Jump to content

Talk:Mike Huckabee/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

POV fork article

Because the article Controversies of Mike Huckabee is an orphan, I'm adding a comment here for exposure in addition to its talk page. I've tagged it as POV with my reasoning on the talk page. --Elliskev 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That article shouldn't exist. It deserves AfD nomination. Jmegill (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Morphh (talk) 0:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger_proposal2

The split articles, Mike Huckabee and Controversies_of_Mike_Huckabee are a POV fork. This is essential the same discussion as the merger of merging Mike Huckabee and Mike Huckabee controversies which happened in December. Previous discussion is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Merger_proposal Jmegill (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of Controversies_of_Mike_Huckabee is mentioned already in Mike_Huckabee, although in less detail. Some sections are not mentioned. Here are my comments on each individual section.

1.1 Fiscal record

The following is information which is only found on the Controversies page: In January 2007 on Meet the Press, Huckabee said "I think you've got to be very careful. I wouldn’t propose any new taxes. I wouldn’t support any. But if we’re in a situation where we are in a different level of war, where there is no other option, I think that it’s a very dangerous position to make pledges that are outside the most important pledge you make, and that is the oath you take to uphold the Constitution and protect the people of the United States."[20] Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, who in 2006 called the governor a “serial tax increaser,"[21] stated recently, "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."

1.2 Illegal immigration

All information here is covered on the main page or in the political positions page

1.3 Gift Registry

Covered on the main page

1.4 Wayne DuMond case

Covered on the main page and in the Wayne DuMond article

1.5 Other Pardons

The information here is not covered on the main page. I argued here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Eugene_Fields that it was not important enough.

1.6 The Huckabee's Political Runs

This is covered on the main page

1.7 Public comments

This is covered on the main page

1.8 Expunging of data upon leaving governor's office

This is covered on the main page

1.9 David Huckabee and Killing of Dog

This is covered on the David Huckabee page

1.10 Investments

The information here is not covered on the main page. Discussion here indicated that it was not important enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Investments_Section

The Controversies article can be deleted. In my opinion, the only part worth saving is paragraph above in the fiscal record section. That information should go on the presidential campaign page. Jmegill (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged. I think I merged it last time, too. Paisan30 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Elliskev 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need all the quotes in the above fiscal section. Just put a simple statement that Huckabee stated that he wouldn’t support any tax increases unless we are in a different level of war, where there is no other option. Perhaps a statement about the pledge. Summarize in our own words and source it. Morphh (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bold Text

Whoever added "Nevertheless, like many in the Republican party, Huckabee's position has evolved, particularly after the bruising immigration reform fight in the summer of 2007. On December 6, 2007, he released a nine-point immigration enforcement and border security plan.[1] These were modeled on a ten-point plan proposed in 2005 by Mark Krikorian.[2][3] On January 16, 2008, Huckabee became the first presidential candidate to sign Americans for Better Immigration's No-Amnesty pledge. In response, Roy Beck's organization raised his rating on illegal immigration to EXCELLENT.[4] Huckabee continues to speak for the dignity of legal immigrants. In the January 10 Republican debate he said that all immigrants "ought to live with their heads up.. We ought to have the assumption that everybody here is legal, that nobody here is illegal."[5]" to the article is clearly POV pushing. RobRedactor (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, none of this text belongs under the second term. It all deals with events after the end of the governship. It belongs on the political positions page or the campaign page.

"Roy Beck, whose 1.5 million member organization NumbersUSA played a major role in defeating the Senate immigration bill, calls Huckabee "an absolute disaster as governor of Arkansas... Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens." Huckabee responded by saying if voters are looking for the toughest guy on immigration, he's not their man.[113] Nevertheless, like many in the Republican party, Huckabee's position has evolved, particularly after the bruising immigration reform fight in the summer of 2007. On December 6, 2007, he released a nine-point immigration enforcement and border security plan.[114] These were modeled on a ten-point plan proposed in 2005 by Mark Krikorian.[115][116] On January 16, 2008, Huckabee became the first presidential candidate to sign Americans for Better Immigration's No-Amnesty pledge. In response, Roy Beck's organization raised his rating on illegal immigration to EXCELLENT.[117] Huckabee continues to speak for the dignity of legal immigrants. In the January 10 Republican debate he said that all immigrants "ought to live with their heads up.. We ought to have the assumption that everybody here is legal, that nobody here is illegal."[118]" RobRedactor (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Present tense in the intro line

[A few days ago], I changed the first line from "Mike Huckabee was the governor or Arkansas..." to "Mike Huckabee is an American politician..." The reason I did so is that I believe the first line should refer to subjects in the past tense if they are no longer alive (or, at least, if they are no longer in the news). What makes Mike Huckabee most notable is not that he was the governor, but that he is currently a politician, running for president.

For some reason, ThuranX reverted my edit, apparently misinterpreting the irony in my "because he is still quite alive" edit summary as the whole reason for using the present tense. I've reverted that change, for the reason stated above. If any editors think it appropriate to refer to this current candidate for the presidency in the past tense, let them give their rationale here.--HughGRex (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your logic makes sense to me. Morphh (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions section

I remove an unsourced quote in this section and Appealtoheaven decided to put it back and say he fixed the link. I removed it again because it was a controversial topic and unsourced. I also removed where it said he has a "mixed record on immigration." That is subjective. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 18:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I had removed where it says he supports Amnesty, because he says he is against it on his website. However, a user came and restored what I had removed. I plan to remove it again if there are no objections here anytime soon, but for now I will be placing a template at that section that says it contradicts what is said on his website. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Political positions includes past political positions. Late last year, Huckabee was supporting a "touch-back" proposal which some people see as amnesty. It would be better to quote Huckabee's own words on the touch-back proposal than to just call it amnesty. This video was from Dec 9, 2007. "But that pathway to get here would not take years. It would take days, maybe weeks." RobRedactor (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a quick correction but it could be improved. The source used for the statement had him saying he didn't believe in amnesty, so it was incorrect to say he did support it. It would be better to explain the plan as some people consider it amnesty and some don't. Morphh (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Huckabee has stated a number of different things regarding immigration. The Washington Times printed a story saying that Huckabee retreated on birthright citizenship and does not support ending birthright citizenship. Actually, Huckabee didn't retreat so much as Gilchrist started putting words in Huckabee's mouth. http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080109/NATION/992492919/1002 Huckabee does not support an end to birthright citizenship and the immigration section as it is now is incorrect. Whatever the content under the immigration section, it is going to be incomplete. I propose having the section link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#Immigration because it is impossible to describe the position(s) past and present without listing the history. RobRedactor (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

