Talk:Mike Huckabee

NPOV dispute

Not a bad article. There were a few points that are too opinionated and don't fit in with a factual encyclopedia article, but on the whole not bad. I deleted the last paragraph due to my previous statement.--Jfulkerson 20:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Jfulkerson

This article makes Huckabee out to be some kind of savior. It is only contrasted by a small "criticisms" section at the end, designed to provide an opposing point of view. Unfortunately, it falls short and ultimately makes the article too opinionated for Wikipedia.--Nscaife 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Nscaife

I added some more information about the Dumond case in order to provide a more complete picture of what happened. There are still some problems with this entry, but this hopefully balances it out a little more. Maximusveritas 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Dumond section needs to be rewritten. The information about the case is political. It has information regarding the Dumond case which; (1) does not help explain the criticism against Huckabee, (2) uses misleading articles to dismiss the criticism, and (3) is untrue and from unreliable sources. First, it fails to discuss the criticism against Huckabee, for example the fact Huckabee may have lied about his actions taken and used political pressure to get Dumond released. Second, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article it cites to dismiss the criticism is misleading because it is not discussing the clemencies actually granted but is looking at the number granted. Third, the main source it cites disregards most of the other sources this article uses, speicifically articles written by Steve Dunleavy. ("What {Steve} Dunleavy has written about the Dumond saga has been either unverified or is demonstrably untrue".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afberry25 (talk • contribs) .

I do agree that the section in its previous form spent too much time on things that didn't have to do with Huckabee. I was just trying to give the whole story, but I agree now that much of it probably was not relevant to this page. As far as Huckabee's possible attempts to influence the board, the section does mention that and also mentions that he denies it. I'm not sure what else there is to say. If you have anything else notable to add, please do so. As far as the unreliable source (Dunleavy), I only used him as an example of a critic of Clinton's and in order to provide the quote from Dumond's wife. Just because he was wrong about Dumond's innocence doesn't mean we can't use his articles as sources for direct quotes from 3rd parties. Finally, I do agree that the wording of the last sentence is unclear, so I will try to fix that. Thanks for pointing out the problems. Let me know if there's anything else that needs revision. Maximusveritas 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the POV tag without an explanation. -- Scaife 17:02, 06 February 2006

There doesn't seem to be an explanation about why the POV tag is there in the first place.. at least not for the Dumond stuff. TastyCakes 18:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NScaife added the POV tag for the reasons he stated above. That was before any of the Dumond stuff was added. The reason there is an original research tag in the Dumond section is because I hadn't added the appropriate references yet (since I wasn't sure how to do it at the time). I still need to find the full info on some of the citations, but I think it's mostly covered so I'll remove that tag later if there are no objections. - Maximusveritas 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to removing the POV tag? Scaife's reasons for the tag appear to have been addressed for the most part. There is now a significant criticism section to balance Huckabee's accomplishments. I'll remove it in a week or so if there are no objections. Maximusveritas 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

*Until the editing war regarding the "convict release" is resolved, the NPOV tag is going to be re-introduced. Thanks - Eisenmond 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a slight change which I hope is OK with everyone: I removed the wording "accused of ... pressuring." Such a wording implies that there was something illegal or unethical about Huckabee's actions. I checked out the Arkansas Times article, and so no reason to suspect possible conflicts of interest or appearances of impropriety; unless I'm missing something here, it sounds like it was a dumb move politically and governmentally, but there was nothing unseemly. That is, it sounds more like Michael Dukakis' "Willie Horton" problem than political corruption (except for those who consider any disagreement they have with an elected official's public characterization of events to be evidence of that official's corruption.) 70.88.233.70 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Links

"Negative" links keep getting deleted without explanation.24.18.44.64 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Early Years

Need citations badly. --Scaife 12:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reclaiming America

Citation Here: http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/CONFERENCES/RAC2006/default.aspThuranX 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++

Information in Early Years Section also appears in periodical Current Biography, November 2005 139.78.177.30 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Durden1186@hotmail.com

Health Advocacy and Personal Weight-Loss

There doesn't seem to be much mention of his actions promoting anti-obesity stuff, although that's the only reason I've heard of him. Does anyone else think there should be more on this? 128.189.131.157 06:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Right now, there's only a one-sentence parenthetical summary in the "Other Accomplishments" section. That could be expanded into a full paragraph in that section. - Maximusveritas 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I switched things around a bit. Gov. Huckabee's weight-loss deserves a more prominent role on his page than just the little footnotes & fun-facts. It was a profound moment in his life, both in personal and policy terms as well. Not only does losing 110 pounds through diet and exercise say something about a person, but as a governor, it has also shaped his political goals of reforming Arkansas health-care. I didn't source or cite the new information--sorry about that. If you're curious, the facts that I included were partly from what I've learned from C-SPAN and some CBS News web-interview that I saw him in over the past year or so. I was just too lazy to track the acutal sources down. Also, I ask everybody, would be appropriate to put a, "before," and "after," photo of Governor Huckabee for the wiki article? Or would that be over-playing the weight-loss thing? Thanks All!! Larry

Thanks for your contribution Larry. I do agree that the weight-loss thing deserves more of a mention here. However, sources are mandatory. If you need time to find sources, we can just put a tag in the meantime, but you do need to insert them eventually. Also, you did appear to repeat some things that were already in the article, so I had to take those out. Note that you can't just copy and paste information from other sources, you have to rewrite it in your own words. Let me know if you have any questions Maximusveritas 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not been involved with this article up to this point (and I'm short on time at the moment), so I leave this link for you guys to decide whether it has a place. NY Times Article on Huckabee's weightloss

HUckabee's statements that jewish kidnappers who put him in a concentration camp should be added either to this section or to 'controversies'. [[1]]. ThuranX 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Editors should review the policy on living persons.

In particular:

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule.

If you want to add something negative, it's your responsibility to make sure it's sourced and NPOV. If you don't, by policy it should (and if I'm around will) be removed wholesale any number of times. A.J.A. 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to caution you, you're quite clearly announcing you've got a bias and an agenda here, and should be careful not to become uncivil with editors seeking to add legitimate criticisms of the subject. ThuranX 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Advising you of a policy you are violating is not uncivil. I have clearly announced I intend to follow content policies; labeling this "a bias and an agenda" is itself getting close to incivility. In any case, please review the policy. Further, you should be aware that removals of this kind of material are not subject to the WP:3RR, but additions of it are. A.J.A. 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Certain editors appear to still not understand the WP:BLP policy:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. (emph. added)

Condescending to partially follow one part of a policy (after putting up a huge fight) does not license you to violate the rest of the policy. Incidentally, the text does not follow the source policy. E.g., "a group of convicts whom many believe are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused." is sourced to "Free the West Memphis Three", hardly an acceptible source. Even apart from this, it remains biased in tone: "an error-filled e-mail", etc.

