Talk:Mike Huckabee

Archives
1

Complaint on Sourcing

SNSAnchor, I have two complaints on your last edit. ontheissues.org is a nice compilation of sources. However, best practices is to use primary sources rather than secondary sources. Could you find the primary source? My other complaint is that the McCain-Kennedy bill came up once in 2006 and twice in 2007. It is not at all clear which time you mean that Huckabee opposed the bill. I have encountered no source which suggests he opposed the bill in 2006. Jmegill 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Best practices is [sic] to use primary sources rather than secondary sources." Really? That is the first time I have ever heard of that "best practice". In fact, one of our core policies explicitly says that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources." --ElKevbo 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, ontheissues.org isn't reliable. The probably with ontheissues.org is that it gets some of its information from wikipedia. Run google search wikipedia site:ontheissues.org and you see why avoiding ontheissues.org is a good idea if one want to avoid circular references. Jmegill 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Three sample pages which reference wikipedia http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Gravel_Drugs.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Gravel_Education.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Immigration.htm For example, I wrote the actual passage that ontheissues.org quotes: "Giuliani has been criticized for embracing illegal immigration. Giuliani continued a policy of preventing city employees from contacting INS about immigration violations. He ordered city attorneys to defend this policy in federal court. Giuliani has also expressed doubt that the federal government can stop illegal immigration. In April 2006, Giuliani went on the record as favoring the US Senate's comprehensive immigration plan which includes a path to citizenship and a guest worker plan" Source: wikipedia.org Nov 7, 2006 So...do you think that I am a reliable source? Jmegill 04:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Presidential campaign summary needs to be condensed

The campaign section needs to be a short summary, not a list of everything that's happened in the campaign, since there is now a separate article for that.--Gloriamarie 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fiscal record

This section reads like a National Review article, assuming that the interest of the reader is in discovering if he adhered to a tax cutting political line. Indeed it only cites anti-tax foundations and arch conservative political rags. I myself am more interested in his fiscal policies--that is, on whom did he raise taxes, on whom did he lower them, and what are his proposals as president, than I am in what the National Review of some other equivalent source thinks about whether he lived up to their standards.190.10.54.145 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading through this section I noted that it did not include information that I've heard regarding the 65.3 figure. I remember someone saying (perhaps Huckabee) that almost all this was Federal programs that he had no control over and that his figure was closer to 2% or something. Trying to find where I read/heard it but thought I would post here. Morphh ^(talk) 13:14, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee has claimed in the past that discretionary spending was 10% of the budget and the other 90% was education, Medicare, and something else. I don't have the source right here. Perhaps the Charlie Rose interview. this was in the context of what spending was under his control. It is a bit disingenious, though, for Huckabee to pass legislation to increase Medicare (including ARKids) eligibility and then claim that he had no control over budget increases in medical spending. btw, the 65.3 figure is low because it excludes the last two years of governance. It also should be viewed in context of inflation. Jmegill 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that in light of Huckabee's stance on the FairTax, a lot of your points are moot. Brian Pearson 03:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

re political positions

Huckabee is a very strong advocate of the Fair Tax. I think it should be mentioned under political positions. Brian Pearson 00:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done – Morphh ^(talk) 1:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Morphh! You are very busy but still manage to stay on top of things. Brian Pearson 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee does not believe the theory of evolution (which, I suppose, refers to the modern synthesis), and he is on record in the 3rd source on the detailed issues page and in a Bill Maher Youtube mini-interview for taking the position that science teachers should determine the curriculum of science courses. This is quite far from "expressed support for allowing creationism and intelligent design in school science classes along with evolution" since there are very few science teachers who take creationism and ID seriously. Is there a source for the latter statement, or is this just a mis-characterization? Mistercupcake 04:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistercupcake, you may have not read a paragraph under "second full term" which dealt with the subject. Here is what Huckabee said on a TV show in 2004: Student: Many schools in Arkansas are failing to teach students about evolution according to the educational standards of our state. Since it is against these standards to teach creationism, how would you go about helping our state educate students more sufficiently for this?

Huckabee: Are you saying some students are not getting exposure to the various theories of creation?

Student (stunned): No, of evol … well, of evolution specifically. It’s a biological study that should be educated [taught], but is generally not.

Moderator: Schools are dodging Darwinism? Is that what you … ?

Student: Yes.

Huckabee: I’m not familiar that they’re dodging it. Maybe they are. But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. And I think that what I’d be concerned with is that it should be taught as one of the views that’s held by people. But it’s not the only view that’s held. And any time you teach one thing as that it’s the only thing, then I think that has a real problem to it. source: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol25/8118_is_evolution_arkansas39s_h_12_30_1899.asp

From the same TV show in 2003

Student: Goal 2.04 of the Biology Benchmark Goals published by the Arkansas Department of Education in May of 2002 indicates that students should examine the development of the theory of biological evolution. Yet many students in Arkansas that I have met … have not been exposed to this idea. What do you believe is the appropriate role of the state in mandating the curriculum of a given course?

Huckabee: I think that the state ought to give students exposure to all points of view. And I would hope that that would be all points of view and not only evolution. I think that they also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism … source: http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/print.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91

So, Mistercupcake, the previous statement about Huckabee is accurate. Jmegill 05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistercupcake, I object to saying that Huckabee is "taking the position that science teachers should determine the curriculum of science courses". It is not supported by your sources. Huckabee's position is that a belief in evolution does not matter for being President. In the Saint Anselm Debate, Huckabee said, "I don't think knowing that [if evolution is true] would make me a better or a worse president." I went and looked up the transcript for the Bill Maher interview that you mentioned. source is here http://www.billmaher.com/?page_id=200 Huckabee takes the position that asking questions about evolution does not matter for president. Here is what they say about evolution MAHER: Now, in one of the debates, the question was asked of the ten Republicans on the stage, “How many of you do not believe in evolution?” And three candidates raised their hand. You were one of them.

HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm. [affirmative]

MAHER: So…[laughter]…you don’t really believe in evolution?

HUCKABEE: Bill, I believe God created the heavens and the earth. Now, how He did it, I don’t know. I thought the question was utterly silly to be asked in a presidential debate. None of us are running in order to be an eighth grade science teacher. We’re running to be president. It’s really not, to me, a proper yes-or-no question. But if he meant by that, do I believe that it is all about just random selection and that it just happened without any design – designer and anybody who was behind it – no, I don’t believe that. I think there was a God behind it. And that was what I was trying to say. And I still believe that.

MAHER: But evolution is about, like, we came from the monkeys.

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MAHER: You don’t agree with that?

HUCKABEE: I don’t know. I mean, if God six days—

MAHER: [overlapping] Come on, have you ever seen a monkey? [laughter]

HUCKABEE: [overlapping]—or if he took six million years – sure, I have, you know. And, in fact, if evolution—

MAHER: [overlapping] How can you look in a monkey’s eye and want to start a monkey fight like Michael Vick? No.

HUCKABEE: No, I don’t think so. You know, the point is that the whole process of these debates were more like a game show than it was a serious discourse of political discussion. And the yes-and-no, raise-your-hands, that’s nonsense. If you want to have an honest political discussion, we ought to have it. But the questions sometimes were posed, were a little silly.

MAHER: [overlapping] But, why shouldn’t it be part of a political discussion? If someone believes that the earth is 6,000 years old when every scientist in the world tells us it’s billions of years old, why shouldn’t I take that into account when I’m assessing the rationality of someone I’m going to put into the highest office in the land? [applause] [cheers]

HUCKABEE: Well, I think the point, though, Bill, is that we really don’t know. And that’s my whole point. I don’t believe that it matters how long it took. It may have been six billion years. That’s how God may have done it. I just want to make sure that if I’m put on the spot, do I believe that it’s a basically just sort of an accident that all of this happened, this wonderful creation of ours, or do I believe there was a creator behind it – look, I’m going to go on the side that there’s a creator behind it.

MAHER: Okay. Speaking of creators—

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MAHER: [overlapping]—I know you’ve said that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton – you’ve commented on their marriage and said, you know, a lot of people in my party have a lot of these values and judgments they make, but they, despite their marital difficulties, kept their marriage together, and that that was a good thing.

HUCKABEE: That’s right. [scattered applause]

Mistercupcake, I think the original sentence better described Huckabee's views on the subject. Unfortunately, it was not supported by references to his views. To be fair, Huckabee's argument is that evolution is not relevant to being President. Thus, I will undo your edits, add in references and also add "Huckabee's position is that belief in evolution is not relevant to being President." referenced on the Bill Maher show transcript. Jmegill 05:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to chuckle here a little bit because I can't help but feel a little bit like I'm defending a candidate who I disagree with... but in any case I agree with you 90%, the only change I would make is deleting the word "science" from the current version since he has not suggested that creationism be taught in science class specifically; since he is in favor of school prayer, one could argue that he is suggesting that creationism be taught in a UK-style "social beliefs" class. I know very little about these classes except that they involve religious education and that students in some locales have choice as to whether to attend a "Christian world view" version or a "Scientific world view version." Overall I think the candidate has done a bad job of explaining his views on the subject and on science curricula, so I think the version with "science" is close enough if you disagree. Mistercupcake 11:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The first exchange in 2004 makes reference to "biological study" and the second exchange in 2003 makes reference to "Goal 2.04 of the Biology Benchmark Goals published by the Arkansas Department of Education in May of 2002". So this is biology class. Jmegill 13:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The student and Maher make these references, resp. but we can't assume that Huckabee is answering the question put to him (he is a politician), so just because the exchanges reference these statements, we can't infer that Huckabee's stated position refers to science/biology classes. Mistercupcake 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee Wins Republican Poll

I saw this and thought someone might want to include some points. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57708 Morphh ^(talk) 2:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee Comments before the NRA/Religious Beliefs of Mike Huckabee

On Tuesday September 25, Jon Stewart made fun of Huckabee's (and also Giuliani and Thompson) comments before the NRA.. Huckabee said, "I'm pretty sure that they will be duck hunting in heaven" and "Somehow the angels took that bullet and went right to the antelope and my hunt was over in a wonderful way" Clip Here: http://rackjite.com/archives/640-Jon-Stewart-Does-the-NRA-and-Looneytoon-Mike-Huckabee.html Several anonymous editors have attempted to alter the page to reflect Huckabee's comments. I was not aware that Huckabee had actually made the comments and thought it was some kind of joke. I wonder if the comments merit a mention either on the Huckabee page or the campaign page. The larger issue is Stewart is calling attention to the way Huckabee approaches religion. While Stewart and Comedy Central are apathetic or hostile to Christianity (and gun rights), Huckabee's comments infuse religious beliefs in everyday life in a manner uncommon in many circles. Huckabee's rejection of evolution, support for Creationism/ID, support for ArKids and opposition to Jim Holt's immigration bill appear to be related to Huckabee's religious views. What information is out there that describes Huckabee's religious views? Jmegill 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The clips were cut so it is unknown what the context was to the statements or the reaction of the audience (ie. laughter). In any sense, it sounds like something someone would say in a jesting manner to get a little laugh. It is certainly not anything that merits WP:WEIGHT unless this was sufficiently publicized. Some offhand jesting comment is not something to include in an encyclopedia unless it became part of Huckabee's notability (see WP:BLP). Morphh ^(talk) 1:23, 07 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to separate page