News Release: Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee statement on Constitutional Amendment regarding citizenship birthright January 08, 2008 LITTLE ROCK, AR -- Former Arkansas Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has issued the following comment in response to a Washington Times article reporting he would amend the Constitution in connection to children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens:

"I do not support an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens. I have no intention of supporting a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship." http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=484 RobRedactor (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dumond case/"illegal" meeting

After reviewing the source for this comment, I deleted it. It was sourced only to (pretty much directly quoted from) an opinion/analysis piece by a newspaper reporter. The law he bases his opinion on is hardly clear -- it says, for example, that "executive sessions" may be held for only one purpose -- then later allows those sessions for other purposes. (The relevant law also includes a standard "except as provided elsewhere" clause, which makes the reporter's opinion even shakier.) I think the text I deleted was inadequately sourced and for too broadly stated. There's a large difference between an "illegal meeting" and a legal meeting where a government board may have violated recordkeeping or public access requirements, and the article should be clear on that point if it speaks to it at all. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually ,the article is explicit in citing the laws that appear to have been broken. Articles don't garner awards by being attack pieces. I have restored the text. ThuranX (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What it says is it "appears to have been a violation of the state’s Freedom of Information Act", not an "apparent violation of Arkansas law". Who's voice or opinion is that - see NPOV policy? Has he been charged with anything? We can not state this using Wikipedia voice as a statement of fact that there has been an apparent violation of law. You could phrase it that so and so states that it appears to have been a violation of ..." but you can't state this as fact that there was a violation of law. That is someone's opinion and does it merit weight.. is it a widespread opinion? He hasn't been charged with any violation. This type of charge, written in this way, is a violation of BLP. Morphh (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The article does say it appears that meeting in executive session in this case appears to be in violation of state FOIA laws that require open meetings of state agencies. However, Huckabee did not convene the session . . . the board chair did. I think the article is important to keep because of what occurred at the meeting, but the text should not be written to imply that Huckabee himself did anything illegal by meeting in executive session. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The state's FOIA is a state law. That which appears becomes 'apparent', violation = violation, The state = Arkansas, FOIA - Law. It's a fully sourced item. No one has stated there was a violation, we've stated that there appears to be one, exactly as the reporter has done. There's nothing controversial here, and given that the article won awards, I find it highly unlikely that the reporter didn't do his homework. We've reported exactly as our source has done. This constant pro-Huckabee whittling down of the Wayne Dumond case is wearing thin. Too many cooks spoil the broth, and that's what we're seeing here. Too many editors adding sugar to the recipe, to make Huckabee as sweet as can be. This section has probably had more fights than any other, even to the point of some arguing that it should be totally removed as wholly non-notable, or negative about Huckabee, and thus a BLP violation. When fully sourced material shows someone screwed up, it's not a BLP violation negative attack, it's neutral information about the negative acts of the subject. That's what we had, and until there's a valid argument that's not semantics based, the section should remain. The onus of change is on the changer, not those maintaining the SQ. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't appreciate the charge of adding any suger. Does Huckabee state that he violated the law?! Of course not. Has he been convicted or even charged with violation of the law?! No It is someone's opinion that he apparently violated the law. So we have to present it as this per NPOV policy. I'm not saying we can't included it. I'm saying that you can't include it like it is currently stated. You!! have to show that it should be included per policy and that it does not violate BLP and NPOV policy, not us! BLP - "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." I don't dispute the content but the presentation, as stated above. You have three people here saying it should not be included like that. You are out of line to keep reverting it like this. NPOV states - Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." Morphh (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Morphh and ThuranX, please stop undoing each others edits. If this continues, it could constitute an edit war and I don't want to see that happen. Please try to handle this calmly. Burner0718(Jibba Jabba!) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
THe argument that Huckabee didn't say he did wrong is ridiculous. How many guilty people admit it? ThuranX (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, then he must be guilty. Let's treat it as one sided and fact. Guilty as charged or not charged or something like that... ;-) Keep in mind for BLP we don't even describe those convicted of a crime as guilty, unless perhaps they admitted the guilt. We describe them as being convicted or being found guilty. There is a difference as, if they dispute it, they may later be found not guilty. Morphh (talk) 0:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Morphh (talk) 0:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Baiting for a fight now, are you? ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Guess it was a bit over the top - Haha. I got a bit wound up, but all is good. Morphh (talk) 1:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I think we've got acceptable wording below. ThuranX (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I added the bit saying "in apparent violation of Arkansas law", after reading about it our article on DuMond (Wayne_DuMond#Arkansas_parole_controversy) and being struck by its omission here. I did not think through the BLP issues fully, but I'm sure it can be improved to address these concerns. How about something like this? "On 31 October 1996, Huckabee met privately with the parole board to talk about the DuMond case. The Arkansas Times has argued that this closed-door meeting seemed to violate Arkansas law." -- Avenue (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine. Morphh (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dropped the 'seems to', that's needless equivocating. Inclkkude the law violated. "On 31 October 1996, Huckabee met privately with the parole board to talk about the DuMond case. The Arkansas Times has argued that this closed-door meeting violated Arkansas' FOIA law." That would be acceptable to me. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I would replace "seems to" with the term used in the article - "appears to" or "appeared to". They argued that it appeared to have violated the law. There is a difference with regard to authority and charge. Morphh (talk) 0:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Done Morphh (talk) 0:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Grown children

Is grown children common in the US? I would say the more common phrasing in Commonwealth English would be adult children. Grown sounds funny Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The fence =