Furthermore, the lengthy (and from what I read biased) West Memphis Three article does not include the text "Huckabee". Where's the notability? A.J.A. 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think it's good enough, fix it so it is. This repeated deletion thing is getting tiresome. Editors fix it, you find fault, and delete, it gets fixed more, you still find fault. Since you're the only one who can find your own high standard, bring it up to that point. Further, citing that another article isn't up to snuff hardly validates removals at this article.ThuranX 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a full-blooded conservative Republican myself, and even I think this is getting tiresome. We went through this same thing on the Condoleezza Rice article over the summer, and when it comes down to it, WP:BLP is not sufficient grounds to remove well-cited criticism such as this. Repeated deletion of such legitimate, validated, and factual criticisms only comes across as lacking NPOV on your part. Whether or not this is actually the case, it gives you the appearance of being a Huckabee supporter who is trying to stretch every little rule in order to keep legitimate criticism of your favorite candidate off the page, and that would be called having a biased agenda. The sources that the West Memphis Three criticism section cites are completely legitimate and inherently relevant to the Criticism section of this article. To assert otherwise is, by nature, fallacious. --Ai.kefu 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I explained with specific citation of policy and specific quotations from the paragraph in question. Your accusations of partisanship are uncivil, and your claim in the edit summary that "It was FULLY cited" was demonstratedly false when you made it.

Your claim that I bear any responsibility to "fix it" is alse clearly wrong per policy:

"The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." (emph. original)

If you want it included it is "firmly" your responsibility to fix it. Speculating as to my motives does not license you to start ignoring basic content policies.

Although it's slightly better now, it still takes the critics' side and still gives undue weight. A.J.A. 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your objection on the grounds that it 'takes the critics' side' is spurious on its face. Given it's subject matter, there is NO way to submit the information without mentioning that many were critical of Huckabee. That's why it is in the 'Criticisms' section. If you can source something properly which states that millions were overjoyed by Huckabee's actions, please do. But this is gettign ridiculously frustrating. Multiple editors continue to try to meet your standards, we met your intial complaints, and now your only reply to specific issues is to cite WP:BLP in a general way, and refer back to earlier issues, many, if not all of which were addressed since by editors acting to work towards gettign the information in. Yet you still stand in the way. However, the difference now is that you cannot now provide specific objections. Please do. I will hold off reverting until you do, within reason. ThuranX 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what you seem to think, mentioning a critic and making that critic's case are two different things. One is permitted (and is what the article does in the case of all other criticism), the other is not permitted, yet seems to be precisely your goal. Any serious editor should know the difference. You not only elide over it but make patently unfounded declarations of spuriousness, and then false claims that my objections have already been addressed. I have a history of leaving proper criticism untouched and adding neutral information, but you have no history of adding anything but criticism. Your assumption of good faith has almost run out. A.J.A. 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's work on this. Here is the paragraph as it stands, after editing:

"While Huckabee has been, on the one hand, criticised for the clemency he has granted to criminals during his tenure[17], he has, on the other hand, also been criticised for refusing to reopen investigation into the well-known case of the West Memphis Three (CrimeLibrary profile), a group of convicts whom many believe are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused.[18] During Gov. Huckabee's administration (and since then, as well), there has been a notable movement amongst politicians and celebrities to press for the reopening of the West Memphis Three case. Noteworthy supporters of the "Free the West Memphis Three" cause include Jack Black, Jello Biafra, Marilyn Manson, Winona Ryder, Tom Waits, South Park creator Trey Parker, and former President Bill Clinton (also a former Arkansas governor), who has called it a "troubling case."[19] Two major films have since been released documenting the situation, including an Emmy award-winning documentary on the WM3 case, which aired in the 1990's. Huckabee himself has had little to say on the matter, though the Governor's office did, on March 23, 2003, send out an e-mail to address the matter, which claimed that DNA evidence had conclusively linked the WM3 to their accused crimes and that HBO's documentary was actually fiction.[20] DNA testing for the case has never been completed and test results have never been released,[21] and had the HBO documentary been a "fictionalized account," it would have been disqualified for the Emmy for "Outstanding Achievement in Informational Programming," which it won in 1997 alongside a National Geographic Special.[22] Huckabee's office thereafter refused to comment on the matter.[23]"

Let's start with the initial foundation at the outset by all of us acknowledging that the West Memphis Three case is both a nationally and internationally well-known situation that is inherently relevant to a comprehensive discussion of Michael Huckabee's tenure as Governor of Arkansas. That is a straight fact, bare to the bone, that does not include any editorializing or POV. It is completely NPOV. So, now that we have established that the WM3 is worth being documented on the Mike Huckabee Wikipedia article, how do we address the topic in a way that is NPOV? To AJA particularly, what would you like to see removed from the WM3 paragraph to make it NPOV, and in what specific way is each of the things you would like to see removed POV? Please respond to this without making vague statements about an overall negative tone or loose, general references to the WP:BLP article. --Ai.kefu 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Demanding that I agree to something and then declaring it "established" is hardly a useful procedure. Now here's a straight, NPOV fact for you: a Google test of "'West Memphis Three' Huckabee" returns 507 results, which is practically nothing. Also I had a look through the blog entries on the Daily Kos with the keyword "Mike Huckabee". Quite a few harsh words, none related to the West Memphis Three. So that's empirical evidence against notability. I'll admit notability if you can provide greater evidence to the contrary (and that doesn't mean simply declaring that you have it). A.J.A. 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

UH, no. NO wikilawyering this. Your initial objections were to POV. We fixed that, you objected to sources, we fixed that. We are NOT going to run down the entire litany of possible objections and jump through hoops for you. Further, claiming you edit to neutrality and i edit to criticism only and thus am NOT operating in good faith is intersting, because MY perception is that I edit to neutrality, and YOU edit to a PRO-Huckabee stance. As such, holding out that I'm not operating in good faith is as bad as if i were to say, you're just a dick. I haven't done that. I won't BE doing that any time soon. You're not being fair, as I see it, but you're trying to edit the page in a generally good faith manner, even if I oppose your stance on this. However, as I've said before, if all you can do is ratchet up the hostility here, go right ahead. I'll just keep fixing this. Now, as I've said before, it's time for you to actually CONTRIBUTE, rather than delete, dig in your heels, and insult others. can you help or not? Ai.kefy has made a serious attempt here, and your response was a blatant dig at him. Further, GHits isn't the only means of establishign notability, and there are a number of policies and debates on Wikipedia about it's efficacy. Any number of topics are more likely to be covered in scholarly journals, or be of 'notability' within a limited field. 507 unique Ghits, by the way, is often considered notable. That said, it's notable, and we all would like it far more if you acted in a positive, wikibuilding manner ,instead of continuing to delete, insult, and refuse to assist. ThuranX 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the history of the discussion. I objected to both the POV and the lack of sources. You never attempted to fix anything; you've merely reinserted the same flawed text, often with edit summaries that made false claims. Two others made insufficient attempts, for which you can claim no credit, but an insufficient attempt at creating a suitable text is still an unsuitable text.