This article is starting to look out of whack. The criticism section (many of them very minor criticisms) is getting to big to be on the main Mike Huckabee page ( I mean when its as long as his bio, its going a little over the top). Like other presidential candidates pages have done, I think it is time to make it into a subpage in titled, Criticism of Mike Huckabee. Right now it looks like a negative ad by another campaign :). --Gnnnews2 01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I did move the football comments. I don't know the background story to it, but Huckabee acknowledged a huge interest in where Univ. of Arkansas plays its football games. It is not really criticism (people just want the football team to play near where they live), so thus the move to the first full term. The article needs to be fleshed out more to really describe Huckabee. I don't see removing the criticism section as a way to do that as it would make for a sterile article. Adding more information to produce a more rounded picture is the way to go. I am having some difficulty in finding Huckabee's press releases and speeches from his governorship. (if anyone knows where the official archive is, let me know). One of the things I got from reading some press releases is that Huckabee talks about the importance of education, maintaining good health, and attracting business investment repeatedly. This is not something that the article really shows well. I also think the article is lacking in details about Huckabee before he entered politics. I would like to see more information about Huckabee pre-1993. What churches he was pastor at, what tv station did he work at, press accounts from his election at boys state. siblings, if any and what they do. What sermons Huckabee has given when he was pastor. Favorite hobbies or past times. I haven't any of his books and I assume that such information would be included in there. Jmegill 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Formating

Something to work on... the paragraphs in this article need a bit of work. Some are one or two sentences that might combined well with others and some look like 20 sentences that need to be split up (like illegal immigration). Morphh ^(talk) 13:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the illegal immigration section should be split into two paragraphs. Jmegill 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on recent revertions. I object to deletion of material about football games. The material may not seem relevant to some, but I think it provides some commentary on how people respond to politics and their interest in such. I think it is a little surprising that a simple question: where to have football games attracts more interest than any other political topic. If there is a case for deleting the section, then that case should be made on the talk pages first. As for deletion of the igloo section, it probably isn't that relevant, but it shows that Huckabee is a good sport. Huckabee has a winning personality and doesn't get upset when the joke is on him. Contrast this with James Oddo who throw a Norwegian prankster out of his office using profanity. Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1iNH7W9SC8 As for the other edits, the word "claims" has be to used to describe material which comes from Huckabee's campaign. Likewise, material that comes from critics is not repeated as fact. The sentence "During his tenure, the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion" is written by Jennifer Rubin at NRO. Club for Growth repeats those claims and sources them to (Arkansas Leader 04/15/06) and Americans for Tax Reform respectively. To be fair, I don't think Jennifer Rubin is the source of those claims and the sentence should be structured, "According to __ , the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion."Jmegill 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I dug up the reference to the Arkansas Leader http://www.arkansasleader.com/2006/04/saturday-editorial-huckabees-no.html Jmegill 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Clemency

Material on clemency concerns. I am not sure how to best summarize these concerns. I am also not sure how to work it in, because Wayne Dumond would be a special case of clemency concerns. http://www.petitiononline.com/792004/petition.html and http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_07_14_04/clemency.html and http://web.archive.org/web/20060815191208/http://mikehuckabee.com/recent_news.htm#Governor%20gave%20clemency%20to%20man%20who%20made%20him%20Governor and http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/03/11/News/143271.html and http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/02/26/News/131977.html and http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/04/14/News/180347.html and http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/02/20/News/127410.html and http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/04/21/News/185658.html and http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/01/23/News/109327.html and http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/01/08/JohnBrummett/104159.html and http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/01/24/News/109466.html http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_07_07_04/huckabee3.html http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_06_23_04/huckabee.html http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_06_30_04/huckabee2.html http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_07_14_04/huckabee4.html http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=2019803 http://web.archive.org/web/20041210185701/www.bentoncourier.com/articles/2004/07/17/news/43onews.txt http://web.archive.org/web/20041210185124/www.bentoncourier.com/articles/2004/07/17/news/43hnews.txt http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=10496 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Brock vs Huckabee

Material on the Brock vs Huckabee lawsuit. http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0717brockv.html http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11712 http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16126 http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16106 http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16132 http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16313 http://web.archive.org/web/20020802061334/www.arkansasnews.com/275422933732023.bsp http://web.archive.org/web/20020802153110/todaysthv.com/news/news.asp?storyid=3875 http://web.archive.org/web/20020609063946/www.arktimes.com/max/050302brantley.html http://web.archive.org/web/20031008160334/www.swtimes.com/archive/2002/April/24/news/huckabee_aide.html http://web.archive.org/web/20030802041832/www.arktimes.com/dumas/050302dumas.html Jmegill 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit over Wikipedia edits

The only reason this section is on the page is because it is weirdly self-referential. It is not criticism of Mike Huckabee. It may have nothing to do with Mike Huckabee except that Huckabee's page was the object of the actions. I think that the section should be removed. Jmegill 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is a biography and the criticism in it should be directed at Mike Huckabee. Morphh ^(talk) 2:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I think the entire criticism section needs major rework. There shouldn't even really be a criticism section unless the criticism is why he is notable (see WP:BLP). The article structure regarding criticism violates NPOV Article structure and undue weight. While there should be criticism if it is part of his notability and verifiable via secondary sources, we should attempt to integrate it into the text if possible or put into a section that doesn't bias the content. Morphh ^(talk) 3:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary 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; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. — BLP Criticism

Huckabee was Governor for 10.5 years. It is impossible to hold any political job that long and avoid criticism. The reason why the criticism section is proportionally big is because it contains not only criticism of Huckabee, but also Huckabee's response to such criticism. The only subsection of the criticism section which does not contain a Huckabee response is the Janet Huckabee 2002 Secretary of State Run. Not surprisingly, that subsection is also the shortest subsection. Huckabee does get to defend himself in the criticism section. The article structure does not violate NPOV. That said, if you want to remove material from the criticism section, the place to start is with "Controversial comments". I do not think that these comments have much weight. In my opinion, the comments are failed jokes. I have been doing my part to add material to other parts of the Huckabee article to round it out. I have also held back on adding material to the criticism section. See Brock vs. Huckabee and Clemency above in the discussion. Jmegill 04:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that criticism should not be included of Huckabee, it should but within the guidelines of BLP. Is this criticism part of his notability, in some cases yes, in others no (as you expressed). You are correct in that criticism should contain Huckabee's response for NPOV, but we have to look at the size of the content given with regard to weight. This article is probably 1/3 or almost 1/2 about criticism (either directly or in rebuttal). This needs to be greatly summarized to address the points without giving undue weight to the topic. No criticism should have its own header unless it is a major part of Huckabee's notability. Here is what NPOV article structure states - "Examples that may warrant attention include: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself; Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue; or Other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints." These points are exactly what this article does. Look at the Table of Contents, where criticism takes up half the structure, which biases the article. If there is a topic of politics like "illegal immigration" that is notable enough, put it under politics - describe it as a political position that has taken criticism and include such. Perhaps a controversy section for other points that may not integrate but deserve mention. We have to keep in mind that this is a biography and his life should not be broken down into criticisms. We need to be careful about structuring the article. This is an encyclopedia and we're telling the story of a man's life. Morphh ^(talk) 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Elected officials get criticized for decisions made. That's part and parcel of the gig. As such, it's as notable as the decisions themselves, which are the heart of why the person's notable. If the criticism goes, the decisions alone get undue weight, and if they go, then we get left with nothing. Criticism sections like this are well within BLP and UW. The criticisms section for Huckabee, however, has had a long, LONG history of whitewashing. Every stupid statement he's ever made has been disallowed repeatedly, laws he signed into action were deleted, he attitudes towards the criminal justice system in a couple trials was dropped, and so on. It's pretty unfixable. ThuranX 15:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind whether it is called "Criticisms" or "Controversy". The guy is notable for getting people to like him and elect him. There will always be detractors - and the reason why these people object is important for understanding the person. I reject arguments that the structure of the article violates NPOV. The structure follows from why he is notable.Jmegill 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I object to the deletion of "Janet Huckabee 2002 Run for Secretary of State" subsection. It almost cost Huckabee the 2002 race for Governor, thus it is notable. Jmegill 16:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, It just didn't seem like direct criticism of Huckabee but just the fact that both were running. Not sure why that in itself is criticism of Hackabee directly but you're probably a better judge. Morphh ^(talk) 16:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The existence of a criticism somewhere is not as notable as the decisions made by public officials, especially since, as you yourself admit, their mere existence is a given. They must be notable on their own merits. A.J.A. 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence in favor of the notability of the items in the controversy section (formerly criticism section) is that they are or have been campaign issues. As I have said before, there is a lot more that can go in there. See Clemency and Brock vs. Huckabee. Jmegill 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said the section shouldn't exist. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be a massive collection of anything bad anyone ever said. ThuranX has a history of violating BLP on this article. A.J.A. 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

that's a direct and clear violation of WP:NPA. You can retract that, or I can take it to WP:AN/I. You spent months removing each, every, and all criticism of Huckabee, and I had to keep reverting your rampant blanking. You were told to stop, not I. Any attempt to find consensus with you was met with 'It's not sourced/notable enough'. You're a well known POV editor on this topic, and a review of the archives will support that. Retract your attack immediately. ThuranX 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool it. Both of you. Jmegill 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Check AJA's block log. he's got one for 3RR on here to get 'his way', which is an 'anti-huckabee'free article. It's quite simple, AJA's contributions to this article need to be scrutinized carefully, every time. ThuranX 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You said, "You spent months removing each, every, and all criticism of Huckabee". That's a lie. You also say I was told to stop, knowing full well the mediator (who actually bothered to read the discussion, unlike the incompetant admin you're citing) said the content wasn't sufficiently sourced and it was ultimately left out. That's two lies.

You know what? Go ahead. Post an AN/I. I dare you. Link them right here and then complain that I called that a violation of BLP. A.J.A. 02:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You lost that then, why dredge it up again now? You don't get it, do you? You can't force yoru POV on this article. Apologize for your personal attack, immediately. ThuranX 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologize for lying. A.J.A. 04:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

haven't lied, nothign to apologize for. I'm waiting for your apology for you personal attack. ThuranX 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out two of them. Apologize.. A.J.A. 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Nothing to apologize for. YOu used a personal attack, you still haven't done anything about it. I'm done here, we all know what kind of bias you've got. ThuranX 04:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Extended Quote from the Scott Parks 1997 article