Uhh, what fence? Context please, or I go and figure out how to mark the article with "doesnt represent a world view". 76.10.166.140 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

be specific please? what are you referring to? ThuranX (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Although I'm not really into the subject I really want to object to the way the lead is phrased. The lead should be an introduction to his notability and not a bunch of trivial facts about his personal life. There should be more interesting things to say about him than that he lost a lot weight or that he plays in a cover band. Lankhorst (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is recalling what but the dispute of the logo (Talk:Mike Huckabee/Archive_2#inclusion_of_campaign_logos), which was discussed on all the candidate articles, was for inclusion. All the logos were added back to the articles as far as I remember. Anastrophe made an argument for their removal but I'm pretty sure consensus was to leave them. Morphh (talk) 21:12, 06 February 2008 (UTC)

Foot in mouth.. that's right.. we did remove it for copyright reasons on this article... although none of the other candidates did. I must have been remembering the overall argument. Not sure where we are on this now. The logo seems to fall under fair-use. Morphh (talk) 21:23, 06 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a better guarantee than 'seems to'. I'm not sure it does. If you can get someone from over at the copyright issues pages to come over and give us a green light ,it can go in. Until then, please leave it out. We have consensus here that it's out, so until the actual information regarding fair use is clarified, leave it out. Thank you for the self correction, Morphh. ThuranX (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough to me... Morphh (talk) 14:09, 07 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Rtr10 has chosen to edit war, and I've decided that since he's basically decided to invoke IAR repeatedly, I'm just walking away. He has accused me of vandalism and has been unwilling to discuss this, despite being referred to various prior discussions and so on. He's not going to work with us, and I would rather spend my time on here elsewhere. This article has become too combative, thanks to the HucksArmy contingent of editors, whose actions have received no sanctions, despite numerous appeals to the Admins. Admisn can clean it up then, I'm not going to. ThuranX (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Tuesday Victories

I notice that the "2008 presidential campaign" section of the article mentions Huckabee's win in West Virginia but not his wins in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee. I would add this crucial information myself but I am not a registered user. Would someone please fix it? Thanks! 71.251.47.202 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Yoninah, for adding his other wins to the article. That makes the article so much more informative. 71.251.47.202 (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is missing information, please add

The article has a pad lock on it so I can't add anything. I was looking this article up and had to look outside Wikipedia to find the answer. So could you fix it for me if you can.

Under pastoral career, it says: Prior to his political career, Huckabee was pastor of several Southern Baptist churches in Arkadelphia, Texarkana, and Pine Bluff, Arkansas

Let's change it to prior to his political career, Huckabee was pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Pine Bluff (1980-86) and Beech Street Baptist Church in Texarkana (1986-92). ref: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=108

I am not from Arkansas but I wanted to know where he was pastor. Wikipedia says "several". To me, that's 3-15. The true answer is two. I have no interest in the presidential election, just wanted to know his pre-political career. Indy501 talk 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need that level of detail? Neither has a wikipage, neither is particularly notable, and it reads more like advertising a minor detail than anything of importance. ThuranX (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A wikipage is not a requirement to list a fact. If we are looking for big facts, why not leave out who his parents were or what small college he went to? The level of detail is fine. I did not ask to include the fact that he was a choir director in 1979 or whatever position that reference noted. Indy501 (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanding public comments and questions about campaign strategy

There's a huge number of new sources referring to Huckabee's use of biblical allusions in his speeches. NPR (and other outlets) ran segments analyzing whether Huckabee's audience actually understood what he was saying, and the answer was a resounding no, nobody had a clue what Huckabee was talking about. What kind of "winning" campaign strategy employs unintelligible speeches? Perhaps these issues could be addressed in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 14:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some links or citations we can work from? ThuranX (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I just thought you folks would already be aware of it. Let me see what I can dig up for you. —Viriditas | Talk 08:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

  • NPR:Hagerty, Barbara Bradley (2008-02-08). "Understanding the Gospel According to Huckabee". Election 2008. National Public Radio. Retrieved 2008-02-06.
  • ABC News: Tapper, Jake (2008-02-06). "Huckabee Wins Big in South, Challenges for Conservative Vote". Politics. ABC News. Retrieved 2008-02-06.

Removed text

"* In 2007, in the wake of the controversy of his ad attacking Mitt Romney, he explained that the mainstream media might be "filing a bad story" right now, and if the bloggers were relying on the same wireless system at the hotel, they might be "clogging up the lines" and preventing them from filing. "If that’s the case, thank you. You're doing the Lord's work."[6]"

Until someone can prove to me that this is a "political position", I think it stays out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos2546 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