You have added only negative material. This fact may or may not be "interesting" juxtaposed to your (claimed) self-perception as editing toward neutrality, but it remains fact.

The 507 number is merely pages with the text I searched for. Of the ones I saw, most were appeals for a letter on their behalf. Which makes the criticism far less notable than even 507 would indicate. You ignore the other test. Let me suggest yet another one: find an article covering his Presidential campaign that mentions it. See, I'm helping you make your case, if the case is there to be made.

If it should be included, it doesn't need to follow policy better than previous versions, it needs to follow content policy, period. No matter how much you'd really really like to take the critic's side, it's not "wikilawyering" to point out that you're not allowed to. A.J.A. 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

AJA, If we are going to take Google Searches into account to judge how "notable" a controversy is, then let's go over to the Wikipedia article of another Republican presidential candidate with a big "Criticisms/controversies" section, that of Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani's Wikipedia article gives an entire section to two particular controversies surrounding Giuliani's tenure in public office. Namely, the gun control lawsuit controversy and the Brooklyn Art Museum controversy. When I Google "'brooklyn art museum' giuliani," I come up with 421 results. When I Google "'gun control lawsuit' giuliani," I come up with 17 results on only 4 different websites (one of those websites being the Rudy Giuliani Wikipedia article itself). So, are these two controversies notable enough to warrant having their own section header on the Rudy Giuliani page? If not, then I'd like to see you take the same kind of interest in protecting Rudy's Wikipage from such "POV editorializing" as you do with your candidate of choice, Mike Huckabee.

Now, I'm assuming that, as someone who likely is in favor of Mike Huckabee for the presidential nomination, you don't want to have to also go through all of Huckabee's potential rivals and delete all the criticisms that Google less than 500 hits for them also, so let's get right to the point. The West Memphis Three situation is one that IS notable, if the cadre of big-name celebrities (and even a former President) hasn't provided evidence enough. Virtually any criminal justice course you will take in college, if it addresses false convictions or coerced confessions or wrongful imprisonments or anything of the sort, will cite the West Memphis Three case as a key example. It's extremely well known. It has an Emmy-award winning documentary that was done on it. There is no issue over whether it's a notable case. Huckabee definitely has something to do with the case, as the article which the WM3 paragraph cites shows that Huckabee's office has directly addressed it and that Huckabee's office made two significant erroneous claims about the case and then refused to comment after the claims were disproven. Huckabee has been criticised many times for his refusal to reopen investigation into the case, if the thousands upon thousands of letters sent to Huckabee's office on the matter aren't evidence enough. Do you want me to go through and find every single webpage that shows someone criticising Huckabee for his lack of action in the matter? What will it take to avoid an edit war here and convince you that, at the very least, the WM3 situation is worth discussing on this Wikipedia article. At the very least, it deserves to be noted in some way or another on the Mike Hucakbee article. If we can at least agree on this premise, then maybe we can work out a way to present the issue without it seeming POV. Can we at least agree on this? --Ai.kefu 04:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

asking me to prove or disprove a negative is a debate argument fallacy tactic i won't rise to. Contribute or stay out of it. It's notable, it's been sourced, and since your'e uninterested in helping, I see no reason not to replace it. ThuranX 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I never asked you to prove a negative. You keep resorting to misrepresentations because that's all you have. A.J.A. 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX asserts in his edit summary: Objecting editor chose to not reply to lengthy post explaining notability I take it this is a reference to the last one from Ai.kefu. Unfortunately he doesn't explain notability, he merely asserts it and then demands I agree with him. I've suggested a way you could demonstrate notability. Then it would still have to be neutral and properly-sourced. Yes, it has to be notable and NPOV and sourced -- if "jumping" through those "hoops" is as impossible as you say it doesn't belong here. A.J.A. 22:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ai.kefu gave you a long reply about the notability issue. Please reply to that issue. ThuranX 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I explicitly mention, and dismiss, Ai.kefu's reply. You respond with "Actually, Ai.kefu gave you a long reply..." as if I had ignored it or denied its existence, right under my discussion of it. At this point it appears you are no longer even attempting a serious discussion. A.J.A. 18:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all you do IS dismiss ai.kefu. You don't explain or reply to him at all. You effectively say 'I'm choosing not to see ai.kefu's arugment at all, since it says things I do not want to see'. The criticism of Huckabee is valid. It is notable, as substantiated by Ai.kefu. It has been sourced extensively now, and any and all 'colorful' words were removed already. There no longer exists ANY reasons you can substantiate for not including it. I will give you some time to compile a valid, lengthy, clear point by point reply in wich to explain any remaining issues. If you cannot, or do not, then the information will go back in. ThuranX 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop playing games. You both have yet to demonstrate the notability of the criticism, and have yet to produce a neutral text which cites reliable sources (as opposed to "Free the West Memphis Three").

Your ultimatum is out of line: you have yet to behave acceptably or add any acceptable content. A.J.A. 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to discount all the evidence of notability that Ai.kefu presents. that's it. ThuranX 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think AJA's refusal to compromise or be reasonable has severely damaged his credibility as an editor of the Criticisms section on the Mike Huckabee Wikipedia page. He has had two weeks to make a single reply to our arguments and has not been able to do so. I am hereby re-adding the much toned-down paragraph on the WM3 issue to the Mike Huckabee article. If the paragraph is deleted, I will re-add it. We have established that the WM3 issue paragraph is inherently relevant to this article and that it in no way crosses any boundaries or breaks any Wikipedia rules. Any removal of such information will be treated as vandalism. If we have to bring administrators into this debate, so be it--I will take full responsibility for it. --Ai.kefu 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to compare who has more credibility as an editor, let's just ask who added the original form, who said "it's all straight facts", and who has never admitted that its removal was both necessary and good? You. You've done nothing but push your POV and have given no sign of knowing what the boundaries are or caring what the rules say. A.J.A. 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You are avoiding the issues to focus primarily on personal attacks against the editors. Deleting this well-sourced, inherently relevant, and NPOV paragraph is equal to vandalism, and it will be treated as such. --Ai.kefu 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You take it upon yourself to pass judgement on who lacks credibility, I point out all the processed-sand-like qualities of your house, and now I'm making personal attacks? Those "personal attacks" are all facts. If pointing out undeniable facts feels like an attack, what does that tell you about yourself?