This is an excerpt from the Scott Parks 1997 article: "During his presidency from 1989 to 1991, Southern Baptists were feuding at the state and national level. The conservative wing believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Moderates believed some Bible stories were simply metaphors and parables. Mr. Huckabee counted himself in the conservative camp, a believer in Biblical inerrancy. "If you can accept the resurrection, that is the ultimate miracle," he said. "If you can buy that one, the others are easy: turning water into wine and such."" Jmegill 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making. BTW, that's a really poor summary of the issues involved. A.J.A. 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Take it up with Scott Parks. That was how it was reported in the article. I added the section to show that my addition on the main article was not taken out of context. Jmegill 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like how this is phrased. It makes it sound like a fact and not the statement of being referenced. I'm not even sure if it is accurate or important to state Scott Park's opinion. If you listen to Huckabee's statements on Bill Maher regarding evolution, he is not talking Biblical inerrancy. Morphh ^(talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am more than happy to send you the text of the article if you provide an email address. This is not Scott Park's opinion. Scott Park is reporting what Huckabee told him he believes. Jmegill (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not quoting Huckabee saying he believes in Biblical inerrancy. It is Park's interpretation of what Huckabee believes.. at least from the excerp above. I'm seeing a conflict on what Huckabee said on Bill Maher and what is implied by the statement of Biblical inerrancy. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meaning or misunderstanding his views.. anyway - something to look at. Morphh ^(talk) 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the quotation marks to remove confusion over whose words they are. I don't doubt that Huckabee believe in Biblical inerrancy. A second source on Huckabe's Biblical inerrancy is an Arkansas Democrat-gazette article, "Old denominations seek new members" printed on September, 01 1991. Excerpt: "Even though Southern Baptists overwhelmingly outnumber other denominations in state membership, Huckabee said the churches won't stand by and wait for members to walk in the door." Our purpose is not fulfilled unless there is outreach. Stagnant Christianity would be unthinkable to us," he said, noting that denominational loyalty has declined with today's church-goers." People are shopping around. The day of denominationalism is dead, and going to a church just because that's what your parents have always done is over. " Growing pains But Huckabee conceded that the rapid growth experienced by his church hasn't been without growing pains. In recent years, the 15 million-member denomination has been troubled with internal disagreements between conservative and moderate members. Part of the cause for those disagreements, Farthing said, may be that the conservative teachings are so simplistic that they don't address "the uncertainties of everyday life. " He and Huckabee agreed that the simple, literal use of the Bible was attractive, but they didn't agree on whether that was good. " Those in the mainstream churches who look wistfully at the growth patterns of those such as the Southern Baptists had better think twice," Farthing said." Most of the mainstreamers and this is to their credit have avoided the simplistic message. The down side is that Methodists may have been wishy-washy and evasive (NOTE: Some of the sentence fragments are article subheading. Lexis-Nexis just provides the text and the formatting is a little messed up.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A third source is the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article printed on 7/28/1990 by James Scudder titled "A moderate view of inerrancy". Scudder is interviewing a bunch of pastors. Excerpt: "GAZETTE: For our purposes here, let's just say a so-called "liberal" in a Southern Baptist church would be a pastor or lay person who did not believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture Jesus literally walking on water, literally turning water into wine, being born of a virgin, and so on. With that in mind, Mike Huckabee, the current president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, has recently said that if all the Baptist liberals in Arkansas got together, they could meet in a Waffle House booth with room left over. Is that true? SNEED: Yes. By the definition you just laid down, there is not a Southern Baptist in Arkansas that would be a liberal, and there would be very few if you stretched it to the Southern Baptist Convention." Here, Huckabee is referenced as saying that very, very few Southern Baptists doubt the Scripture. And which is confirmed by Dr. Sneed in the interviewJmegill (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... Morphh ^(talk) 2:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

References and links

Are there are links to give credibility to references 10 and 11 in "The Commercial Appeal"? I'm still looking but can't find them.....thanksStrunke 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The material is copyrighted and I paid for access to the archive per article. You can do likewise or Send me an email to {myusername} @ hotmail.com with Huckabee article in the subject and I will send you a copy. Jmegill 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Gift Registry and Comments be subsections under the Controversy section?

Anonymous editor 75.37.206.111 returned redacted material to the article. My position on "Comments" is that they are failed jokes or just Huckabee's style of speaking. They lack notability. I question whether they merit an extended mention under Controversy. I liked how Morphh summarized with a single sentence with many footnotes. I imagine that that going forward there will be many more statements that attract attention. Similar comments already include Huckabee's remarks to the NRA which Jon Stewart commented on and Huckabee's calling Arkansas a "banana republic" on a New York radio station. It will be easy just to add footnote references to Morphh's summary sentence, rather than giving each one its own mention. (Which would make the Controversy section proportionally big) Just two days ago, Huckabee spoke of the "Holocaust of abortion". As for the other section, Gift Registry, the reference links were also included in the summary sentence provided by Morphh. I am neutral on whether Gift Registry should have its own subsection. But I would like to see 75.37.206.111 justify why both subsections merit an extended mention. I am content with the other four subsections. Jmegill 03:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I really never found the 'gift registry' to be that big a deal. they used the site as it was more-or-less meant to be used, within the website's limitations, and I'd wager money they're not the only people to use the registry for a non-marital gift list purpose. Big deal, big schmeal to me. However, if there's enough supporting citation, I wouldn't fight keeping it either. Count me as on the fence leaning to dropping it on that one; it seems like a lot of nothing.

The comments section, however, makes more sense to keep. Had it been the one tasteless Holocaust joke, I'd write it off as pandering to his christian base by mocking liberals and Hollywood Jews and so on. However, Huckabee seems to have a penchant for letting bad comments fly, and he's repeatedly been criticized for it. As such, I think it belongs in, because it represents multiple citable incidents, which singularly might be argued as non-notable, but as a whole matter more. As some articles seem to reference his other 'gaffs', the perception of pattern is estab lished, and the comments should stay. ThuranX 04:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the controversy section is: "During Huckabee's time as Governor, he has been criticized for some of his positions, actions,[47][48] and statements.[49][50][51][52]" Where each of the numbers is a reference to some odd comment that Huckabee made. I am not saying not to keep track of comments. I just think that each one by itself is not notable. The idea is just to add references to the end of the first sentence each time Huckabee makes an odd comment. The alternative is write out each comment made -- which would clog up the controvery section. Personally, I feel that it is somewhat unfair to criticize politicians on their verbal gaffes because humans make mistakes --especially if they are in front of the camera frequently. Instead, the criticism should be on their conscious and deliberate actions.Jmegill 04:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the references for the statements as a compromise for those that would like to keep the content. So we're not completely removing the criticism, we're just giving it the weight of a sentence or two with footnotes (which is probably as you said more than it deserves). I'd even go for ThuranX wording that states something like Huckabee has made repeated comments, which he has been criticized for. ref ref ref The point is that we don't need to spell each one out, and then provide Huckabee's reply. In these cases, where notability is minimal, if included at all, state the basic charge and supply references for the charge. If Huckabee has defended himself, append the statement that Huckabee denied the charges... ref That's it.. no need to quote this and that, give dates, where it was said, etc. - it provides too much weight to an insignificant point in Huckabee's biography. Consider reading this article 100 years from now. Today's brief headline about a joke or gift registry mean little in the life of Huckabee and deserve such due weight in the article, not a defining section as provided here. A header or section title means that this region is an important part of Huckabee's notability, they are the sections to which we break down his life for the reader. Put this into perspective... Morphh ^(talk) 11:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

that's actually not what I said, though. I didn't say 'distill it down to one line with refs. What I meant was, making a small coherent paragraph that gets the fact that a pattern of particularly unsavory comments have fallen from Huckabee's lips across to the reader, is a good thing. He has said a number of stupid things. I'm not talking about the natural spoonerisms and such that come with public speaking, not even freudian slip sort of things. I'm talking about things like Holocaust democrats, and Suicide jokes. These aren't minor oopses, like ... was it obama who said 10 when he meant 10,000, or vice-versa? Getting number and statistics wrong by an order of magnitude is a natural mistake, and I wouldn't expect one or two such slips in anyone's article. I would expect, however, that if a candidate had a history of misquoting statistics and numbers, and was criticized for it in editorials, that such would be included. But Huckabee's comments were rebuked for their actual favor and substance, which is different than any 'news commentators' who grab any flubbed numbers. In these cases, he was specifically chastized for the intent and nature of his comments; that is, he meant something deliberate by them, and got 'caught' for it. that's different than getting the city you're in wrong, catching yourself, and later releasing an 'oops, lots of campaign stops, forgot a few' statement later. I see a big gulf of difference between things like that. ThuranX 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that are news worthy but not encyclopedic. The question is if they are relevant to the subject's notability and what weight to give it in his biography (WP:BLP). I don't mind including a statement or two that says Huckabee's comments have gotten him into trouble, perhaps even with a very brief statement that describes the type of comments (holocaust and suicide). They just don't warrent two paragraphs and its own section. A section header identifies important areas of the subjects notability. This is barely relevant enough for inclusion, never mind its own section and header. Morphh ^(talk) 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I agree that Huckabee does say some dumb stuff. I suspect that it is a pattern. But given all the other material there is about Huckabee and given that few people know about Huckabee and far fewer people have picked up on the pattern, I don't think it merits an extended mention. If Huckabee becomes President, then I could see the need for an article about Huckabee similar to Bushisms. But Huckabee and his comments have to become far more notable for that to happen. I argue for deletion of the 'comments' subsection. Jmegill 23:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose such removal. The section is VERY well substantiated, and the comments DO matter. he's managed to offend two serious social groups outside of politics. he claims he shot at democrats and republicans, but he hit Jews and suicide victims, attempted suicide victims, and the families thereof. He was duly chastised publicly for the actions in the media. This is notable, and as with so much else on a candidate page, attempts to remove all criticism are whitewashes, and POV. I want to avoid any such problems. Further, you assert Huckabee is known by few, whereas I just today heard NPR report that he's rapidly rising despite low fundraising, and his recent debate performances were also critiqued. He's been referenced regularly by Limbaugh, Colbert and Stewart, and political blogs regularly discuss him. Anyone who's aware of the primaries and the candidates is aware of him. He might be relatively unknown outside the US, but as this is EN.wiki, it's well worth giving him a wider assumption of notability. Further, to dip into a bit more OR/SPEC on the matter, with Brownback out now, Huckabee's well positioned to be percieved and covered as teh 'christian colation/social conservative' candidate, and will likely be MORE notable in the coming months than less. Morphh offers a compromise wherein his pattern of drawing serious criticism can be reduced to a 'very brief statement'. I'm open to working on a (no sarcasm) fair and balanced reporting of such here, but Firmly Oppose removal. ThuranX 02:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of my concern is that there is more substantial material which is not covered in depth enough. Keeping "comments" will eventually lead to Controversy talking over the whole Huckabee page. There are just too many oddball comments. "thank god for mississippi", for example. Huckabee frequently talked about Arkansas was ranked 49th in education or some other field. Thank God Mississippi is worse. Or Huckabee started a major speech, "Someone gave me a scripture verse for today, said this would be a wonderful verse for you. I was kind of surprised. It was a person who has never been so much my friend. And I looked it up. It was Psalm 109, verse 8. It says 'May his days be few and may another take his place.' " What I am saying is that there is other material which could go in controversy. For example, in the Brock Lawsuit, Huckabee testified that he denied knowing that his staff lobbied for a television program to be pulled from the air and then later settled for 15k in damages and 16k in attorneys fees. The school consolidation issue is not covered enough. Part of it, I haven't done enough reading on. Arkansas is weird in that their constitution mandates public education. This generates all kinds of lawsuits. In 1996, Huckabee lobbied against school consolidation, then in 2004 lobbied for it. This was Huckabee's solution to a Arkansas Supreme Court ruling that the State of Arkansas needed to be more equitable in funding. Why is this relevant? Federalism, that's why. Local people having local control. I argue that there is better material available.Jmegill 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mississippi's a foolish joke. The Scripture thing's an anecdote he opened with. No one here seems to be arguing for, nor have I seen muc hediting to add, those topics. As for the reversal oon school issues, and the lawsuit, Those both should probably be included in his history as governor as they happened then, and reflect his policies and governing style. as for shots against Federalism, you're about a century late for that. That 'other stuff exists' isn't a particular reason for eliminating this stuff. IF all of that other stuff were in here( schools and lawsuit, not the anecdote and the mississippi line)and there were serious length concerns, further reductions could be made. However, as it stands, things not included in his governorship are only a strawman to what's in his criticisms. I simply haven't seen anything particularly strong arguing against their inclusion, beyond 'they make him look stupid/bad/foolish', which, frankly, is on him for saying them, not us for repeating them. ThuranX 04:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we can reach a compromise here. My main issues are that it should not get a header and it needs to be summarized. Put it directly under controversy as a statement of criticism. ThuranX, to your point on that you "simply haven't seen anything particularly strong arguing against their inclusion" - just so we're on the same page, BLP states the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. So we must see something particularly strong arguing for their inclusion, which I haven't really seen. I agree that Huckabee is becoming well known but the question is how much of the material in discussion here is the reason for him becoming well known or being known. Is the material part of his notability and to what degree? This is different than the material being notable or news worthy. Not only is it currently presented as being part of his notability, it is listed as an "important" part of his notability by giving it a header and two paragraphs, which to me is just absurd. We might also have issues with NPOV weight as such criticism from a particular suicide or jewish group may fall under this policy: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." So we have several considerations here regarding the contents weight and if or how much it contributes to Huckabee's notability. Personally, I don't think they merit the weight or notability requirements, but a compromise as discussed above would be sufficent to address my main concerns. Morphh ^(talk) 14:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned by the parts of your comment above which seem to imply that ou think notability is cumulative, and somehow only grows when greater notability is added to a person. I've never percieved that to be the case. When notable people do things which are notable, those things are fair game for inclusion, providing they can be sourced. As for BLP, These comments have been here for a long time. I haven't restored them, and they have not been deleted to need restoration. You COULD force the issue by deleting them, then putting the burden on that editor to do all the work, but given that I've just explained it, I'd see it as a WP:POINT violations and consult an admin. Luckily, I know you're not that sort of person, and anyone else who does it would be being a disruptive editor, and we would restore as vandalism, and continue debating back here. I haven't contested that it' a large section which could be refined, reduced, and made more sedate. I have a suggested solution below, in response to a VERY important comment by Huckabee, which seems to acknowledge that he makes these mistakes and they get him in trouble. He was asked in a notable journalistic endeavor about this phenomenon (for lack of a better word), and acknowledged it and addressed it. That hte candidate knows it makes it much easier to argue it's notable. He took the time to actually assume responsibility for it. he didn't brush it off with a 'oh, you know how it is, you're on stage 3 times a day, you try to mix it up a bit, and things slip out when i speak extemporaneously. (I think that's the right word, it's been a long long day.) Anyways, two final notes. One, a shorter solution below. Two, you and Jmegill have both been paragons of a proper discussion here, and I'm actually enjoying this discussion a lot more than many I have on here about policy, content and so on, so I thank you both. Pleaes respond to all below after reading my proposal, so we can keep this thread linear, not branching. Best, ThuranX 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dig up a topical quote. He had been quoted earlier comparing reporters whom he disagreed with in Arkansas to the disgraced Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair. Now, asked about this comparison, Huckabee says it illustrates his greatest fault: "You'll see it--one of the things that gets me in trouble is my love of metaphors. I use hyperbole in the course of trying to paint a word picture. I pay a dear price for it." source: The bearable lightness of Mike Huckabee by D.T. Max in The New Republic Issue date 10.08.07 Jmegill 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean 'dug up...'. here's a possible solution, with ROUGH wording, but my clear intent, i hope:

Title: Public Comments (these are given when publicly speaking, and should reflect that these are open quotes made in public, and thus not some secretive back door slurring of groups and people)

Huckabee has made a number of public statements that have drawn criticism, including comparing his weight loss to the experience of a concentration camp, for which the Nat'l Jewish Demo Committee chastised Huckabee, and his use of suicide as a joke about fundraising efforts by himself and his opponents in the republican primaries, for which he was criticized by various suicide awareness groups. In both cases, Huckabee and his campaign publicly responded with clear apologies. Huckabee has discussed his tendency to publicly misspeak. Commenting on a third incident paralleling Arkansas journalists critical of his policies to dsigraced reporters Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke "You'll see it--one of the things that gets me in trouble is my love of metaphors. I use hyperbole in the course of trying to paint a word picture. I pay a dear price for it." source: The bearable lightness of Mike Huckabee by D.T. Max in The New Republic Issue date 10.08.07

Some of that might be a bit too close to the original, and thus constitute Plagarism, but as I intend it only for a compromise back here to be polished before publishing in article, and as a rough drat at that, I think i'm ok.

Anyways, I think that that would meet everyone's needs here, so long as all the extant citations are injected at the right places. It takes two lengthy paragraphs to one much shorter paragraph which includes the BIO subject's own addressing of the issue. To be clear, I don't like Huckabee's policies, but he doesn't strike me as a jerk, sleaze, or thief particularly (that is, no more than most other politicians, and frankly, less than a lt of his own party.) I really LIKE having his response in there, it helps avoid WP:UW, because instead of simply listing the bad, we show why it happens, and frankly, that really does neutralize the weight issues, while simultaneously demonstrating the notability. He KNOWS he mis-speaks. He talked about it. I really hope this suggested compromise meets all approval, or at least moves us forward. ThuranX 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A link to the TNR story is here http://vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=322527&keyword=&phrase=&contain= Jmegill 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a phrase is needed in there and should be dropped because it borrowed from TNR. Huckabee's quote should be used. Jmegill 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thus 'Public Comments' Huckabee has made a number of public statements that have drawn criticism, including comparing his weight loss to the experience of a concentration camp, for which the Nat'l Jewish Demo Committee chastised Huckabee, and his use of suicide as a joke about fundraising efforts by himself and his opponents in the republican primaries, for which he was criticized by various suicide awareness groups. In both cases, Huckabee and his campaign publicly responded with clear apologies. Huckabee has discussed his tendency to publicly misspeak. He commented, "You'll see it--one of the things that gets me in trouble is my love of metaphors. I use hyperbole in the course of trying to paint a word picture. I pay a dear price for it." Jmegill 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand why you've removed the context of his quote, which offers a third reported on comment, and whih he used to indirectly address the general problem. please explain why we don't need it? ThuranX 04:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You can add back in the reporters commentary if you want. I feel that the context wasn't necessary because the full passage from the text shows that it is generalized. The full passage is this, "It's February and we are at the Sperling breakfast, a Washington rite of passage sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, where presidential candidates get an early introduction to the national political press. Huckabee has passed up the bacon for coffee, but he's getting a pretty good grilling anyway. He had been quoted earlier comparing reporters whom he disagreed with in Arkansas to the disgraced Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair. Now, asked about this comparison, Huckabee says it illustrates his greatest fault: "You'll see it--one of the things that gets me in trouble is my love of metaphors. I use hyperbole in the course of trying to paint a word picture. I pay a dear price for it." " Jmegill 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Jon Stewart item. Jon Stewart ma go after everyone to some extent, but I'm not sure that his jokes about Huckabee's line carries the same level of authoritative dissenting outcry as we see in things like the suicide crack and the suicide group or the holocaust and the ADL. You'd pretty much need a christian theologian saying somethign about the nature of heaven not having ducks or hunting, or angels not really having time to guide bullets, or that attributing every thing that happens to higher powers isn't reasonable. You'll never find it. Huckabee's religious views might get legit criticism when he talks about creationism, but this isn't of the same magnitude. ThuranX 11:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New Editor on a mission.

Please be aware of the following: User_talk:Shogun108#Mike_Huckabee. Shogun108 feels that any 'controversies' section is inherently evil, and should be folded into the political positions section. Although I tried to explain that some controversies would be orphaned and lost, he responded with policy wonking about NPOV. He's not interested in actually explaining, beyond citing NPOV, and has stated an intent to go ahead and make it his way. IN the face of requests to talk things out, such actions would not be BOLD. I invite others to simliarly appeal to him to use talk instead of make radical changes to the article. ThuranX 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I simply believe that the article be reworked. Do not remove any of the "controversies." According to Wikipedia's guidelines:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

Readers simply cannot do this with the current state of the article. I also ask that your own bias does not affect NPOV of an article. Details of how it will be edited will be provided in a few days once I figure out a way to best incorporate both points of view. But please judge this article within a NPOV. It distresses me when bias can leak onto an advertised unbiased site. I do not want to delete his criticism I simply would like to have the chance of cleaning up redundant information in that section and either combining it with his "Political Positions," Which I think NEEDs to be expanded, or presenting two views in a manner without bias. I know who does this stuff to Huckabee and I'm not sure they would like it if their candidate was slandered on his own page no I'd imagine not. So why does their view take precedence over pro-Huckabee supporters? Sorry I'm rambling Expect me to chime in later with a proposed fix to this problem. Shogun108 04:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, this isn't how Wikipedia operates. You're accusing the editors here of all having a bias, and you of being the only voice of reason. That's a highly uncooperative view to take, and one unlikely to get you much support. There's a LOT of effort here to get this page into a good form. Coming in and telling us we're all doing it 'wrong' while claiming to be new to wikipedia is also confusing. If you're really new, perhaps taking the time to learn how we work would suit you, before you demand we lose the criticism and move it to Positions. To cap it all with the 'I'll be back when I figure out how to do it' is even worse. You've just told a pge full of editors 'you're all wrong, and I know what right is, but I can't tell you'. Arguments from Secret Knowledge are fallacious arguments, invalid on their face. Take the time to learn it first. ThuranX 05:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To Shogun, Many issues have already been discussed concerning the article. I recommend that you read the entire discussion page to get a feel for what the issues are and what the reasons are for the appearance of the page. Jmegill 05:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I posted this to ThuranX I guess he hasn't seen it jet or he wouldn't have opened me up to scrutiny. You need Specifics eh? Well I have to get to sleep soon so don't discount me in my sleep... Here is a sample of Non-Neutral Rhetoric.

Huckabee claims to have cut taxes while governor, saving Arkansas' citizens close to $380 million.

Look at the word "Claims" What is it doing there? It is discrediting the statement Huckabee made. Use of words in this manner is a promotion of bias. Another:

Huckabee has denied influencing the parole board in any way, but acknowledges some responsibility for signing Dumond's parole.[citation needed] His full disclosure of the incident is described in his book From Hope to Higher Ground.

But his view is never explained in the article at all! It is said that it exists, but it is not given. Illegal immigration This entire section is not a controversy come to think of it the only true controversies he was involved in was the Dunlop Case and His wife's political race and maybe the wedding gifts. Anyway most of the info on his immigration points is old and it concludes without even addressing Huckabee's current beliefs etc. That shows no balance. When you look at the section about his public comments it does not address his response to the outcries.

Let me put this in simple terms. Eveidence is proposed for only one side of the case and rhetoric clearly leans to one side of the argument. Two sections in "Controversies" are not controversies

A contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement.

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Even though some of his positions may not have been agreeable with everyone does that make them controversies? No they do not Disagreement must be universal to be a legitimate controversy. You see the Taxes and Immigration points can be transfered into his "Political Positions" while the others need to be balanced in reference and rhetoric. All in all the article needs work and there are loads more points I could make about it, but I really must be going. Shogun108 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)REMEMBER this was posted elsewhere first. Shogun108 06:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments about the public comments section alone show that your efforts are in bad faith. We've spent days, literally, back here on talk working out the 'comments' section. We've gone around in circles till we found a way to balance the criticism with his responses, and his apologies. Instead, you dismissed it all out of hand. Huckabee did CLAIM to make that savings. If you can find a neutral source for proof that his tax cuts had that actual savings, use it. And good luck - finding neutral proof on such thigns is difficult. perhaps Arkansas has a state level equivalent of the GAO or CBO.