As of 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC), this article is 95 kilobytes long. Per WP:LEAD, the recommended lead section for an article > 30,000 characters is three or four paragraphs. Presently, the lead section consists of more or less than 100 words, which amounts to between 1-1.5 paragraphs. Please help expand the lead section to at least twice its present size, taking into account a summary of the most important points in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a guideline, not a mandate. Just increasing it to get a suggested word count opens this up to a lot of unneeded bloating. The current lead hits the big things and is compact and tight. ThuranX (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a good guideline, and it helps layout a summary of the article. There's nothing about doing it just to get a word count. The current lead does not summarize the article, and fails to mention the most important points, such as Huckabee's call to ammend the U.S. Constitution to support his political and religious beliefs, and his use of biblical allusions in his speeches. The current lead mentions that Huckabee is "well known for having lost 110 pounds and advocating a healthy lifestyle", while ignoring his controversial political and religious beliefs which he is obviously well known for to the general public. I doubt the majority of Americans, or the world for that matter, are even cognizant of his weight loss and diet. This does not "hit the big things" or even come close to addressing them. I can't see how anyone could describe expanding the current lead as "bloating"; it's not even a lead section. Try reading the lead sections for all the current and former candidates to get a good idea of how it is done. This lead section fails at every level. —Viriditas | Talk 13:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The article actually only has 47k of readable prose (or around 40,000 characters) but I do agree that the lead should be expanded to better summarize the article. I think three paragraphs would be appropriate. I tried to do this a while back but it was reduced again. What to include and how to include it becomes a battle. This has to be written as an overall biography and summary of the article and not what is the hot or controversial thing on the news tonight, which can sometimes be difficult. I agree with ThuranX that we don't want to bloat it but I do think we can do a better job of summarizing the article. The lead is the most important and most often read part of an article and should represent a well written overview. We should have at least a statement that summarizes each section of the article. If a summary of a section is not important enough to include in the lead, then we should consider if it should be a section in the article or if it would be better to integrate it into another section or make it a sub-section. The sections should represent important aspects to the persons notability, and each should be mentioned in the lead. Morphh (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead states in the first paragraph who Huckabee is, what he was, and what he is trying to achieve. It should be expanded to also list his major accomplishments: The second paragraph should briefly mention his background. Describe where he is from, where he has lived, where he attended school, and the highlights of his career. This is a good place to add the Southern Baptist minister qualification. In the third paragraph, list his most notable political positions, and describe his personal life and work as an author. —Viriditas | Talk 15:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should consider anty edits back here first. I'll start that section below, general discussion can stay up here, and ideas below. ThuranX (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing the article is the purpose of the lead section. I don't see why this is a problem. And since this is a wiki that anyone can edit, I'm not sure why we need to post it here first. I would much rather that someone work on the lead and another editor make changes to their version, if necessary. FYI...I won't be editing this article. My approach is merely one of a passerby who attempted to gleam some information about Huckabee from this article and found that the lead section was uninformative. I had to spend time reading the article to find anything of interest, relevance, and notability. That's not how lead sections work. —Viriditas | Talk 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new Leads

Below are suggested new leads for the article. Place comments after each, and please use ====Suggestion by <Author>==== to separate your version from the others, so discussion stays localized to each version. Thank you.

Photo Question

I have 4 photos of Huckabee at a clan rally in south Arkansas. Would it be against poilicy to post these or links to them here?

If you took them and will comply with the GFDL, then no. ThuranX (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Statements

The first two controversial statements 'weight loss compared to concentration camp' and 'suicide awareness-gate' are so blown out of proportion as to be laughable. Could somebody have been offended by them?, Yes. Are they verifiable?, Yes. Do I answer my own questions?, Damn right I do. Look, not everything thats verifiable is encyclopedic and who hasn't made some kind of inappropriate comment here or there. Think if there was an encyclopedic article about your life. Would one of the most notable comments you ever said be (in response to a really hard assignment))) 'Oh it was just murder' Victims rights activists claim statement insensitive. Absolutely not. Its not encyclopedic. What next? Peta angry about Zachary Taylor's jokes about beating dead horses? --68.209.2.187 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Both have been discussed at length, and consensus was that making jokes about the murder of six million individuals, and being widely rebuked by national organizations, and having it covered nationally, mattered. there was also discussion in support of inclusion of the other. ThuranX (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
He wasn't "making jokes about the murder of six million individuals" anyone with half a brain understands that. It was an inapropriate analogy, but like the above user said who hasn't made one?--E tac (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy of Clemency for Conversion

I think it is important to point out that the case of Wayne DuMond was not a one-off occurrence.

From the Arkansas Leader:

"Other governors use their clemency power only rarely, while Huckabee has made it routine. As we've told you before, he has issued more than 700 pardons and commutations during his eight years in office – more than 137 this year alone – and more than his three predecessors combined.
Here are the figures for neighboring states since 1996, when Huckabee took office (and keep in mind the population of these states is nearly 20 times ours):
Louisiana – 213.
Mississippi – 24.
Missouri – 79.
Oklahoma – 178.
Tennessee – 32.
Texas – 98 (includes 36 inmates released because they were convicted on drug charges with planted evidence).
Total: 624 vs. Huckabee's 703.
And in a telling statistic, Huckabee offered clemency to 10 times as many inmates as previous Arkansas governor Bill Clinton."

I believe this overreaching "Clemency for Conversion" policy should be examined in greater detail, and the Wayne DuMond entry should exist as a suptopic of the larger article describing his historical policy of pardoning felons convicted of violent crimes after they have converted to Evangelical Christianity. The larger policy has not been discussed satisfactorily on any talk forum as of yet.

I will work on getting a citation for the specific day of that article from the Arkansas Leader. MicrocreditSA (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, then, about the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not a talk forum website. Wikipedia is also not the right place for activist journalism, like examining his clemency policy in detail. Finally, even if you get those citations, I think that the high number can be used better as an intro to the dumond case, as that case has it's own cachet of notability, which overlaps, and supersedes the clemency situation, to judge from both the number of citations readily available for each topic, and the relative newness of your idea, which hadn't been previously covered. ThuranX (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
ThuranX, please don't bite the newbies. MicrocerditSA was clearly referring to the article discussion page when he used the term "talk forum". —Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use the article for the discussion. I thought that's the purpose of the talk pages. We can call it something different, I just think there should be more context about his general policy. If the policy was indeed so far-reaching I think it deserves mention in the article. MicrocreditSA (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but you're trying to use the talk page as a 'hey, look at this!' situation. you describe t as 'overreaching', which is a problem. You attempt to tie it to conversion, but the citation doesn't say that. It's more like agitating than accurate reporting. YOu need citations, good, solid ones, for each part of this. ThuranX (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's probably why he referred to the Arkansas Leader in his initial edit. Since it is a notable statistic covered by a reliable source, MicrocreditSA's attempt to cover it in this article is legitimate. I would suggest that you take a step back, ThuranX, as you seem to have some ownership issues with this article. —Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have ownership issues here, just NPOV issues. It's difficult to keep HucksArmy from slanting one way ,and from the Anti-Huckabee crowd from bending it the other way. I've asked for 'clemency for conversion' citations, none have been forthcoming. ThuranX (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point Thuran. However you go into an in depth discussion of Wayne Dumond which is just one of his clemencies. The statistics cited above provide more of a big picture view of his clemencies, which I believe is more important. I would rather that you spent less time discussing Dumond and more on this. In addition to the statistics cited above, he also pardoned 12 murders, which governors from other states almost never do. See

http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_08_11_04/huckabee8.html

You can balance it with Huckabee's comments justifying his clemences.