In any case, I must warn you that your addition of (still, after all this time) poorly-sourced, biased, irrelevent material IS NOT exempt from the 3RR, but removals still are. Be cautious. A.J.A. 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have supported the re-addition of the section as well, by restoring it. AJA had weeks to deal with this, to respond and help constructively build this article. Instead, he avoided it. Now, in response to Ai.kefu, he insists that ... well, something about sand and houses... anyways, he doesn't like it and won't let it in. He attacks us for requesting his participation, yet insists it is we who obstruct the article. This combative behavior is frustrating, and mildly insulting. This is becoming tiresome. The section will stay in, unless sufficient specific criticism with supporting evidence is provided. AJA, all I'm really hearing from you is that you personally object to Mike Huckabee being so clearly and specifically criticized. Regardless of your feelings, we've established notability, cited the section heavily, and edited to be NPOV, as much so as can reasonably be done when reporting on the criticisms of Huckabee by others. Please either provide the specific critiques and evidences requested above, and before, or stop trying to alter the article. Thank you.ThuranX 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) The editor in opposition to the criticism has once again chosen to remove the content, while ignoring and disrespecting the editors working here on the Talk page. As such, it is blanking vandalism, and will be treated as such. ThuranX 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW

Some parts of the article are plagiarized from here. A.J.A. 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that Wikipedia editors plagarised that site by use of dates of edits/publication, or is it equally possible they lifted content from Wikipedia? ThuranX 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A comparison of the site, last edited 4 Jun 2006 by a user calling himself Radar, to this 3 Jun 2006 Wikipedia version shows that that site plagarized wikipedia, not us plagarising them. ThuranX 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reiterations

Lest anyone say I haven't bent over backwards to notify ThuranX and Ai.kefu of their multiple violations, I will now reiterate what has already been said and not addressed (and by "addressed", I mean fixed, not argued about). In place of resolving the issues, I have seen immediate and repeated resorts to incivility and ad hominem arguments; they have refused to use the Talk page constructively, yet ThuranX feels that my decision to avoid answering his uncivil remarks puts me in the wrong. I leave it to uninvolved parties to decide which is worse, answering substantive posts with invective, or answering rude comments with nothing.

Notability -- Still not demonstrated. Ai.kefu demonstrated the notability of the case, but this isn't AfD, it's an article about someone who appears only marginally related. What's needed is proof that the criticism is notable, not a ramble about the case and demands I agree with him. WP:BLP says: "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." Prove that isn't the case.

Sources -- "Free the West Memphis Three" isn't a reliable source.

Bias -- The paragraph, still, even after the latest attempt to make it less biased (by someone other than ThuranX and Ai.kefu, which was also the case in all previous attempts) appears to side with the critics and gives it undue weight. The version ThuranX kept reinserting was quit obviously biased.

P.S. The comment above about plagiarism had nothing to do with the dispute at hand despite ThuranX's false claims elsewhere. A.J.A. 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite A.J.A.'s attempts to portray himself as some amazing defender, the simple fact is he long ago abandoned the talk page. His evaluation of ai.kefu here is only slightly less dismissive than his outright 'i dismiss it', the first time around. The notability has been demonstrated over and over, it's cited more and more, and still he continues to insist his candidate of choice can do no wrong. He has used up all my WP:AGF on this. He won't actually talk about it. Ultimately, his opinion, as repeatedly hinted at is nothing more than 'it makes huckabee look bad, thus it's biased'. He's admitted he won't let it on the page no matter what before, so I don't see any reason to assume good faith any more with this editor, on this issue. ThuranX 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Prior to this comment, my most recent comment on the Talk page was on the 15th [2], while yours was on the 17th and consisted of an uncivil false accusation [3]. Two of them, actually; first, that I was refusing to use Talk (when, in fact, my most recent post had been on the same day as your most recent post), and second the vandalism one.

Again, I want to give you every opportunity to withdraw your incendiary comments, both the numerous ones made previously and this misrepresentation of the history of this matter. And, I should add, your false accusation that I "insist his candidate of choice can do no wrong", and that "He's admitted he won't let it on the page no matter what before", both of which are simply false.

You also misrepresent yourself as just now deciding not to assume good faith; in fact, as others can readily confirm, your first comment here was an accusation that I was acting from "a bias and an agenda", which was followed, incredibly, by an admonition to be civil. And that, let me remind you, was in defense of this.

Unfortunately, bringing this again to Talk has been greeted the way I (pessimistically) expected: you refuse to fix or even discuss the issues, instead continuing the behaviors I appealed to you to stop. A.J.A. 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You won't make clear the issues beyond buzzwords. be clear, be specific. That's all I've asked, repeatedly. You refuse to. It is that simple. ai.kefu asked you to interact. you refused. Your constant reply it 'it's biased against huckabee, BLP' then you revert it out. It's pointless to try to interact with you. You don't interact back. you say things like "I already said it, go fix it'. We ask you WHAT needs fixing, you say, I told you.' We look ,and we're back to 'it's biased against huckabee, BLP'. You need to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR about what is so horribly BIASED. I've said it before. Criticisms don't make people look good. That's WHY they are CRITICISMS. He's a candidate for President. To NOT include sourced items posited by his detractors would be to whitewash him. You keep trying to do that. I keep stopping you. It's that simple, unless you can clearly point out WHAT sections of this criticism are so biased? And you can't. If you could,you would have by now, I've asked before. repeatedly. You could avoid all this percieved incivility by me if you'd done that. You won't. You attack me , edit war, then protest. Frankly, I don't think you can be neutral about him.

THIS IS MY FINAL APPEAL TO YOU. BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS BIASED IN THIS SECTION. Do it or don't, you know what your silence this far has wrought. It can go on and on like this, or you can COMMUNICATE. ThuranX 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not much time before I've got to go, but not much substance to reply to. You obviously don't agree with me that it's biased, but, if we're already making personal comments, you didn't think this was biased either, so your judgement appears a little clouded; you could demonstrate otherwise by making your case, but simply asserting that I haven't interacted when clearly I have, both now and previously, doesn't cut it. It could be construed as dishonesty.