Your dismissal of all the sections in controversies under a single definition is disingenuous. here' for examppe, is 'controversial' - # S: (adj) controversial (marked by or capable of arousing controversy) "the issue of the death penalty is highly controversial"; "Rushdie's controversial book"; "a controversial decision on affirmative action". Note that controversial refers to issues, public topics, and discussion of events, all of whihc are then 'controversies'. In other words, his actions brought about public strong disagreement, thus controversy. I'm afraid that you'd have to explain why those things in the controversy section are not notable, and should be removed, or how you'd suggest moving them into his political positions. Fianlly, you are a big fan of the word 'rhetoric'. Suggesting that we're sitting around filling the article with our biased rhetoric when there's a clear refutation of one point in the section immediately preceding this, and others on the talk page, is fairly rude and insulting. There are multiple editors here working to find compromises and consensus to improve the article. You're approaching this article in an absolutist manner. I suggest you get yourself prepared for a long discussion, and lots of compromises that find consensus, if you expect to actually change the article. There's a lot of consensus now to keep the controversies section. ThuranX 11:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jmegill: Although the question of moving the controversy section was under question in this discussion page, a course of action was never agreed upon. Therefore this current discussion is justified. The article, as it is, is way out of balanced. The section on Huckabee's tenure as governor is as long as the "Controversy" section! Also in the controversy section, there is no need to have his Fiscal Policy and Immigrations Stance as a controversy. Huckabee fiscal policy is a matter dealing with policy not a controversy regarding him, there totally different.

In order to make this article balanced, we should:

1. Create a separate page for the Controversy regarding Huckabee
2. Place the fiscal and immigration policy controversy into a controversy section on Huckabee’s “Political positions” page.

--SNSAnchor 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SNSAnchor, the deletion of "claims" in the fiscal record subsection is not supported by the reference. Here the reference, Forbes magazine, uses, "He claims that those cuts saved his citizens a total of $380 million while still securing a substantial budget surplus." Forbes magazine uses the word 'claims'. They are not reporting the information as fact, but rather as a claim. Thus the reversion to the original wording. Originally, the Forbes article did not use the word 'claims', but I emailed them and asked for an independent source. Since they had none, they had to change the wording of their article. That is why the language should stay as it is. Jmegill 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer your other concerns, there is an ongoing discussion about that section of the article. My position is that the controversy section should not be moved to another page. The fiscal policy subsection shows an evolution in Huckabee's thinking. Huckabee's political positions are not static and the fiscal policy subsection shows how Huckabee has shifted in reaction to criticism. The illegal immigration subsection is marvelous because it shows Huckabee's personality in conflict. He called his opponent, who is also a minister, "un-Christian". These parts are about more than political issues, they describe Huckabee's personality and ambitions. Lastly, my response to structural arguments about the article is that the complainer should put some enough into filling out the other sections. How many siblings does Huckabee have? How many kids does Huckabee have? Did you know that Huckabee's son married a former Miss Arkansas? Jmegill 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here if you will not believe me then look at this article a bit:

As well, each individual who reports or writes the news has to work hard to guard against his or her own opinions. These opinions can become media bias simply through word choice or inflections and tone of voice when delivering news.

This is from [1] I also you look into "bias in Word Choice." A subtle change can create glaring bias. If worst comes to worst I suggest that you remove bias sources if you refuse to create unbiased articles besides news articles do not have to be quoted in their rhetoric. Citation means you got the information from that site. It does not mean that you should mirror the article you cited. That is part of the problem. It is very unprofessional to do such things... Shogun108 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of a wikipedia guideline which cites wisegeek DOT com. Jmegill 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, the deletion of Huckabee's radio address on Marriage from the talk page was not cool. I am really proud of having dug that up. It shows the best aspects of Huckabee and is extremely relevant to any discussion of why Huckabee is different from other candidates. Jmegill 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with creating a separate page for Controversy as it may be considered a POV fork and I don't think we have enough content to justify such a split. I'm also not sure about moving fiscal and immigration - I'll have to look at that further. We should not remove content that is part of Hackabee's notability. While a political position, if it is an important part of his biography, we should include it here. However, it does not have to be under an article structure that identifies it as a "negative" (although I think we've decreased this by using the term controversy instead of criticism). I'm open to integrating the controversy into the article, in fact, I'd probably prefer it per WP:CRITICISM and WP:NPOV#Article structure. We should try to integrate criticism into the topic of discussion providing both points of view and not break things down into criticism when possible. I'm going to WP:AGF and hold my comments on Shogun108's suggestions until I see more. Morphh ^(talk) 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your objective take on my position. I have no intention of silencing any of the "controversies" I think though that the information under it should be fair and balanced. I know "claims" was used in the original article, but this rhetoric shows obvious bias. If it were put to say Huckabee "stated" or "asserts" then it would be Neutral. Also like I said lack of evidence or Huckabee's own rebuttals to these controversies shows hindsight and must be dealt with. I'd also like to say that "Immigration" and "Fiscal Policy" is not a conroversy. Let's limit "controversies" to events and not "Political Positions." Because if someone happens to disagree with someone's political position does that mean it is a controversy? No not at all someone agrees right? I sense a slant in direction from the anti war and radical conservatives. So as a hole this should be cleaned up to expand on his Positions and move those things which are not controversies into their appropriate place... I guess before anything is done We need to expand his Position section. After that we can move things around. I'll give it a try... Also again I'm not trying to make this a whitewashed article. I want it to be neutral and I will work on it until it achieves its neutrality. I will not silence the opposition. Shogun108 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You say that "controversies" should be limited to events. Okay. The Fiscal Record subsection covers the following events 1. The 1997 omnibus tax reform 2. budgetary increases in the state of Arkansas 3. Tax increases in 1999, 2001, 2002 4. Watchdog groups critiquing Huckabee's performance 5. Criticism by Grover Norquist 6. Praise by Grover Norquist 7. Huckabee's rejection of signing a no tax increase pledge 8. Huckabee's signing of a no tax increase pledge. 9. Huckabee's announcement of a Fair Tax The last part, number 9, is the only item with can be really said to go under Political Positions. It was added by a pro-Huckabee supporter who argued that by adding it, it makes the rest of Huckabee's history irrelevant. The Fiscal Record does not cover that Club for Growth ran negative ads in Iowa nor does it link to them. Oddly, it covers the campaigns response to the negative ads. To be fair, Fiscal Record should have a link to the negative ads that were run against Huckabee. The Illegal Immigration section covers the following events 1 a caller to Huckabee's radio program complains to him about illegal immigration 2 a second caller complains to him 3. Huckabee says in the 2005 State of the State address the illegal aliens should be eligible to Arkansas scholarships 4. Huckabee speaks out against an immigration enforcement raid 5. Huckabee labels a fellow minister as "un-Christian" 6. Huckabee says illegal immigrants are not a fiscal drain 7. Huckabee gives earmarked money to Little Rock for them to give to the Mexican consulate 8. Huckabee says deportation is unrealistic 9. Huckabee denies that illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans 10. Huckabee defends his position on educating illegal immigrant children 11. Huckabee goes before a hispanic organization and says that he supports them. So, it seems to me that the Controversy section does have lots of events. Since this is your own criteria for inclusion, everything in the Controversy section should stay. Jmegill 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This does not come to any conclusion what is your point? Oh yeah to discredit me. Okay look at that what you posted. It outlines multiple events so how is that a "controversy?" it is not. So again with equivocation. It is getting old. Shogun108 00:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding new editors

It has been brought to my attention that this page is the focus of an organized effort to slant the article pro-huckabee.[1] These editors claim they are making edits for NPOV, but in reality they are just trying to cover up all bad things of the candidate they support. [1] Byates5637 13:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the post - we'll judge each edit on its merits and discuss as needed. Such efforts are usually short lived and more talk than action. Morphh ^(talk) 14:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I assure you this is an honest attempt to neutralize the article. Look at what I propose in the section above. Also I WILL take action! Shogun108 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Shogun108, you are poster millerkevd on the Huckabee message board. You wrote, "Oh by the way I'm looking for a more positive Huckabee article, but I need to rewrite the "Controversies" part so of course the paulites will hate me..." Another poster on the message board wrote, "We need to hide all of those controversies." Jmegill 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Shogun108 (if he is millerkevd), he responded to the "hide all those controversies" poster with "Hide No! Fix the bias yes!". In the context of the Huckabee message board, such a discussion should not be suprising and we should not instantly use it to assume bad faith. Usually editors have a position or interest in the topics to which they edit. We each have some form of bias but it is by working together within the guidelines of Wikipedia that we're able to move toward a neutral and exceptional article. Wikipedia has ways to deal with dispute resolution and cabal mediation to assist the minority, if policy is being subverted by a POV pushing majority. I think we're all working toward the same goal - to produce an unbias, well written, factually accurate, sufficently detailed article. Morphh ^(talk) 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have submitted a WP:COI/N report, it might be bounced to WP:BIO/N, dunno. ThuranX 20:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Morphh that is what I want. I do not want to destroy a certain point of view to promote my bias. No I want to neutralize the bias inherent in the article. Shogun108 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The report has been taken to WP:BIO/N. Further, the off wiki group is now resorting to off-site personal attacks, and here, they're attempting to extort services to leave certain areas of this article alone. I'm going to give it a little time more at WP:BIO, then take this mess to AN/I for blocks and protections. ThuranX 22:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Today's edits show clearly that more SPA editors are coming here from Hucksarmy to whitewash the article. I will again go to BIO/N, but they're incredibly slow there. ThuranX 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

inclusion of campaign logos

from the text i submitted when requesting temporary unprotection of Fred Thompson:

having reviewed the articles for the 2008 presidential candidates, i realized that the majority of the articles did not have campaign logos inserted in them. a minority of articles do have them. a campaign logo/poster/image, by definition, is intended to promote the candidate. promotion implies POV. the inclusion of these images is inherently POV. i've removed these images from a handful of articles, and would like to have the image removed from this article - in that way, all candidate articles will be represented equally, in service to NPOV.

with the re-inclusion of huckabee's campaign logo, his is now the only presidential candidate biography that has such a logo. i assert that either all candidate bio's have such logos, or none. the latter is better, per the justification above. Anastrophe 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clinton's image was readded before this one - I copied part of the summary from that revert. Images don't have to be "neutral". If they illustrate the content of the topic under discussion, that is sufficient for inclusion. I'm sure many articles would like to pull pictures because they present the topic in a positive or negative light, but the purpose of the image is to illustrate the content. The content is what falls under NPOV policy and even then the NPOV rule simply does not prohibit the use of biased sources, biased images, or biased material, as odd as that may sound. The NPOV rule instead means that Wikipedia itself does not take a position within the article that "this source is correct" or "that source is wrong". NPOV relates to how the material is presented. Your removal of the image is inappropriate and uniformity across candidates is not a justification for such a removal. Each article grows at its own pace and there is no rule on uniformity for you to assert such. Morphh ^(talk) 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

i would dispute only the assertion that there is 'no rule on uniformity for you to assert anything'. true, there are no rules, but there are guidelines for uniformity that are routinely in use on such articles - the inclusion and format of the info box, the structure of the lede, etc.. the whole reason this issue came up for me was when i saw that the mitt romney logo had been increased in size by an editor. that's when i 'realized' the ability to use the logo for promotion - it was a deft 'trick' to push the candidate's visibility in the article without actually saying anything. as i stated elsewhere, i'm not going to revert on this issue any further. i wanted to get it out there, and this discussion is what that's for. i have no partisanship in this matter - none of the candidates interest me. i'm interested in even-handed presentation, only. Anastrophe 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be the manual of style for articles in general, which is not a rule but a guideline. We don't say every biography must have an infobox or no one will. We're also not talking about general style, you were asserting uniformity with specific articles having pictures or not having pictures on a particular subject (campaign logos). Now you may be able to argue manual of style or NPOV for the size of the image, but that is a another discussion. What is the proper size for such an image, if increasing the image is POV than perhaps decreasing it is equally POV. You have to come to some compromise on the appropriate size for the formating of the article (does it look oversized). Does the size of the image fit with the content with regard to weight given to the topic area? I don't know that such a dispute has taken place here but it appears you need to have it on the Romney article. Morphh ^(talk) 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I write this, Hillary's entry has a campaign logo on it too. She also has an awards and honors page. Do all the other candidates have the same? --Mactographer 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