Esurveyguy (talk) 11:11, 08 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Addition Under Books

I'd like to suggest an addition under books and forewords by Mike Huckabee. He wrote the foreword for the humorous self-help book, "Nine Hallmarks of Highly Incompetent Losers," by Pat Reeder and Laura Ainsworth. Excerpts from the book and his foreword are online at http://www.comedy-wire.com/book/loser.htm

HHFi (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction on Tax Cutting statement

The article lists the Tax cutting statement He also signed the first broad-based tax cut in Arkansas's history.[78] under his second term. This occurred during the first part of his first term and should not be listed in the second term section. Also, a more complete discussion of his tax actions would include what Factcheck.org states as this:

The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration found that 90 tax cuts were enacted in legislative sessions from 1997 through 2005, while Huckabee was governor, and those cuts reduced tax revenues by $378 million. But Huckabee fails to mention the 21 tax increases that occurred under his watch and that raised revenues by substantially more. The total net tax increase under Huckabee's tenure was an estimated $505.1 million, says the Department of Finance and Administration's Whitney McLaughlin, adding that the figure has been adjusted for inflation.

See http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html

Esurveyguy (Talk) 07:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Acting Governor

Shouldn't Huckabee be listed as Acting Governor from July 1996 to January 1999? Isn't the Arkansas gubernatorial succession, the same as Masaschusetts? GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Huckabee's website countdown

What has happened to his website? Any idea of what the new announcement could be? It ends tommorow at noon EST. dposse (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased political articles

This is rediculous. I would edit this page and remove the Dumond and controversy sections but they would most likely get put back in. However, they really shouldn't be in here. Look at the Obama and Hillary pages. Obama has had so many controversies lately and there is not even one mentioned on his page. So we can either remove Huckabee's supposedly negative sections or else create all pages equal and make sure Obama and Hillary and everyone else get their fair share as well. Mentalhead (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Obama and Hillary pages have to do with this page. Since you mentioned it, though, the Jeremiah Wright controversy has a paragraph on Obama's page, and Hillary's page includes mentions of Whitewater, Lewinsky, Vince Foster, etc. Regardless, those articles are not the Mike Huckabee article. So either present an argument on why certain material should be removed from the Huckabee page, or go comment on the Obama and Clinton pages. Paisan30 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is all one big encyclopedia and all articles should be treated equally. I can tell that isn't happening here; Obama doesn't have an entire section dedicated to controversies. Let's make this professional and not let our own opinions affect how we edit articles, ok? Mentalhead (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason for editing a page. The Dumond case is significant and notable regarding Huckabee, and has been discussed at length here. It is also well known that the 'HucksArmy' editors continue to try to whitewash the man's history, and any attempt to reduce that section any more is likely to fail. POV pushing is not welcoome here. ThuranX (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that Huckabee is out of the race though, perhaps it can be more clearly seen what is something that is really notable in his biography. I agree that the Dumond case is, but some of his "controversial" (often joking) flash in the pan comments are nothing really notable when looking at his entire life and should likely be removed. Morphh (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Thuran - I couldn't find that page for some reason. That's what I was saying. I do agree that some of the "controversial statements" aren't needed on a bio page. Paisan30 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that as an aggregate, his ability to put his foot in his mouth is notable, as the sum of less notable single incidents which demonstrate a clear and common theme. I'd be good with taking it down to a paragraph or two about his blundering speaking manner as a whole, instead of a litany of individual bloopers. ThuranX (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardons?

According to Matt Taibi, he pardoned Keith Richards, a rock and roll legend, 31 years later, on a reckless driving charge. Does that deserve a mention? 216.165.95.5 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Smoking ban

As the author of the cited newspaper article regarding Huckabee's position on indoor workplace smoking bans, I'd like to suggest a portion of this entry be altered somewhat. Under the heading, #8.2 Weight loss and health advocacy, the entry reads:

At an August 2007 forum on cancer hosted by Lance Armstrong, Huckabee said he would support a federal smoking ban, but has stated that he believes the issue is best addressed by state and local governments.[224]

This sentence is misleading as it oversimplifies Huckabee's history on this issue and disregards the fact that he changed his public stance on whether the federal government should enact an indoor workplace smoking ban. This is clear in my original article in The Hill. First, it is material for the reader to know that Huckabee spearheaded the campaign in his home state of Arkansas to enact a statewide indoor workplace smoking ban. The Wikipedia entry makes no mention of this. Second, at the August 2007 event described in the entry and my story, Huckabee was unequivocal about the issue:

“If you are president in 2009 and Congress brings you a bill to outlaw smoking nationwide in public places, would you sign it?” [MSNBC host Chris] Matthews asked.

“I would, certainly would. In fact, I would, just like I did as governor of Arkansas, I think there should be no smoking in any indoor area where people have to work,” Huckabee responded, triggering applause from the crowd. ...

(An excerpt of Huckabee's answer can be viewed here and a full transcript of his remarks can be downloaded here.) Third, Huckabee changed his stated position on this issue when questioned by my newspaper in January 2008. Here is the full statement from his campaign:

“At a Lance Armstrong cancer forum last August, Governor Huckabee said that if Congress presented him with legislation banning smoking in public places, he would sign it, because he would not oppose the overwhelming public support that such a congressional vote would reflect. However, since such sentiment for federal legislation doesn’t exist at this time, and since he has said that the responsibility for regulating smoking initially lies with the states, the governor believes that this issue is best addressed at the local and state levels.”