But please, for your own sake, step back, calm down, and reconsider whether you might not want to retract your uncivil comments and misrepresentations. A.J.A. 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I just stated on the talk page of ThuranX, I understand the frustration on both sides. In this case, the burden of proof lies with the member attempting to add information. If "reputable" sources can be cited on this issue, then there should be mention - properly cited per wiki-standards. Please stop the editing war, and instead move to provide a NPOV section that meets the requirements above. As an aside, because this is a heated editing war, I am chocing no sides here, rather laying out what needs to be done to bridge this gap. I have seen the same situation on other pages. I hope this can be resolved quickly. Until then, in all fairness, the NPOV tag will be posted. Thanks - Eisenmond 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this to AN/I. I'm tired of dealing with it here, and posted there that I will not be on the page nor the talk for 24 hours. There's no amount of sources that would satisfy AJA, there's no way to report it without AJA feeling it's biased against Huckabee, and so I'll step back, walk away, and let others sort this out for a while. But for now, I'm done for 24 hours. After that, we'll see what's transpired. ThuranX 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if almost every sentence in that paragraph is sourced. After Eisenmond put up the NPOV tag (which I agree with until this is settled) A.J.A. simply removed it all again. I restored it because I , as I said, it seems sourced to my eyes. IrishGuy ^talk 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, every sentence is sourced and cited, however, the sources must be reliable and verifiable perWiki Guideline. The sources cited are a blog, a broken link, a movie review page, etc. Please perform research on the issue and include a reputable source, such as a national or state paper, TV news report, etc. Blogs are considered "Original Research" and stray from Wiki guidelines. Thanks for being patient on this situation, and thanks for the fair editing that I trust is to come :) - Eisenmond 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Crimelibrary.com is neither a blog, nor a broken link. Mikehuckabee.com isn't a broken link either. The IMDB is used as a reference for the documentaries...and yes, IMDB is used as a reliable reference. So basically, the only link you could possibly have a problem with is http://wm3.org and that doesn't warrant blanking the entire paragraph. IrishGuy ^talk 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mikehuckabee.com is a personal website, not a verifiable / reputable source. Referencing the documentaries only proves that they exist, not that the incident is accurate as written. And yes, the other which was listed is broken. I have stepped into this as a moderator. Do not accuse me of blanking, as I am fairly removing the disputed content until verifiable sources can be cited to support all of the claims made in the paragraph. - Eisenmond 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not part of the content dispute. I stepped to look it over because ThuranX was asking for help all over Wikipedia. From what I can see, both IMDB and Crimelibrary.com are valid sources, neither of which are broken links (see here and here. The MikeHuckabee site may be a personal site, but as a source it is reprinting articles from ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE which are valid. www.wm3.org is a site which archives various legal documents pertenent to the case. How are any of these links POV and unverifiable? IrishGuy ^talk 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, perhaps changing the citation sources to the Gazette, and finding a wm3 link that is not broken would end this debate. As I have said, I am not part of this editing war. I took action because the content in dispute was re-added by you without making changes suggested in the talk section that could help end this one. I was also asked by ThuranX to help moderate this issue because I questioned the nature of the back and forth POV editing. If we cite a more neutral source, such as the gazzette, then the inclusion cannot be debated, perhaps but for the wording. I have looked at the mikehuckabee.com site and it is a very anti-huckabee site, which may be what is at the heart of this contest...again, of which I am not a part. Thanks for your help in stepping in here. It is greatly appreciated, and I am sure that the two editors can take our advice and move forward amicably. Thanks - Eisenmond 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Primary sources would be preferable. I would imagine the legal briefs found on wm3.org could be found elsewhere (although I understand initially linking to that site as it is convenient to have them all in one place). Mikehuckabee.com, I believe, is anti-huckabee and as such a better primary source should be used. I am not very familiar with the Arkansas paper so I'm not sure how much they archive online. Possibly it could be cached from Google or archive.org. Hopefully this would be something ThuranX would be willing to look into. As an aside, I used the term "blanking" in that you removed the content, I didn't mean it with any connotations of vandalism. I apologize, as it is my fault that I didn't choose a better term with less negative connotations within it. I meant you no disrespect. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the Crime Library cite as a source. In the most recent version of the disputed text it first appears here:

"he has also been criticized for refusing to reopen investigation into the case of the West Memphis Three,[20]"

The "[20]" being a footnote linking here. The first (admitedly minor) problem is that it takes us to the first part but the part sourcing the text is here. More seriously, what it actually says is:

On March 31, 2000, the Arkansas Times reported that Edward Mallett, counsel representing Damien Echols, had accused Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee of making false statements regarding his clients’ case.

Mallett told the paper that a false statement regarding DNA evidence in the case was made via an e-mail issued from the Governors’ office.

Which isn't quite what the article says. It's unclear what it does say, however. Is he saying Huckabee himself wrote the e-mail? Is he saying Huckabee should keep a tighter rein on his staff? Hire some fact-checkers so nobody in his office sends out mistaken e-mails? The first would appear very unlikely and definitely jumping to conclusions, the latter two are more reasonable but assume he was speaking imprecisely. Any way you read this, using this as a source involves some interpretation on the part of editors.

I also searched the WM3 site. The closest I found to what would be needed is this, which isn't quite it.

What we need is a reliable source saying "so-and-so [who would have to be reasonably notable relative to the case] accused Huckabee of failing the cause of justice by not reopening..." Of course it doesn't have to be that exact wording. I've been harping on notability: finding a clear, reliable source would demonstrate notability, and I'm not sure I would accept anything else. A.J.A. 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