if by that rhetorical question you are suggesting that absence of same from other articles is a matter of contention, it isn't for me. not every candidate has won a bunch of awards and honors. so you can't exactly include what may not exist. Anastrophe 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care either way on the issue of campaign logos. Jmegill 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Anastrophe, and I find WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS a poor rationale for returnign it to the article. ThuranX 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then why do you use the same argument here when you claim, and I quote: "Editor leaves it on some candidates and not others?" --Mactographer 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Then delete the other crap too. --24.6.29.122 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone didn't read the essay, did they? And most of the other stuff has been. there are editors working hard for neutrality here against editors who come from off wiki to promote and protect their candidates... hrmm... woonder where I read that recently? ThuranX 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, Anastrophe's argument makes no sense and is not at issue with policy - See my comments above. While I did not base my argument on the rationale you describe, his rationale for the image removal is being overturned on every article that he's made this change to that I can tell. Morphh ^(talk) 21:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anastrophe's argument makes no sense". please, WP:CIVIL. my argument is not nonsensical; but apparently you are stating that as a term of belittlement. please reread my argument. nowhere did i claim it was an issue of policy - please don't put words in my mouth. Anastrophe 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not mean to belittle you. I only meant that your argument was for POV, which to me meant that it was a violation of NPOV. You also asserted that they should be uniform in the service of NPOV. Perhaps you did not mean to claim policy but that is what it sounded like to me. So I was saying your argument did not make sense in regard to what NPOV policy states and the reason you removed the images, which is what I argued above. I hope this clarifies it. Morphh ^(talk) 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

fair enough, thank you. you're right, arguing NPOV is arguing policy. my intent has been more on the spirit of NPOV rather than as an issue of enforcement, if that makes sense (in this case, i grant i might not be making sense! ;^). i hope to have articles avoid even the appearance of POV, particularly with topics that are so deeply prone to POV as 'who best to run the country'. anyway, nuff said. Anastrophe 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, so sorry. Morphh, you seem to think my 'no one read the essay' was a response to you. It was to the Rude IP citing Othercrap, not to you. YOu're smoothly arguing a point with other editors. You're not agenda warring. In a section above, I talked about how some editors here are dsicussing things at length rather than fighting, and I see that again here in the main, excepting only those from Huck'sArmy, the website calling for a meatpuppet attack on the page. ThuranX 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm qutie troubled by two things in this discussion: ALL OR NONE, which sounds like an ultimatum, not an editing argument when left unsupported as it was, and 'othercrapexists', which I've seen used twice now, the second time COMPLETELY incorrectly, in fact. I agree that Logos are likely to be a biasing image. IF there are to be such images, their inclusion should probably be determined by an appropriate wiki-project... is there a 2008 US elections project? as US politics project? if not, go right to RfC and let's get this settled. Inclusion AFTER the election is encyclopedic, I'd scan in some older 'truman for president' buttons lying around the house for that, it's historic at that point. the question becomes, is a single image enough to constitute endoresement or biasing? I think that since many of those trying to include such are SPAs and Meat Puppets, as per the Huck'sArmy message baord seeking inclusion as part of its' agenda, that's enough to show me that bias exists in such an image, an we should disallow all of them. ThuranX 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try to judge each edit on its merits and not who is supporting or against it. If you check the other articles, there are also discussions there. I hope that I'm not included in the "SPA" / "Meat Puppet" crowd, he's not my pick for prez. Perhaps you should take a step back - you seem to getting "us against them", which creates a more difficult atmosphere. Good arguments and policy should prevail. Morphh ^(talk) 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Morphh, did you miss my clarification above? i specifically singled you out as NOT an SPA, agenda warrior, or meatpuppet. I complimented your ability to discuss this rationally. If you still think I said anythign bad about you, bring it to my talk page, keep this section focused on the issue at hand. I thought I was clear though, especially in another reply where I called for opening an RfC about this, thus creating a guideline for the entire WP project, not just a page here and/or there. ThuranX 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry.. missed the "many of" and since I was the main disputer of the justification for removal.. I must have assumed. I did read the other comment and thank you. I didn't quite understand the RFC thought as I didn't see the argument. I was just a little worried that you were so focused on the huck-army cabal that the merits of the edits were glossed over. I apologize if that was not the case, it was just my observation. However, now perhaps we need an RFC as all the AIN cabal are joining in battling the huck cabal. All huck cabal edits are POV, particularly this graphic which has no justification for removal under the POV policy being stated by the AIN cabal. What a mess....

Morphh ^(talk) 2:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

While I don't concur that campaign logos are necessarily POV, in fact, I think they are a part of the history of the individual or campaign. Nonetheless, I will personally abide by by all the current candidates of all the various parties having them included or all of them being removed ... but not some of either. ThuranX, I noticed you removed Hillary's campaign logo, so I won't return Mike's if it says that way. --Mactographer 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what? I'm not that article's babysitter. Further, Ultimatums are specifically discouraged on Wikipedia. In the best light, it's another WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, at worst, it's an admission that unless you get your ay, you're going to disrupt pages, which is in itself disruptive. I suggest you strike out the comment above, and refraim from such extortionist tactics in the future. ThuranX 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to play fair, and get called an extortionist. s'why I don't bother much with this site anymore. --24.6.29.122 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I am new to this article I did see the posting about it at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I support ThuranX's position in the above discussion. I'd remind the other editors that there is tremendous support within Wikipedia for neutral coverage of political candidates. It is not rocket science to determine whether an article is neutral, and whether the arguments on a Talk page sound like they are in good faith. If we perceive that there is a group trying to game the situation, or issue ultimatums, on a particular article, there is a very good system of notification within Wikipedia to draw attention to the problem and take any needed countermeasures. EdJohnston 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As another total outsider who came here from AIN can I just point out that there is something that doesn't appear to have been hit on yet. Campaign logos are copyrighted, as such they need to be uploaded to WP with a fair use rationale. So far the Huckabee logo doesn't yet have one and will more than likely be deleted at some point. The other thing to remember is that copyrighted images under a FUR can only be used in specific places and for specific reasons. They can't be used willy nilly and just as decoration. As it stands the logo is not a requirement for this article, it isn't specifically mentioned in the article and it doesn't serve (or exist) to clarify anything in the article, therefore it doesn't meet FUR usage. Just thought I'd throw that in the mix. ---- WebHamster 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that is an argument for removal that I can support. On the other points, I am a bit disturbed by the above discussion. I'm not even sure what EdJohnston is supporting. The image has been there for quite awhile, and was removed today by an editor that is not any of the described in the AIN (not that it should matter), nor a normal contributor to this article. Justification for removal has been disputed at every candidate article where removal was done and was not valid use of the policy specified for removal. So why is the new editor getting jumped on? They have not presented a force that would "game the system" and they haven't issued any "ultimatums". I have yet to see them do anything that wouldn't be considered normal editor behavior. I was the main one disputing the image - debate the merits. Lets not make this about some cabal. Give the editors a chance here. Most articles have biased editors, this is nothing new... at least you know where they stand. It seems we're ignoring the merits of their edits based on the assumption of bad faith. Morphh ^(talk) 1:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a great policy reason. As to the above discussion, and your concerns... Have you read the BLP/N report, also at WP:AN/I? Multiple editors are conspiring off-site to push their agenda, discussing editors on wiki, and using extortion techniques on talk pages to enforce their goals? Mactographer's goal was 'all or none', and he chose to attempt enforcement with this:"ThuranX, I noticed you removed Hillary's campaign logo, so I won't return Mike's if it says that way." That's do A, or ELSE, he'll do B. that's extortion. I've reported this all to AN/I, and to BLP/N. They refer to editors here who don't agree with their views as 'liberal elitists out to make them feel like trailer trash', 'POV warriors', 'bias' (not 'biased'). At least three editors have agreed to pursue this, and possibly the original poster as well. ThuranX 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anastrophe was the one that asserted "that either all candidate bio's have such logos, or none. the latter is better, per the justification above." When I read Mactograph's statement, I read that he would abide by what everyone else was doing but he would not go for removing it from here if others articles had it added, which is understandable... the policy used for justification should apply broadly, not just to this article. It was not extortion, he was saying that if the use is applied globally he would respect it, if it is not, he would reapply it here as the justification for removal was deemed invalid. Where is the extortion? I think your making a war out of nothing. Morphh ^(talk) 2:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

'ThuranX, keep Hillary Clinton's page the way I want it, or I'll do something on this page'. See, that's extortion. especially since it's an absurd demand to make. It's all threats, which are breaks with WP:CIVIL, if not some other policy I'm not familiar with. Off wiki actions like this are violations of WP:CANVAS, WP:POV, and possibly other policies. It's really taht simple. Violations of Policy can, and often are, enough in themselves to justify resisting such edits. Had the thread on that site been ' I've been working the Wiki page, and need help finding a citation for Event A or Statement ABC' There would be nothig there. getting help with research from people who know a subject is fine. Getting help in changing an article to the way your group want is very different. I don't understand why you think such behaviors are so innocuous. I never went after Anastrophe, as he had a good idea, if not the right policy to cite. Since not all candidates have logos, its' both POV, and WP:UW, to include them. As WebHamster poinsts out, there's an even better policy, FUR, for it. it seems there's consensus that the policy is right in this application, so I don't think there's much to worry about on the topic of this thread. As to the conduct of this off-wiki message board, it's still objectionable, and still on AN/I. ThuranX 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did he say that he wanted Hillary's page a certain way? He just wanted them the same way based on the justification. He was just saying that it was not right for one to be one way and Huckabee to be another, based on the justification used - I completely agree. It was an invalid justification and if deemed valid should have been applicable to all. I agree - Am I extorting you? Normal revert policies apply. I see no threats... dispute in justification for the change. Is every revert a threat and extortion... this is insane. People can talk outside of Wikipedia and I don't see anything overtly worrisome in the blog. They have a right to be concerned about what they perceive to be bias in an article and discuss correcting it. It was not POV for some articles to have a logo and others not... so lets remove all the logos... come on. IMO you're stretching policy here to mean something other than what it says. If we get a sufficiently free logo, I'll argue to have it added back. Morphh ^(talk) 3:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We should either include campaign logos on all campaigns or on none due to the POV issues. Since the logos are generally coprighted, we must make a fair use argument for them. As far as I can tell they add little to the articles since the campaign logos are almost all variants on the same thing: the candidate's name with some combination of red, white and blue. Given that, all the campaign logos should be removed. JoshuaZ 03:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of POV policy your using there for justification but I agree on the Fair Use. Perhaps we should just get rid of all pictures as they present some POV in one way or another. It's unfair to all those articles that don't have pictures and presents a POV in each article. Of course, this has no relation to what the NPOV policy actually states. Morphh ^(talk) 3:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Including some campaigns logos and not others is arguably POV since it could be seen as supporting those campaigns more than others(Actually, the more I think about this the more it seems like a really weak argument). The fair use issue is serious however- we aren't adding almost anything with these pictures. WP:FAIR is pretty clear about this sort of thing and even if FAIR were substantially weakened these still wouldn't fall within it. JoshuaZ 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing the Order of the Article