For the sake of accuracy and brevity, I would recommend the Wikipedia entry be changed to read: As governor, Huckabee spearheaded a successful effort in 2006 to enact a ban on smoking in most indoor workplaces. At an August 2007 forum on cancer hosted by Lance Armstrong, he said he would support a federal smoking ban. In January 2008, however, Huckabee shifted his stance, saying he though he would sign such legislation were he president, he believes the issue is best addressed by state and local governments. Jeffrey Young
The Hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcydc (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) --jcyDC 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

References section

Seems to lose indexing at ref#173 but fixing it is way above my pay grade. --hydnjo talk 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

- Thanks Gadget850 --[[User:Hydnjo

|blp=yes|activepol=yes||hydnjo]] talk 12:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gaget850's comments from the help desk:

This was a good one:

  • When you hover over the ^ that begins the ref, it should popup with the backlink; the number at the end is one less than the ref number (it starts with 0). Look at ref 165— it pops up with 189.
    • Ref 164: the cite template was malformed- it does not end with }}
    • Ref 189, under "Controversial public comments" had a malformed citation template that began with one "{".
  • So- everything between 164 and 189 was being eaten by the template.
  • Also: Looking at 165 inline, it is <ref name="abcaids" />. The problem is that this named ref was defined two paragraphs down. It should have given an error, but I think it was suppressed by the malformed template.
  • You really need to work all of the cites into templates. The reference section looks awful with all of those long URLs cutting across the columns.
  • You should run the article through LinkChecker and weed out any dead links.

— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 09:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NRA Joke

Hi, I was just wondering if you all really think that little bit about Mike Huckabee making that terrible joke at his speech at the NRA event is really necessary. I think that's just purely an example of documenting the news headlines for the day. It really has no meaning after next week. People will completely forget about that in a month. Comments comparing his weight loss to a concentration camp victim are much more applicable to this section. I vote that the part is removed. I don't think Obama was offended at all, I think he's just still trying to figure out why Huckabee made such a horrible joke. -Brad 128.175.81.47 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but some editors feel every little news blurb is some big noteworthy criticism that will cost Huckabee the next whatever. That section fails several wikipedia criteria in a biography, IMO. Morphh (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed the comment. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a little more. It's at four paragraphs now, which I think should be a sufficient length to cover the main controversial statements. Morphh (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I support its'; inclusion, and I was on the side of trimming down the old version. This is a differnt situation. Instead of the situations where it's true foto in mouth, that is, inadvertently clumsy statements, he deliberately made an attack on a candidate. Deliberate is different than accidental, sothis is more important. ThuranX (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It didn't seem to be deliberate in the sense that he thought it through before hand. It was an off the cuff, tasteless joke. He was at the NRA, so he's already talking about guns. He has the main opponent on the mind - Obama, who is probably not all that welcome at the NRA. You hear a loud bang in the back.. It's not that far of a leap to quickly think of putting these things together in some bad joke. I haven't even seen this covered in the main news. You have to go looking for it, and I expect it is probably the reporting of the initial incident. This is not part of Huckabee's notability. If it becomes some big political football, then I would say yes.. include it. If Huckabee becomes VP, and it is splashed into some critical adds.. then ok. Right now, it's not anything people are going to remember past next week. Morphh (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Came here to see what the Wikipedia article had to say about this, and discover that the answer is nothing! I'm amazed, and disappointed.
a) It's the most idiotic, disgusting and hateful thing I've heard a major politician say in a long, long time. And it's certainly notable, having been covered extensively in the media.
b) The previous poster, apparently a Huckabee apologist, says, "It didn't seem to be deliberate in the sense that he thought it through before hand." Exactly! It's at times like this, when something unexpected happens, that we get a tiny glimpse of the true person. Not the politician facade, where he's trying to be what he thinks will score points with the audience. That's what makes the incident so scary. And notable.
Please restore some coverage of this incident. --RenniePet (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the news. I see the incident referenced a bit on the blogs but I haven't heard a word about it on the news - perhaps I'm watching at the wrong time. I'm not an apologist. It is not enough that the news was "notable" to print but to include in the article, it should contribute to Huckabee's notability - WP:BLP. So 5, 10, 20 years from now - what are the important parts of this man's biography important enough to put in an encyclopedia. Is it some offhand bad joke comment at the NRA? Perhaps.. but certainly not at this point. I haven't seen enough to convince me that this isn't more than the latest flash in the pan news story critical of a possible VP candidate. Morphh (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
CNN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/18/huckabee-lousy-joke-but-pretty-benign-issue/
BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/
I'm sure there's lots more. (There certainly should be, sheesh.) --RenniePet (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that it wasn't covered by the news or that it wasn't noteworthy news. It was a horribly stupid and inappropriate thing to say. So I have not doubt there are many sites that reported the initial incident, including the blogs you posted. Question is.. is this being continuously reported on.. is this a major event in the life of Mike Huckabee.. are daily news teams talking about how this will destroy Huckabee's chances as VP candidate... what makes this more than one story out of a thousand stories about Huckabee (regardless of how you perceive it to be "scary" and representative of his "true person"? Note that most sources (including yours) call it a lousy joke. Is this one bad joke part of Mike Huckabee's notability when viewed historically? Morphh (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK - fine. Anyone up to dealing with the "references" problem described in the previous (^) section? --hydnjo talk 02:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC) -- {{resolved}}
I would agree. The only real bigotry here is not in the joke, it's in making a big deal out of the joke. Mike Huckabee is a white, Evangelical man in his fifties. People out there are dying for him to say something racist because that is the mold they like to put all old, white, male, Christians in. I'm being completely fair. This wasn't a big deal. Stop trying to act as if it is, because that is all it is: acting. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, this has nothing to do with bigotry or racism. The fact that Obama is black has nothing to do with it. If Huckabee had made the same "joke" about Hillary Clinton it would have been exactly the same: hateful, disgusting and idiotic. You don't make fun about pointing guns at people, just like you don't make fun about serious sicknesses or life-threatening natural catastrophies, unless you're vicious or callous. --RenniePet (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Huckabee joining Fox News as commentator

Not sure if this has been included yet. I didn't catch it with a quick word scan. "Mike Huckabee, a former Republican presidential hopeful, has been hired by Fox News Channel as a political commentator."[1] Morphh (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In an earlier FOX News article Huckabee was called "The Biggest Big-Government Conservative:" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316496,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.146.247 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