Would someone mind adding this link which goes into detail about his ancestry. http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Michael_Huckabee Thanks Wjhonson 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That link is to a small, non-notable wiki-tree with a fairly large amount of unsoured ino, and speculation. Further, it would be trivia here. As such, it doesn't belong on the page.ThuranX 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)For clarification: The biggest citation problem there is the reliance upon OWT to tie the Huckabees back beyond the fifth gen. OWT isn't a reliable source. If you could provide primary sources for that descendancy, through church records, land grants, or records of wills and testaments, it might stand up. Otherwise, it descends into a vanity piece. Further, even that OWT citation being circumnavigated would only suppport the 6th generation, and not that lineage to royalty which is stuck to the bottom. Either way, its' trivia, and now that I think more upon it, it probably violates WP:BLP. ThuranX 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with part of your characterization. The information is not unsourced, in fact it's very well sourced using census, marriage indexes, death indexes, cemetery records, etc. The page does not "rely" upon OWT, it mentions it in passing. I get the feeling you skimmed it very rapidly, can you return and examine each document posted? I'm not sure how you ignored the census postings. Thanks. Wjhonson 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ignore any of it. It relies upon the OneWorldTree Citation to move past the 5th generation and thus 'tie' it to the royal lineage. As such, that citation would never hold up to any serious genealogical examination, and is pretty much someone else's spec cited as a fact. In light of that, all we have is an average american heritage, which isn't notable, and would be essentially trivia. If you can demonstrate a line of similar tradesmen, that would be worht noting. 'Huckabee comes from a long line of polar bear wrestlers/coal miners/farmers/turkey wrasslers'. But a lineage isn't appropriate. Thanks. ThuranX 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The information on his parents isn't trivia. Most biographies have some information on a person's parents. You seem to be hung up on the royal ancestry connection, I don't have any idea why. That's fairly speculative. The main point of the link is not the ending, it's the beginning. It's not cited as a fact, it says quite plainly that it's speculation, based on a OWT entry. Can you focus on the issue of whether the information on his *parents* and *grandparents* should be part of the biography? Wjhonson 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your source engages in speculation. That means it's not up to the standards of WP:RS. It's that simple. If you can find alternate sources for RELEVANT information about his parents, you can add it, I've already answered that above. ThuranX 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't policy. We do not discard sources when a minor part of the source engages in speculation. You have yet to address any issue about his parents. Michael Huckabee spontaneously appears on stage at age 30 or so. That is not a biography. Biographies include details about a person from birth to death, not from middle-age. Wjhonson 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much you actually know about genealogy, despite the claims made on your userpage, but if they are true, you're fully aware of how genealogy should not rely upon speculation, especially ungrounded, unreasoned speculation, which is what OWT gives us there. Further, the agenda of the entire site is documenting royal descendancy, so the idea that the researchers there would try to tie famous people into royal families is a more than reasonable one. As such, putting an agenda ahead of good research isn't a sign of good scholarship. Finally, I note that the entire page seems to be YOUR research. As such, I'd suggest your advocacy is dangerously close to moving beyond suggesting a good addition to the page, into a personal pro-addition bias. The mage has supposition and speculation. That calls it into doubt. Find articles about Huckabee, citiing his family history's influence on his positionss on the issues, or his drive to work in politics, and I'll gladly accept them. However, this link isn't going to improve the page. ThuranX 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again you focus on one minor part of the article to the exclusion of all the rest of the well-sourced information on his family. Why? Perhaps you have a particular axe to grind against genealogy research? Perhaps you feel that a person's family has no bearing whatever on who they are? All biographies go into some detail about a person's family... except this one? And that seems normal to you? The genealogy on his parents does not rely on ANY speculation. None. Zero. Zilch. None. Can we focus on his PARENTS now? Or are you going to again try to mislead by insisting the page is full of speculation, when only the very *ending* of that page has any speculation at all. Again, the vast majority of the page is accurate, and based on documents which are cited and extracted. That part of the page is useful here. Wjhonson 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And I quote from teh page in question: "All of the above needs confirmation, it's only speculation at this point." There's reason enough to prevent it's addition. ThuranX 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the use of the word "ALL" there is confusing. ALL does not mean "this *entire* page", All means "this SECTION of the page". That is, the ending of the page, not the whole page. Just the ending. Is that more clear? Wjhonson 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)In fact, I'm going to go one step further. NINE random pages I clicked were all entirely written by you at that site. As such, I'm sure there's a Spam/COI type thing going on here. Fully oppose the page being included, Fully support good sourced references to Huckabee's family life influencing his policies and positions. ThuranX 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're actually going to argue that there is some person somewhere, whose family has not influenced who they are ? By the way his "policies and positions" is not this article. This article is about Michael Huckabee. All of him. Not just his "policies and positions". Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how biographies are writen, but trying to focus it on one small aspect of his life is not a biography. Wjhonson 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Fine. It violates WP:OR. It's your own research and your own speculation. It does not belong. Thank you. I have provided reasonable options for you for this aspect of Huckabee's biography. You aren't interested in actually expanding the article, You're interested in hyping your own Wikisite. ThuranX 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've passed that hurdle ;) As to OR, you should be aware that OR is *not* forbidden on wikipedia. The OR that we forbid, is OR *by* a Wikipedian, which they attach to an article. A Wikipedia is absolutely free to do OR, and by the way, any other person (a non-Wikipedia) is as well, and we *can* cite that work in any article. What's forbidden is for a Wikipedian to cite their *own* OR in an article. Which is why I posted this section in the first place here instead of just modding the article myself. Wjhonson 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess we've solved it. You admit you asked other wikipedians to post your OR, since you think that would satisfy avoiding OR. It doesn't. OR is OR. Further, you are a wikipedian, using your own OR. Using assumed technicalities like asking someoen else to be your meatpuppet for this edit aren't allowed either. ThuranX 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not correct. You are welcome to take your issue to WP:ATT and ask there. And this request is not to use a meatpuppet. The issue of a Wikipedian doing source-based research has come up numerous times and this is the acceptable behaviour. You are welcome to check the archives of WP:NOR on this subject to familiarize yourself with how we approach this. Wjhonson 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT#Unpublished_synthesis_of_published_material seems to cover this. Still a big no. I've taken this issue to AN/I. ThuranX 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