Shogun108, you should discuss why you are changing the order of the article. You should make the case why one order of the article is better than another order of the article. If not, then I may just change it back to how it was before. Jmegill 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had hoped to bring up and make the same change Shogun made. his political positions are the rule, the controversies teh exception, to split a metaphor. His positions go directly to his daily style of governing his state, and to his notability as a candidate by standing out on certain issues or blending into the GOP crowd on others. Further, it's a logical order or us as writers, to set out the ground-work for why things became controversial, by establishing Huckabee's baseline attitudes. HYPOTHETICAL example: 'Candidate Q gives a speech about the evils of gun control, and the benefits of the second amendment, a school shooting occurs with a gun made with a straw purchase or other comtroversial method, huckabee gives same speech again a week later. Gun control groups, parents of injured students, and so on are outraged and rebuke him in the media to a large amount of coverage.' end example. Now, his position isn't controversial in and of itself, beyond that of the general gun control debate, but his unyielding view in the face of counterexamples would be. Knowing already that he's against gun legislation, we as editors can go right to the heart of the controversy, that he was criticized for not re-examining his positions. Again, this is a hypothetical. I concur with Shogun108 on this move, had considered it, but suddenly had to watch for the invasion of Huck's Army of POV warriors. ThuranX 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

All right I guess I could have started a talk about this, but the edit was minor. I changed nothing. I have another idea as to what to do with the page to make it better I'll start a talk for that one because it is larger. Anyway Thuran is right here. It creates logical flow to the article and fixes a small POV problem with reading the "controversies" before you know his position. I don't think anyone should be against that.Shogun108 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections. Morphh ^(talk) 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

that final statement, SHogun, is exactly why it should've been done, and bringing up things using arguments like that to support your edits is how to achieve consensus, or at least, premise your ideas, here in talk. Keep that up, please. That's how Wikipedia gets stuff done best. ThuranX 20:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of advice. Maybe you noticed I am new to how Wikipedia works internally, but I'll learn and maybe I'll contribute to other pages later... So I'll put that to note thanks again. Shogun108 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My position is that no information should be left out in the editing process. On the Dumas quote, I believe it is relevant and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on Arkids/Medicaid Huckabee vs. Clinton Administration

In 1999-2000, Huckabee was in conflict with the Clinton Administration over whether kids who qualified for Arkids A (then called Medicaid) should be funneled into Arkids A rather than Arkids B.(then called Arkids First). Huckabee stated that some people refused to enroll in Medicaid out of pride, but would enroll in Arkids First because it wasn't called Medicaid. Arkids A had no co-pay, while Arkids B did have co-pays and higher income levels for eligibility. Are there other reasons WHY Huckabee challenged the Clinton Administration over this? Jmegill 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumond edit

I object Bryan Derksen's edit to the Dumond subsection. He changed "Dumond had been attacked and castrated prior to his trial for the rape" to "Dumond was castrated prior to his trial; he claimed that he was attacked by two men in his home (though district prosecutor Gene Raff suggested it was a case of self-mutilation and a urologist who'd studied the topic told the Forrest City Times-Herald that self-mutilation isn't that rare among psychologically disturbed sex offenders)." Comments on how and why Dumond was castrated are tangential to an article about Mike Huckabee. The level of detail is not necessary to understanding the controversy.Jmegill 01:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jmegill, but facts are facts, take a look at this article.[2] Derksen's edits are totally legitimate. --SNSAnchor 03:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jmegill isn't contesting he facts, but the level of detail. I support the older version as well. It's simple and direct. Others who wish to read up on the case can go look it up. What's relevant to Huckabee is the sentencing reduction and resultant recidivism, not disparaging Dumond's assertions; that should go into a Dumond case article. Huckabee wasn't criticized for doing the chop work, jsut for opening the door early. ThuranX 03:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dumond section states that full disclosure from Huckabee can be found in his book. According to a new article citing evidence provided by a former Huckabee aide and published by the Huffington Post, however, that notion simply is not true. In fact, the former governor received written letters from former Dumond rape victims pleading for his continued imprisonment and warning of his likelihood to not only rape again, but to kill the victims. Apparently, Huckabee chose politics over the private words of rape victims, and two more heinous crimes were commited as a direct result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.186.115 (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Fiscal Record

I object to the last two edits by SNSAnchor. The addition of the phrase "The same year, Huckabee was named “Friend of a Taxpayer” by American for Tax Reform (ATR) for his cut in statewide spending." should be put with Fiscal Record subsection, not under the first term subsection. This is because it more logically goes with a discussion of his fiscal record. The second to last edit has a couple of problems. The way it was edited the structure of the edit reads 1.) Huckabee's campaign talking points 2.) Fiscal Criticism 3. Repeats Huckabee's campaign talking points. Thus, the edit carries redundant sentences. The first sentence "Huckabee cut taxes over ninety times while governor,..." is redundant with "Huckabee's campaign has countered these arguments by saying that Huckabee cut taxes 94 times including signing the first broad-based tax cut in the history of the state". Jmegill 04:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why "Tax Me More Fund" is relevant to discussing Huckabee's fiscal record. It ended up collecting a laughable amount of funds. I would just as soon eliminate it. Jmegill 05:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It was made in response to criticism for his record in the area of fiscal matters. It also drew opposition for being a campaign trick. In any case I also edited the fiscal record part I think I only removed one article, but I was shifting and making the article flow better so that it seemed more like an encyclopedia entry explaining the details as they happened. The order provides for a much more stable read. You may add anything as long as it does not detract from the flow. It took me forever to create an article which presented this issue as being a controversy with two sides to the argument. I was trying and I think I did all right I all ready asked a few people and they said it didn't weigh to heavily on either side. The information allows the reader to choose a side and from what is provided it is easy to support either side without feeling like you where convinced to change your opinion. I hope this works out for everyone, because I think this is how an encyclopedia should be written when writing about criticism or controversy.Shogun108 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is one issue I have though is the "Arkansas Democratic Gazette a credible source for fiscal issues? I noticed that the "It was reported" was this paper so I added the name of the source into the article. Do you think it should still be used? Shogun108 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Arkansas Democratic Gazette is reporting its numbers from what the Department of Finance and Administration gave it. Jmegill 13:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Shogun108, exactly WHO did you ask about the balance of the article? Certainly no one here on Wikipedia, per your contribs list. Please do not claim consensus based on Off-wiki discussions over at Huck's Army, or your family, or anywhere else but here. There's no way to verify that you've got such consensus. ThuranX 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There were some deletions and some additions. I object to the deletion of "According to a National Review writer, during his tenure the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion". Jmegill 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was cited, put it back in. Also, Stop wit thhe 'I object' talk. it's really confrontational, and it is not helping build consensus. It pushes people away. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, and we can afford to be more civil and less formal. How about this: Shogun, since The Nat'l Review segment was cited, why did you remove it? ThuranX 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted some edits because they fail to represent both sides of the controversy and thus violate the neutral point of view policy. The "Tax Me More Fund" is very relevant to this topic it was created in response to Huckabee not raising taxes.--SNSAnchor 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read through both versions and I don't see where it violates NPOV. What part of the controversy is not represented, and if there is something missing, why not add it instead of reverting the entire thing. Shogun's changes, I thought, made it flow much better. Instead of back and forth, back and forth, he said she said... it does a much better job keeping the arguments together. It discusses much of the criticism for his history in the first paragraph, discusses much of the rebuttal in the second paragraph, and then goes into comments on the presidential election in the third. This has much better flow and is easier to understand. I think it makes each section stronger. I'm not an expert on it, so perhaps I missed on small piece of criticism that may have been left out, to which there should be discussed here as to inclusion. The "Tax Me More Fund" was included in the version that I read... not sure what the issue is. Morphh ^(talk) 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after reading though it again, I do believe now that it is fine as it is. Thanks Morphh for the feedback. ----SNSAnchor 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to revert to my version, but I will add "According to a National Review writer, during his tenure the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion. I didn't notice that I'd deleted that which is why I asked for you guys to look it over so I'll do as Morphh recommends and before we have editing wars make sure your ideas have met a general consensus. I confess I did ask my parents and that the review was off wiki, but I cannot prove their bias except by saying they do not follow my own. Of course that has no backing. I just wanted you guys to know I put an honest effort into maintaining the integrity of the article and of the issue REMEBER: The section is called controversy not criticism so it must reflect both sides equally, but not give preference to any. In witch case a person who reads it will not feel obliged to change sides given their view. There is no persuasive prose in it I made sure of it. All sources are cited so. I will say it again I am reverting to my version and adding the citation I accidentally left out. Thanks for the feedback! Shogun108 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think every change should go through some talk page consensus process. This would likely greatly interfere with getting things done and the WP:BOLD idea. However, if it is something large, something disputed, you're removing something, or adding something significant, then it is best to start a discussion. If there is disagreement in the discussion, we should work to compromise to gain a consensus. Morphh ^(talk) 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I usually share your sentiments, I don't particularly mind the extra tact and review, as a result of the influx of editors from hucksarmy. That said, Most of the contested material's coming here fast anyways, so let's not discourage talk page use. too much is ALWAYS preferable to too little, because too little leads to 3RR and edit wars. SHogun108's mostly coming around to wiki-style editing, and Jmegill is also generally working within guidelines. I do worry about the SPA nature of both, but so long as they continue to work together, and with others, I'm not going to make any more deal about that. ThuranX 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor attempted to add aditional information on Grover Norquist, but Huckabee's relationship to him is irrelevent. His comments were though. I cited the date. If you have ANY problems tell ME. I WILL fix them. Edit wars is not the answer so I'd prefer if you told me what you thought was wrong and we discuss it. Shogun108 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dumas characterization should remain the section. Huckabee does have a history with Norquist. In 2001, ATR (Norquist organization) praised Huckabee calling him friend of the taxpayer. In 2006, Norquist dismissed Huckabee calling him a serial tax increaser. In 2007, Huckabee signs ATR's pledge. Jmegill 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Before changing it let's wait for a third fourth or even fifth opinion. I don't think it adds or detracts anything from the passage and as such seems irrelevant. So I guess I'll consider it, but not too much because we are talking about Huckabee not Norquist Shogun108 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

More Comments on Edits

The edit on Huckabee's first term is not supported by the source. The bond issue vote happened on June 15, 1999. The vote passed 80-20. Huckabee signed the bill two months earlier on April 1, 1999. Taxes went up immediately upon signing the bill. Now, logically, how can 80% of the state support a tax increase two months before they voted on it? The source clearly states that the bond vote does not affect the tax increases. The bond vote is only on whether Arkansas issues bonds to speed up road repair or uses the tax increase to finance road repair on a pay as you go basis. The source is copyrighted material which I paid for from a newspaper archive, but I am more than willing to email anybody who asks for the full article in question if they have any doubts about it. I emailed the full article in question on September 3 to the editor in question. The second edit "because of previous years of mismanagement" is POV and will be removed. The Jim Cooper quote should be place in the fiscal record subsection since it is dated Oct. 13, 2007 and is designed to counter criticism. Jmegill 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is that editors read the relevant documents before making edits. This is the bond issue act signed on April 1, 1999. http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/1999/scripts/ablr/bills/bills.asp?billno=HB1500 and this is the gasoline and diesel tax increase also signed on April 1, 1999 http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/1999/scripts/ablr/bills/bills.asp?billno=HB1548 Jmegill 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish??

