "She has voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions, lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the Defense of Marriage Act" serve as conjunctions and the meaning is unambiguously that she voted against all these things. ---Dagme (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide bill
I have added a short section about Jane's behind the scene actions against a bill she was cosponsoring. A bill the Israel lobby was against. Someone removed the section immediately, which I must say I have to wonder the motivation behind. If there are any problems with the section, I'd welcome comments and discussion. If not, then please help me keep an eye on the section, as I wouldn't be surprised if it immediately disappears again. Thanks --RaffiKojian (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least you have to use your own words and not copy from a newspaper "she privately write a letter to House Foreign Relations Committee Chair Tom Lantos Wednesday " (this is a copyright violation of course, but worse perhaps, gives Wikipedia a terrible name).
 * You have to argue that this is a significant event to report in Wikipedia (postponing a bill). Mashkin (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it's a fair use excerpt, with a link, but I will rewrite it. This is the second time I'm editing the addition to address concerns which seem borderline.  The postponing is not what was significant if you read the link, the fact that she was publicly stating one position, while privately working against that same position.  That is why an article was written, not because she wanted to "postpone" it, which is an inaccurate summation of the issue at hand.  You are knocking on the 3 revert rule, and removing referenced, factual information.  --RaffiKojian (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really convinced that this issue, which is relatively minor for her in the scheme of things, belongs in the article. If we're going to list her legislative positions, we should first do it in broad sweeps and then focus on only the most high-profile specific initiatives. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of points:
 * The previous version was a copyright violation since it was copied from the newspaper without a citations.
 * I agree with Nathan regarding the significance of the event compared to Harman's legislative history. I think it should wait until the latter is given more details. Also the fact that a politician says one thing and does another is hardly "unusual". Another issue is that it is not clear how her letter to Lantos became known, we need a source for that (and the cited article is an opinion piece). Mashkin (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At the time that this was happening, it was a rather big national and international issue. Whether the bill was going to be introduced or not meant, essentially whether it was going to pass or not, because it had more than half the members of the house cosponsoring at least up until about when it was withdrawn.  The letter may have played a part in the withdrawal.  Turkey was threatening all kinds of repercussions.  So, this bill, and its being withdrawn were I think a lot more significant than a simple flip-flop, which itself is on record, significant and well documented.  I don't know where this legislative record is that one day will be added to the Harman article, but it makes no sense to me to remove something until other things are added.  This is a politician's page, and I certainly suspect they don't want a well documented flip-flop on there, but just saying it's normal for politicians I think is not a great reason not to include it.  --RaffiKojian (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)  And again, what is especially significant is not just the flip-flop.  She did not announce publicly that she is withdrawing her support for whatever reasons.  She publicly maintained her position, while secretly working against her public position, that many of her constituents no doubt wanted and she wanted them to believe she was still on board for.  --RaffiKojian (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is not properly written or sourced. The main source is an opinion piece at the LA Times. If it was such big news, find a better source. Second, it is full of OR and POV. Claiming that the step she took is unusual. If you llok at the way this article was/s written, a lot of issues are presented immediately as negative and criticism, instead of factually describing what happened and wheat were the reactions. Mashkin (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know it is an op-ed and a criticism. If you recall, that was how I originally presented it, and you did not like it, so I changed it. It may be an opinion article, but the facts are in there.  I'll look for a different reference though.  --RaffiKojian (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion = Jewish
It has been claimed that Harman's religion is "Jewish", sourced to "Jane Sprague Zones, "Jane Harman", Jewish Women's Archive." As "Jewish" is not a religion, this claim seems doubtful. It's possible that her ethnicity might be Jewish, or her religion Judaism, but it's hard to know. Could someone explain what this source is, where it may be found, and what exactly it says? Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jane Harman's Jewishness is hardly a matter of dispute. If I correctly understand your position, it is that her religion shouldn't be identified in the infobox (either as "Judaism" or "Jewish") unless there is some other sort of evidence beyond the numerous sources that identify her as Jewish.  If it's been determined that this is now the practice for infoboxes in biographies, so be it,  but what, exactly, would you find sufficient? --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are certainly good sources for her being Jewish, but not for her practicing Judaism. It is estimated that perhaps 40% of American Jews are atheist or agnostic, and they certainly wouldn't appreciate or agree with themselves being designated as practicing Judaism. A source saying she was a "Reform Jew" or "Orthodox Jew" or some similar religious designation would be helpful. I'd even agree that membership in, say, a Reform/Conservative/Orthodox synagogue would do. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are setting an unrealistic and very high bar for establishing her religion. This standard is not being applied to any other public figure. I think you are trying to remove her religion from the public record.  Diderot08 (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard I am setting is WP:BLP, which applies to all articles. If you ignore it, you can be blocked. Now, do not restore the material unless you actually have a reliable source indicating her religion. Take this very, very seriously. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can still describe Jane Harman as "Jewish". She is described as "Jewish" by Politico The Atlantic  The Jewish Post  and The Forward  all of them WP:RS. I don't see anything in WP:BLP that prevents us from describing her as "Jewish". Do you? If so, could you please cite the text in WP:BLP that prevents it? --Nbauman (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Actual reference [31] does not support 'fact' cited.
Hello, Wikipedia writers.