seems to be a straight forward breach of WP:ATT, at the present moment, while that site uses wiki software, it actually just operates as Wjhonson website as I cannot find a single edit or entry that is not by his hand. That site should not be used as a souce. --Fredrick day 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to AN/I is here. I've responded citing the NOR archives, which addresses the very issue of wikipedians doing research. Wjhonson 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The link, where you *should* have complained, I have created for you here at WP:ATT which is where complaints of this nature go. Feel free to comment there as well if you like. Wjhonson 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Personally, I think that a posited royal link is non-notable trivia and may count as WikiSpam. There's neutrality and cleanup to be worried about more, in my opinion. bibliomaniac15 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the materials here. I greatly appreciate your efforts. ThuranX 00:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I probably don't know enough about the background and the political situation in the US, but why is this such a big deal? This was a question if an informative site that is operated by a Wikipedian would be helpful to the article. I see no breach of any policy, instead it's rather exemplary conduct in my opinion to suggest such a thing on the talk page for discussion. My naive opinion on the site is that it actually seems helpful and relevant, I'm not sure if it is reliable enough to add here, but I certainly don't see why User:Wjhonson was so aggressively attacked for suggesting his site for you to consider. It doesn't contain advertisement, it seems genuinely helpful, contains many useful links, and it clearly marks where the speculative section begins. I really fail to see the problem here, I mean I've seen WikiSpam and this doesn't look like it. --Merzul 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Small revision: the links aren't that useful since they all go through ancestry.com, so I can see some problems with this link; but I don't agree with accusations of WikiSpam. --Merzul 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that the entire website seeks to add is wholly owned and controlled by him. As such, it fails WP:ATT at two points: WP:SYNT and WP:SELFPUB. Further, the page in question actually ADMITS to being Speculation, which is certainly a problem. ThuranX 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thuran you're being disengenious. Saying you're seeking *neutral* opinions. One person who like you ignores all the content except the ending, you say "thank you". Another person who agrees that the site is useful or at least not objectionable and you argue with them. It's pretty apparent you're trying very hard to make your case. Again you ignore that wikipedians are allowed to do research, and again you ignore that the page is NOT Speculation. Only the *ending* of the page is speculation. The rest of the page is factual and documented. Why do you insist on constantly mischaracterizing what's on it? You have not one single time addressed the documented statements on that page. Wjhonson 06:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's it. I've had it. I posted on WP:3O. I cannot control who comes here from there. And yes, I've got a case to make. And Oh NO! I have manners. I acknowledged BOTH editors' contributions. If you can't accept that the first Third Opinion agreed with me outrigth, and the seconds' STILL not sure if it's worth including, questioning notability, and the ease of verifiability. Why can't you accept that there's a compromise otu there? Instead, every time I suggest a simpe prose inclusion to the page ,you belittle and attack me as an idiot who somehow naively thinks people spontaneously mature in a bubble without parental influence, as if that's some grounds for inclusion. I told you. Find CITED SOURCES TYING HIS HERITAGE TO HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER! That would be a worthy way to include his heritage and not fill the page with dubious external links or ridiculous charts. You still can't address that, and are now stooping to implied insult. ThuranX 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I advise both parties to progress to the next dispute resolution step-take a step back for a little bit and have a cool down. Certainly this is not an issue worth becoming uncivil over. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What "simple prose inclusion" ? I have no idea what you're talking about. And again this page isn't about whether his hertage is tied to his professional career. It's about his heritage, period. Every biography discusses a person's family at some level... except this one. No mention of his childhood at all. That's not a biography. If this article were titled "Mike Huckabee's Policies" that would be one thing, but it's not, it's titled "Mike Huckabee" that covers all of him. Not just his policies, not just his career, but his entirety. His parents, spouse, children, dogs, and his policies. That's a biography. Bio meaning "life" not "career". Wjhonson 07:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And, I have yet to hear any sort of compromise offered by you, so what compromise are you offering then? Wjhonson 07:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In re-reading the entire above discussion, I noticed that you may be confused by the use of the phrase "all of the above is speculation". This phrase, at the end of the page refers only to the *last section* of the page. It does not refer to the remainder of the page. Perhaps you thought it referred to the entire page. The parents, grandparents and great-grandparents are not speculation. They are documented. It's the royal line, or at least part of it, that is speculation. Only that section. Wjhonson 07:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now modified the linked page to more specifically state exactly what is and isn't speculation. Wjhonson 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, are you deliberately ignoring what I've offered? I have REPEATEDLY given you a compromise offer. You just don't want it. You want to hype your PROFESSIONAL GENEALOGY WEBSITE. THE COMPROMISE, AGAIN IS: "Find articles about Huckabee, citing his family history's influence on his positions on the issues, or his drive to work in politics, and I'll gladly accept them."[4], Fully support good sourced references to Huckabee's family life influencing his policies and positions.[Fully support good sourced references to Huckabee's family life influencing his policies and positions.] Show influences of his Heritage on his career.[5]. It's very simple. Find a written Prose source discussing his childhood, his relationships with his parents, and what effects that relationship, and those with his grandparents, had on him and made him the man he is. That can come in. Your own personal website, as found by both Fredrick day [6] and Bibliomaniac15 [7], however, is inappropriate. That's two outside opinions opposing the addition of your proposed page, as well as myself. Merzul's not sure if the page should be in or not, given the nature of the links, but isn't sure it's wikispam. I read that as 1 for it, 3 against it, 1 unsure but clarifying some points. Consensus on this appears to be against you, there's a reasonable compromise on the table allowing his family into the page with the standard WP:RS, but disallowing your personal website. You asked here if people would post it. You got an answer. You've spent a while trying to get people to NOT see it as your own site. The fact is, it IS your site. You got an answer. Please move on, find those other sources, and add a section or add to a section, with information about how his family life did and does affect Mike Huckabee. Thank you. ThuranX 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) In addition, this link Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#Research_by_a_wikipedian makes it clear your efforts aren't in compliance with policy. I guess we're done now. ThuranX 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much a no-brainer, it seems to me: citing as a source a page that one controls -- and which one can modify to say anything one pleases -- is a straightforward no-no for anything third-party. Unless User:Wjhonson is Mike Huckabee himself, no wriggle room there at all. --Calton | Talk 15:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Calton which is the entire reason I posted it here, instead of to the article. I'll go ahead later and post the underlying sources to the article since they are all third-party, reliable, and published. And again to ThuranX who wants to constantly bring up whether his family affected his "positions", this isn't an article on Mike's "positions", it's an article on Mike. Wjhonson 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And ThuranX contrary to your characterization, I posted to the link to this Talk page. That does not violate any policy. I posted to WP:ATT and was reminded that we do this in the case of WP:COI not WP:NOR, which I had not remembered. Your suggested "compromise" is no compromise at all, but only your desire to focus the biography on his policies to the exclusion of anything else. Wjhonson 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NOt at all what I said. AGAIN: Find relevant third party WP:RS prose about his family life. find relevant third party WP:RS prose about his heritage and how that made him the man he is. If you say he was made into a regular churchgoer by his grandmam, who took him every week, and can cite it, then that's fine. I don't care if it talks about the character OR the policies, but I'm not letting you link or use your own website. Find articles where reporters went out and did human interest stories on 'who is mike huckabee?'/ Use them. Include the characterizations of his father's influences on his childhood development, on his critical thinking manner, on HOW he ties his damn shoes. But find reliable third party information that relates directly to the subject. A stale dry lineage is NOT particularly relevant. We rarely include Pedigrees, Genalogies, or Ahnentafels for BIographies on Wikipedia, even most royalties seem to have lineage pages as separate articles, although if I bothered to search, I'd bet there's a well researched 'How the presidents relate' article. Beyond that, no. This is the last time I will reply here about this issue, as my words fall on deaf ears. Find articles about his family and how the affected him. that's it. That's the compromise I offer, because I DO FULLY understand how family can shape a person. ThuranX 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thuran, I don't see the need for incivility or SHOUTING. That being said, though, I do agree to the point. Another wiki is not a reliable source, this is clearly attested to in WP:ATT and WP:RS. Wjohnson, in effect, what's done on the other wiki is your original synthesis of sources. However, that synthesis has not been peer-reviewed or fact-checked. What I might suggest is submitting your work to a newspaper, magazine, or some other source. If that source fact-checks the synthesis, finds it to be correct, and publishes it as an interest piece, we got ourselves a source! (They also usually throw you a few bucks for publishing rights, so that's not bad either.) But until that happens, we can't use it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have substituted italics for emphasis instead of using caps lock. As to the incivility, I don't feel any need to apologize for my reply. I have repeatedly offered him a compromise which achieves his stated principle, that family influences a person, yet avoids his COI/NOR problem. I cited those offers with links to the diffs above. Despite that, he continues to claim I never offered a compromise. I think that saying 'find Reliable Sources for his family interactions and how that's made him who he is' (paraphrasing myself), is a great compromise, as WJhonson continues to assert that family influences people. Further, we're up to about 7 people opposing this, Fredrick Day, Biblio, myself, You, Calton, 3 more users at the WP:ATT talk section for it, and one user who came in and offered comments and clarifications, but only WJhonson supporting it's inclusion, and yet he continues to argue about it as though no one's made the problems clear to him, nor offered other ways of dealing with it. I'm extremely frustrated by this, as it really is pushing into the 'I want to post links to my own site' territory now. Anyways, with 7 editors through four pages, (here, AN/I, WP:3O, and WP:ATT) all saying it's not a legit play, I'm sure this is over. I'm going to leave this page for a while, and let things settle. ThuranX 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX you keep trying to steer the conversation toward, that we need some sort of *proof* that his parents *influenced* him, in order to include their names. That's a pretty extreme point-of-view. No biographer requires proof of influence before naming a person's parents. It's fairly obvious to anyone reading this, that a person's parents did influence them without the need for the obvious statement that "his parents influenced him." And regardless of whether they did or didn't, every biography on here is enhanced by stating where a person comes from, names of parents, where a person was born, etc. No amount of shouting and complaining and long-winded arguments will change that simple and obvious fact. Wjhonson 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And no amount of long-winded rebuttal will change the fact that your site will not be used as a source. --Fredrick day 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wjohnson, the issue is not that we should never include information on his family history. The issue is that if that information is challenged, as ThuranX has, you must provide a reliable source. An entry on another wiki is not a reliable source. Unimpeachable sources are especially critical in the biography of a living person, but work such as that really wouldn't be an acceptable source for any article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to call it a wiki - sure it uses wiki software but it's actual function is as a personal website. --Fredrick day 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No Fredrick, you can edit pages there as well. I've locked a few pages, but many if not most are readily editable by anyone who chooses. Wjhonson 23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