False claim by Huckabee - June 27, 2008

As a Fox News commentator, on June 27 Mike Huckabee falsely claimed, "When Katrina, a Cat-5 hurricane, hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico." In fact, Hurricane Katrina damage "resulted in 70 spills from outer continental shelf structures with a total volume of approximately 11,104 barrels of oil and petroleum products, including damage to 27 platforms and rigs that resulted in the spilling of approximately 3,433 barrels of petroleum products and 2,252 barrels of crude oil and compensate." Source: Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely claimed "not one drop of oil was spilled" during Hurricane Katrina. Should this info be added to Mike Huckabee's biography under Controversial public comments or somewhere else? Cardinal Logan (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If MedaiMatters is the only one reporting it, then no. If it is being run across all the networks as national news and it contributes to Hackabee's notability, then yes. Morphh (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at their site, Huckabee isn't the only one with that misconception. I had no idea that there was oil spilled into the gulf because of Katrina (or, maybe I knew at the time and had forgotten). It doesn't belong in a bio though - media people make factual errors all the time. --B (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal Logan appears to be a paid of employee of Media Matters with the intention to adding as many links to Media Matters on wikipedia as possible even if they are not relevant or conflict with wikipedia policy. 99.145.171.54 (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith - He's only edited three articles and has done more discussion than editing. Understanding the weight to give content on biographies is not often easily apparent. Morphh (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Need sub-article

I saw this article as a GA candidate. I'd suggest writing a sub-article about his time as Governor. You can then decide the most pertinent parts of the sub-article to appear in this article and tighten the focus. It's hard to write but the article is a bit disjointed. Having sub-articles might bring it back into focus. Chergles (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike Huckabee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am failing its Good Article nomination. Here is (an unexhaustive) list of some of the problems that need to be worked on:

  • The lead is inadequate for such a long article. It should be 4 well developed paragraphs. See WP:LEAD.
  • Article length. This article is way past the desired article length. Please see WP:SUMMARY on how to shorten it.
  • WP:MOS problems, especially with WP:DASH
  • Short and choppy paragraphs that seem closer to a timeline than prose in some places
  • Citation needed tags
  • The political positions should be turned from bullets to prose
  • There are quite a few "bot generated titles" in the refs that need to be fixed
  • There are quite a few references that need formatting

I'd suggest a peer-review and a couple of good copy-edits by fresh eyes. Feel free to renominate when these issues are addressed. Thanks. Nikki311 17:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bariatric Surgery?

There is some [blog link removed] realistic analysis that shows that Huckabee's weight loss was the result of bariatric surgery instead of diet and exercise. Should this be added into his "personal life"? It seems relevant.--Thalia42 (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone (more than likely someone who has something against Huckabee) writes something on a BLOG doesn't mean its true. Blogs are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards and in this case is even more unacceptable since you are more than likely dealing with political motives. And coming from someone who knows and worked for Governor Huckabee, I can tell you with assurance he didn't have any type of weight-loss or gastric bypass surgeries. Came off the old fashion way, extremely strict diet and a lot of exercise. Rtr10 (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(Lucky you, Rtr...I'm sure Huck's a great guy...) 96.28.58.121 (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That Plutarch blog was clearly nothing but a political hit screed. He stopped posting after Huckabee dropped out. The mere idea that someone would have major surgery, which is what bariatric surgery is, and NO ONE would know it (with all the people involved in such a procedure) is simply absurd. Simplemines (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that Star Jones did the same thing, and denied it for quite a long time, I wouldn't be surprised. Apparently people like to claim that it's all hard work & will power, including the Huckster.--Thalia42 (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Governor section

I added an expansion tag to the section covering Huckabee's years as Governor. Apparently someone split that section off into its own article a few months ago and left only a link to the new article. Someone more familiar with Huckabee needs to provide a concise summary of that article to be used in both the "Governor" section here and to provide a lead for the newly created article. --Tom (talk - email) 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

question

Any relation to Melissa Huckaby, who is accused of killing Sandra Cantu? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Falsely claiming to have a theology degree

"I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamo fascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.224.83 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No mention of "Wayne DuMond"? Huckabee's article never mentions the word "Pardon"... way to go guys... very educational

2004

  • "Let us not whitewash governor's Clemencies", by Garrick Feldman, Arkansas Leader, July 28, 2004

2007

  • "The Story Mike Huckabee Dreads", by Byron York, The National Review, December 5, 2007
  • "Huckabee's role in rapist's parole comes under fresh scrutiny", by Dana Bash and Alexaner Mooney, CNN.COM, December 7, 2007
  • "Murder Victiim's Mother Assails Huckabee," CBS News.Com, December 5, 2007
  • "Paroled Rapist Could Haunt Huckabee," by Brian Montopoli, CBS News.Com, December 4, 2007
  • "Huckabee Aide: Gov Pushed For Rapist's Freedom," by Brian Ross, ABC News: The Blotter, December 5, 2007
  • "Former Aide Contradicts Huckabee Defense of Rapist's Release," by Murray Waas, Huffington Post, December 5, 2007
  • "Documents Expose Huckabee's Role in Serial Rapist's Release," by Murry Waas, The Huffington Post, December 4, 2007
  • "Hard Times For Huckabee," The Hotline -- National Journal, December 6, 2007
  • "Despite Victim's Pleas, Huckabee Pushed Rapist's Freedom," by Brian Ross and Joseph Rhee, ABC News: The Blotter, December 5, 2007
  • Huckabee and criminals: It's worse than just Wayne DuMond, JOE CONASON, Dec 14 2007

Now that I think about it a special section about Wayne Dumond or Clemmons might be too much. However these quotes from The Associated Press, and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette seem relvent to a section about Huckabee and Crime in general.