This is the *very first* time I've contributed to a talk page, and so please forgive me (and give me guidance) if I'm not doing this correctly.

In any case, the point I'm bringing up is not at all on the level of most of the subject matter on this talk page (which I've read/skimmed with interest). I came to this page because I just received an email (as did thousands of others, I'm sure) urging me to support a woman running for Jane Harmon's seat. Curious as to why it was open, I came to her Wiki page. (By the way, the reasons for her stepping down from her long-held congressional seat in February, 2011, could be an interesting topic, but it is not explored at all.)

THE SENTENCE THAT DREW ME TO THE TALK PAGE IS THE FOLLOWING:

Harman had previously sold his company, Harman Kardon, to Beatrice Foods for $100 million.[31] I was surprised that an audio equipment company would have been sold to a food company, so I clicked on the footnote.

Footnote [31] *does* link to the NYTimes article cited (Wayne, Leslie (1990). Market Place; Notes at Harman: Sweet and Sour. The New York Times. July 2, 1990.) However, this article (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/02/business/market-place-notes-at-harman-sweet-and-sour.html?scp=1&sq=Harman%20kardon%20beatrice&st=cse) makes NO MENTION of Harman Kardon being sold; just that its stock price was suffering at the time.

TWO ADDITIONAL POINTS:

Higher up in the text of this page, it is stated:

Harman had recently sold his company Harman Kardon to Beatrice Foods for approximately $350 million (in 2009 dollars).[citation needed] (Note the discrepancy in price.)

This Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harman_Kardon makes no mention of Harman Kardon having been sold to (and repurchased from) Beatrice Foods. LMorland (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

moderate (...) supported the Iraq War
I have trouble understanding this passage:
 * On intelligence and defense issues, she tends to be a moderate. For example, she was one of many Democrats who supported the Iraq War.

It seems that this passage assumes support to the invasion of Iraq to be a moderate stance; however, this position is rather hawkish, and represents a significant disconnect from reality (on the rationals for the war, on its outcomes, etc.), so I fail to understand how it can be said to be "moderate". It might have a specific meaning in the context of US politics, but then that should be explained. Rama (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Moderate" politics
"On intelligence and defense issues, she tends to be a moderate. For example, she was one of many Democrats who supported the Iraq War." ---From the section "Political positions"

So, in the eyes of Wikipedia, supporting unprovoked military aggression based on a campaign of lies is moderate politics. ---Dagme (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The section on the NSA / AIPAC incident is very biased. I still haven't been able to verify footnote 14; but I'll keep trying. The article drastically understates the evidence against her and actually implies that she was innocent. I'm new to Wikipedia but I will try and make a formal edit when I learn about the procedure here. This seems like a deliberate attempt to write history from a biased perspective in that they are covering up a major story. Wikipedia is not the new York times. Wikipedia should be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.121.191 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Friction with Nancy Pelosi
The lede states,"When Democrats held the House majority, she was in line to chair the House intelligence committee but was denied the post by then-Speaker Pelosi"; however, there is no discussion of why the position was denied to her. Various sources report friction between Harman and Pelosi. Perhaps this might be something to add to the article by someone more knowledgeable about the politics between the two. -Location (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Harman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509123423/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-223/part2.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-223/part2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Bieber incident? Really?
I have a hard time understanding why anyone would think this trivial bit of pop culture ephemera belongs in an encyclopedia article about a woman whose many claims to fame will be remembered long after anyone ceases to care about this "incident." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:300:7C00:2070:6BA9:7B04:CCB (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it should go out. --Nbauman (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)