what percentage of the edits are not by you? and how many unique editors are there? --Fredrick day 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick that isn't relevant to the fact that someone *can* make edits. The mere fact that someone *can* means it isn't a *personal website* in the sense you're stating. Wjhonson 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if we consider it a personal website rather than a wiki, the same applies. You do use some sources there that could provide trivial or obvious information (such as who his parents were). However, the work as a whole is a synthesis of primary sources. Unless it's been fact-checked or peer-reviewed, it is not reliable. It really makes no difference whether you did the work on your personal website or someone else did it on his website, that is not what is at issue here. A reconstruction of a family tree using genealogical information is non-trivial synthesis, so until it undergoes review, we can't use it. If your research is solid, get it fact-checked, get it published in a reliable source, and then the whole problem's done and we can use it! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems I will not be allowed to let this issue settle. Instead of responding to the numerous discussions of what would e applicable discussion of Huckabee's family in his bio, WJhonson has chosen to characterize me as completely opposing even the inclusion ofhis parents' names.[8] This level of mischaracterization, when what I keep saying is above in so many places i'm not going to bother to even con and paste it here, is so clearly different than that. There's no Good Faith going on here. Put in what you want. Do whatever you were going to do anyways. It's clear that you're never going to listen to me, to Seraphimblade, or to anyone else who's come here about this issue . I think I now know the answer to what I've been pondering for days. ThuranX 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

As the above was getting too long. I really have no idea why you insist on making every statement into a hyperbolic attack. My only point is that, in a *biography*, we do not have to prove how a person's family affected them, in order to include basic details *about* that family. That has been my point from the beginning, with which evidently you now agree. I would like to point out, that out of the hundreds of biographies I've worked on on wikipedia, this is the *first* time I've encountered any argument like the above regarding (specifically) what biographical information we can and cannot include. ThuranX I thought you were going to take a break ;) Wjhonson 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

this is the final nail, I'm no longer taking a break, I'm leaving. In good faith, I left for a time so things could settle. Instead, you immediately seized upon that as a way to malign my character repeatedly. I don't agree with jack squat. I never said you could't add his parents' names. What I said is you couldn't add a speculative family tree. You said it demonstrated that his heritage affects who he is. I agreed that heritage and family do affect a person, and that you should find some netural reliable sources to explain how huckabee's particular family affected him. You immediately went into this mode of behaviro which frankly, is ridiculous. First, you attacked me for bring the matter to AN/I instead of ATT. Seraphim, prior to your 'pithy' not about that, recommended WP3O. I went there. You went to ATT. Between the three, your personal site was shot down by 7 people. You still continue to mischaracterize the entire mess. I have said, REPEATEDLY through this, find citable sources, and add some good prose context for this, instead of a bulky tree, or external links to your spamsite. I'm logging off now. I doubt I'll be back after this. I know you're eager for it, so without further ado... ThuranX 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wjohnson, you do seem to be missing the point. The issue is not that we cannot include a family history. I don't see a single reason not to do that. The issue is that we must have a reliable source. A genealogical profile that you compiled, that has not been fact-checked, is not a reliable source. Please see WP:ATT for more information. The issue is not "can we include it", it's "can we include it based on the source which has been provided." I don't know how much clearer of a "no", from how many more people, you can get. If you can find a more reliable source that comes to the same conclusions, or get your own work fact-checked and published in a reliable source, I'd be all for including it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX as I pointed out, the family tree is not speculative. Your continual use of this term, after it's been pointed out that it's false, shows that you have really no intention of trying to stand on a neutral territory. My wiki was not "shot down by seven people", please stop mischaracterizing what occurred. These sort of ridiculous arguments do not serve you at all, they only make your points seem outlandish. I don't have a "spamsite" your allegations are libelous. It's too bad you wish to leave simply because someone disputes your charges, but that's your choice to make. Seraphimblade do you dispute that ThuranX said *repeatedly* above that the sources *must* indicate *how* the family influenced Mike? Specifically he stated, influenced his policies, etc. Later ThuranX changed his wording somewhat, and even when he appeared to come to some agreement, even disputes that he is agreeing to anything. It's very hard to work *with* an editor who disagrees with what he himself just gets through saying. I really, Seraphimblade, have no idea what you're arguing anymore. This entire dispute, from A to Z started because ThuranX accused me of doing something nefarious by posting a link to a Talk page. That's basically the issue. You are arguing at cross purposes. It's not effective. Wjhonson 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to stick to making my own point, thanks. I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself. I've already encouraged both of you to be more civil, and I stand by that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what further needs to be discussed - you want uninvolved editors to look at the linka and see if it was suitable for inclusion - a number of editors (me included) have said it is not. What more needs to be discussed? The other issues with ThuranX I suggest you both continue via your talkpages or meditation. --Fredrick day 09:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope none of you will leave Wikipedia because of this. I fully agree with Seraphimblade in all the points he has made. Personally, I don't really care that it is Wjhonson's own Wiki, so I have no problems with him suggesting this on a talk page, but we have I think consensus that it doesn't serve as a reliable source. --Merzul 14:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That you Merzul for summing up the essential issues. As I mentioned above, at some point, I'll point the *underlying* sources as citations to the page, since they have been published by reliable, independent sources and are in general acceptance on Wikipedia. There are a few sources I need to firm up with a more thorough (but not different) citation. That is, my form of citation, in my own article, is not exact enough.Wjhonson 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)