Why isn't there an Español link in the "In other languages" box?? I found an article at es.wikipedia.org, so does someone know how to get it linked here?? 67.149.116.181 —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Morphh ^(talk) 16:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Stated,Asserted

Information from the campaign or candidate should be sourced as coming from the campaign or candidate. Information which comes from a reliable third party source can be stated as fact. This is my reasoning for the last revert. Jmegill 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

All of my recent changes have been to preserve information about Janet Huckabee, maintain what has already been put in the fiscal record section and to accomodate useful edits. Jmegill 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Forums

I am not sure that Huckabee has an official campaign forum. The candidate would want to control the message and allowing others to post in the forum would interfere with that. I have been unable to find a link to an official forum on Huckabee's campaign website. There are links to http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/ but they are only found in the comments section of the blog. This does not suggest endorsement of the site. Reading the "About Us" section of Hucksarmy, they do not claim to be an official forum either. Whois for Hucksarmy returms Bill Goins, whose name appears nowhere on MikeHuckabee.com. Where is the evidence that Hucksarmy or MikeHuckabeeforums.com is an official forum? Jmegill 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Amendment One of 1996

Does anyone know where I can find the text of the actual Amendment one that was on the ballot in 1996? The Amendment established a minimum property tax of 25 mils (Arkansas property is assessed on 20% of the value). Supposedly, only 6 out of 311 school districts were below 25 mils. The Amendment received support from David Pryor, Mike Beebe, Ron Russell of the Ark Chamber of Commerce (and other business leaders) and was Jim Guy Tucker's idea. Huckabee didn't have to support it and the issue was contentious for Tucker. I am unclear over how redistributionist the formula was and whether this represented a significant change in terms of tax burden and also school expenditures. One source says, " All money raised by school taxes in 319 individual districts would have to come to Little Rock and be dispersed statewide. That way, the same amount of money would be spent on every child in public schools regardless of how rich or poor the child's district" and "a measure to redistribute local property tax money to equalize school funding statewide.". Also, "At its heart is a provision to remove constitutional restrictions on distributing local property tax proceeds statewide to even out big differences in education funding available to rich school districts and poor ones." Also, "The amendment requires that districts that bring in more money per student than specified in the funding formula send the extra money to the state for redistribution" Also, "It would require that all school districts earmark for the state an amount of money equal to the revenue generated by a 25-mill tax; the state would ensure that the money is distributed among the districts. The amendment would not force a tax increase in most school districts, and each district would keep any revenue it generates in excess of the state minimum. " A letter writer complains, "Amendment 1 means the end of local control. If it passes, Arkansas, like several other reform states, will begin an impossible fight to regain local control of their schools, lost when a state mandates "equalizing funding.""

The Alternatives mentioned to Amendment 1 were tax increases or a school consolidation program. (school consolidation did later end up happening, but Huckabee later ended up endorsing a plan of consolidation) The previous year, some persons had to pay a 10% income surcharge. I would appreciate any insight on this issue. Jmegill 03:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Janet Huckabee: "controversy"?

Although the section about Mr. Huckabee and his wife running on the same ticket may be an interesting piece of trivia, it hardly merits listing under the "controversy" section. Is it controversial for Mrs. Clinton to run for the same office her husband once held? Please.

I suggest the section either be removed or relocated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.30.198 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is significant. The Times article mentioned that the run almost cost Mike Huckabee the Governor's race in 2002. It was a major campaign issue and the Republican party in Arkansas was more than a little angry at the Huckabee. Maybe putting in my context like Janet Huckabee's offensive comments towards Jews or use of a state airplane would help the reader see why the voters abandoned Janet on this race, but I don't care to go in too much detail here. Jmegill 02:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you and the rest of HucksArmy move on. You've got half a dozen editors assaulting this page to whitewash the article. This was discussed by reputable editors of Wikipedia dedicated to the process, and it was felt that the criticism of consolidation of power within one family and particularly under Mike Huckabee's guidance was notable. ThuranX 02:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering RFC

I wanted to mention this on the talk page before I do this as perhaps a short discussion will make it unnecessary but I have discussed it in the past and the article continues to concern me. If we do submit this for request for comment, please don't take it as anything against the editors working to improve the article. Sometimes things just need a little more discussion from external sources to get us on the proper path (if any issue is found). Due to the sensitivity of BLP with regard to a U.S. presidential candidate, we need to be very cautious and make sure we're presenting the material in the most neutral way. My concerns are with the controversy section and issues with WP:BLP particularly regarding BLP criticism, NPOV article structure, and NPOV undue weight. When looking at the table of contents, the controversy overwhelms the article and gives undue weight to headers that do not reflect important areas to the subject's notability in comparison with the rest of the article structure. Take a look at the John Stossel article before and after, which underwent a similar process of BLP / article structure and undue weight changes. All the important content and criticism is still there but it is presented in a way that does not bias the article and puts it in context for the overall biography. I'm not sure how best to address it but I thought perhaps an RFC would get some opinions of other editors that are not as vested as our longtime editors and HucksArmy. The consensus my be no changes, and I can accept that, but I think we need to have more discussion for this high profile biography. Morphh ^(talk) 15:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My comment on the latest edit (tdl1060) is that this particular criticism is better on the Presidential campaign page and/or where it was. I think I am going to revert it because it deletes some of the Huckabee's team response to criticism on fiscal matters and takes an absolutist anti-Huckabee stance with regards to the fuel tax. In general, I would like to see material move from the Controversy section to other parts of the article rather than the other way around. I would like not to see sub-subsections in the controversies part because that makes structural POV allegations easier to lodge. The way the article is now is two parts: his life told chronologically and then his life told thematically. Early life, early political career, and Governor of Arkansas is a chronology. Poltical position, Controversy, Presidential ambitions, Health advocacy are themes. It appears to me that the Stossel article was mainly changed by eliminating subcategories of Criticisms. A couple sentences of the health care and pesticide criticism were dropped as well as the section on school choice/education. The article has a similar format: chronological and then thematically. Let me ask you: should the Controvery section be renamed "Awards, Praise and Controversy" like it is on the Stossel article? One could make a case that that would mitigate structural POV allegations. My thinking on the question is politicians, by their very nature of being politicians, attract criticism or controversy. Being overly concerned about NPOV when dealing with politicians sanitizes the articles. I think the criticism should stand as well as the politicians response to such criticism. That is one reason why I am against the deletion of Rudy Giuliani's controversy page. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani I've repeated this before: school consolidation/Lake View lawsuit is big issue with regards to the Huckabee, yet I don't fully understand this issue and the sourcing on it (such as Jim Holt's proposed legal end run around the court) is incomplete. This also has a tie-in to national standards testing in Arkansas and educational spending. I am thinking that a catchall "Education" section might useful to describe this issue thematically. Jmegill 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not targeting deleting any criticism - I'll leave that up to the normal discussion/editing, although some might benefit from a little summarization in a restructure or might be better placed in other Huckabee articles as you describe. I would like to see some of the sections integrated where possible as described in WP:CRITICISM. I also see the change in structure from chronological to themes that you describe. The larger theme subheadings, such as Political positions, Controversy, and Presidential ambitions seem to be appropriate but many of the smaller "issue" headings should be looked at. I don't care for the "Books" or "Health advocacy" being main sections either. Books should be integrated into a life or profession section either titled "Author" or just a paragraph without a header. Health advocacy should also be integrated or subsectioned under some area of his life. Sections under Controversy, which could be renamed to include praise, should be integrated to other areas where appropriate or combined into broader section titles that do not reflect a list criticisms. This also helps remove areas for trolling. Perhaps the entire structure should be considered. Maybe we should do larger themes over the chronological by breaking it down into sections in "Early life & education" and "Personal life". Then a main section on his Professional career. Then perhaps a section on controversy and praise. Morphh ^(talk) 1:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems the RFC has done nothing and this is only getting worse. I've made a post to the BLP noticeboard to try and get this moving. This is getting too close to the primaries to not do something quickly. Morphh ^(talk) 21:39, 03 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Wikipedia has time constraints? To what end? to hype the candidate? Absurd. Articles move at the pace they move at, no faster nor slower. That this article moves slowly in some aspects is due to the obvious and clear agitation of HucksArmy, who've been discussing this page on their forum for weeks. We have to evaluate every single edit more closely, revert more, and so on. NO agenda pushing here. 'hurrying' to reach some rather arbitrary content or viewpoint benchmark in time for primaries is against our core policies. ThuranX 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, my thoughts on urgency are related to the effects regarding BLP and the harm that could be caused due to non-neutral presentation. BLP certainly has time constraints depending on the content such as the statement "removed immediately and without discussion". Wikipedia is obviously a source of information for some considering candidates.. be it Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton... If we have an article on one of the candidates during the period of time for which most people are looking to gain information and Wikipedia is presenting Huckabee in a way that biases the article (as I described above) - I think that is of great concern and should be delt with quickly. Wikipedia could do "harm" by not following the policies of BLP and thus effect his chances at election because of our presentation. It may not matter in three months - the harm will already be done. Doesn't matter to me what candidate you're for, we should all have the goal of presenting the material neutrally here. Morphh ^(talk) 14:48, 04 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take Morph's suggestion and Make "Controversy" into "Awards, Praise and Controversy". Huckabee's weight loss can be included in there as well as his promotion of marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Context?

Link [3] Brian Pearson 01:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The context was back in August when there were arguments over whether to describe Huckabee as a fiscal moderate, a fiscal liberal or a economic populist. Ultimately, it was dropped from the introduction.Jmegill 06:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the man can be described without the labels. Brian Pearson (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Expunging of Data Upon Leaving Governor's Office

I removed this from the main article for some discussion. The only thing here that makes this anything to consider is the last statement, which links to a self described liberal blog. I don't see that the statement that "some political commentators to cry foul" is supported in the article. This is not a reliable source and the accusation could be very close to libelous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Morphh ^(talk) 15:53, 04 December 2007 (UTC)

Shortly before announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States, Huckabee ordered that the drives of 83 personal computers and 4 servers during his transition phase in leaving office. According to Claire Bailey, director of the Arkansas Department of Information Systems, the governor’s office chose a combination of writing over the data and destroying the hard drives. This controversial move has led some political commentators to cry foul, as the measures he took seem excessive unless he had something to hide.

The expunging of the data is not sourced and does not provide Huckabee's reply, which has to do with safeguarding personal information. With regards to issues which are more important, Huckabee's record on schools and education, as well as his attempts to promote marriage are most important. Jmegill 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, I think that the Author section should go at the bottom of the page. The Presidential ambitions section can be slimmed down and the information therein transferred to the presidential race page. Jmegill 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter too much but why do you think that Author or Books should go at the bottom? Being an author (one of his professions) and discussing his books seems like something that would go before the theme based praise/criticism. I won't consider this as a references section or further reader. The bullets should be removed and the section should be expanded to discuss the books a little more. Morphh ^(talk) 18:13, 04 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say because that's how I've seen it done on other pages, but that's how I've seen it done on other pages. It's not a terribly good reason. As a list it should go at the bottom with the references, but if the section goes into detail, then it could warrant a higher placement on the page. I have only read "Character is the Issue" of the five books. The book is important in describing Huckabee's beliefs and outlook. Perhaps under Awards, Praise, Theme, and Controversy, there can be a section describing how Huckabee views the world Jmegill 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, one of Huckabee's professions was public speaker. He did some professional speaking for side income when he was lt. gov. Jmegill 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A passage from "Character is the Issue" reads, "Here's the bottom line not just for Arkansas and America, but for the world: one worldview will prevail. Either by numbers or persuasion, one side of this polarized culture will defeat the other in setting public policy. When two irreconcilable views emerge, one is going to dominate. Ours will either be a worldview with humans at the center or with God at the center. Standards of right and wrong are either what we establish as human beings (standards which can be changed to suit us), or they are what God has set in motion since the creation of the world and cannot be moved." page 137. I put this out there to show what I meant in the previous comment. Jmegill 19:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)