  • "As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee had a hand in twice as many pardons and commutations as his three predecessors combined. ... Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations in his 10 1/2 years as governor of Arkansas. The acts of clemency benefited the stepson of a staff member, murderers who worked at the governor's mansion, a rock star and inmates who received good words from their pastors. ... During his years as governor, Huckabee granted clemency an average of about once every four days. Huckabee's successor, Mike Beebe, has issued 40 so far this year, fewer than one a week. Bill Clinton, Frank White and [Jim Guy] Tucker granted 507 clemencies in the 17 1/2 years they served as governor." (Andrew DeMillo, "Huckabee Pardons Under Scrutiny," The Associated Press, 12/10/07)
  • "During his tenure, Huckabee has been criticized for his use of the clemency powers. Through April, the total sentence commutations issued by Huckabee were 146, including 12 for murderers, according to records at the secretary of state's office. A clemency can be either a sentence commutation or a pardon for someone who has already discharged his sentence, such as in Richards' situation." (Seth Blomeley, "It's A Gas, Gas, Gas: Rocker Seeks Pardon For '75 Fordyce Arrest," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 7/19/06)myclob (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Clemmons

Obviously, this article will have to now incorporate some mention of Huckabee's role in the early release of Maurice Clemmons, the suspect in the Lakewood police officer shooting, as well as the criticism Huckabee is now receiving as a result of it. It seems a user has already tacked a mention of Clemmons into the "Governor of Arkansas" section of the entry, which I'm not sure is the best way to handle it. So I'd like to seek some feedback here on the best way to work Clemmons into the page. Should we make a whole new subsection? Or work it into Possible 2012 presidential campaign? Any thoughts? — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are actually two separate mentions of it already, both under the "governor" section and in the 2012 section. We should be careful not to try to turn this into an attack page or get caught up in recentism; the incident seems large now because of the media coverage, but I don't think it warrants its own section when looked at in the context of his entire life. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Both of you, please review WP:NOTNEWS. This event doesn't even register on Huckabee's radar. Until it becomes a major event in Huckabee's life, it doesn't belong here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest you review NOTNEWS. Despite what the shortcut name suggests, it does not rule out adding current developments to existing articles. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's naive to suggest that this should be whitewashed from his article altogether, as some editors seem to be suggesting. I'm not saying it should be a major part of the entry (which is why I started the discussion here), but widespread, public, worldwide commentary or criticism and scrutiny in reliable, secondary sources related to a major national event is notable and warrants inclusion to at least some degree. Unless we want to go through the Michael Dukakis page and remove all references to Willie Horton... — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, after giving it some thought, I would suggest this:
  1. Remove the item from the "Governor of Arkansas" section altogether. Since that section is so small (with a link to the main article on the top), mentioning it here at all would give it undue weight.
  2. Limit mentions of the item in the Governorship of Mike Huckabee article to one or two sentences along with the info about other acts of clemency he committed during his time as governor.
  3. Include the event in the "Possible 2012 presidential campaign", but limit it to 2-4 sentences. Something like, "In 2009, Maurice Clemmons, an ex-convict who had his sentenced commuted in 2000, was accused of killing four police officers in Lakewood, Washington. The event led to criticism of Huckabee's role in his early release, with some suggesting it could damage his presidential hopes in 2012. Huckabee released a statement the day of the shooting, saying, 'Should he be found to be responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington State.'" That's it. I don't think that gives it any undue weight. We could revise the wording, of course, or make some cuts if need be, but I think this addresses the issue without going too over-the-top. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. Anything about what it might mean if Clemmons is found guilty (or found at all, for that matter), or how that may or may not affect a political campaign that may or may not begin years from now is pure speculation. Absolutely not. On the other hand, the sentence was commuted when Huckabee was the governor, so the action falls into that section without any interpretation necessary. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation. We're simply documenting criticism and commentary from all over the nation, all of which is cited by reliable secondary sources. It's not as if we are putting in our own unsourced original research speculating what this will mean in two years. On the other hand, the reversion you just made is completely inappropriate because it gives undue weight to the Clemmons bit. The section about his governorship on this page is rougly 250 words, and the Clemmons bit is about 60 words, or a quarter of the whole section, which is not balanced. (Not to mention the common sense school of thought that Clemmons wasn't a hot-button issue for Huckabee during his governorship, but it is now, so it stands to reason the info should be included later in the article.) We need to find some sort of middle ground here... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
First, I think you may have misread my revert. I only reverted Phoenix and Winslow's complete removal of the material; as you can see here, your version and my version were exactly the same. Because the version I reverted to was yours.
Second, WP:UNDUE refers not to facts but to viewpoints. It is not a fringe theory that Huckabee commuted Clemmons's sentence. (It is theoretical, however, to speculate about its possible effect on the future.) Factual events in articles are limited only by verifiability. The governor section could be lengthened immensely; we don't censor one aspect of his career just because nobody can be bothered to expand the rest.
I'm not worried about the state of the article. Like all other current events, it will find its equilibrium and settle down. I'm only replying here because I think it's important for you guys to take a good look at the policies you're claiming to reference, so as not to take them in vain in the future. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue included in the article? Clemmons is responsible for his own actions, not Huckabee. The whole issue of including the information on this article smacks of a smear-tactic. Should we treat the articles for all past and present governors the same way and include everyone they pardoned who went on to commit crimes? Seregain (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the article says Huckabee is responsible for the murders. He is, however, accountable for his actions as governor. And, yes, we could add similar information to other articles, provided it can be verified by reliable sources. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Maurice Clemmons hasn't been convicted of these murders. He hasn't even been arrested and formally charged. Pure speculation. The fact that reliable sources are reporting the controversy does not make it worthy of this encyclopedia. If Huckabee starts taking a nose dive in the public opinion polls, and analysts offer expert opinions that the nose dive is due to this event, then we should include it. Because at that point, it would be a major event in Huckabee's life. Furthermore, WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." The material is unsourced and potentially libellous to Maurice Clemmons. Huckabee granted executive clemency to over 700 convicted felons, in part due to the fact that he was governor for so long. If 300 of them are wanted on new charges, but not arrested or formally charged, should we include a paragraph for each one? There are many other facts in this case that you fail to mention.
  • First: after Clemmons won executive clemency from Huckabee, he was sent to prison again in 2001 and released in 2004.
  • Second: upon being released in 2004, Clemmons was arrested again on an old warrant. His defense counsel argued that there had been too many delays in the case and prosecutors dismissed the charges.
  • Third: last week, despite being an ex-con charged with eight felonies (including the rape of a child and battery against a police officer), Clemmons was granted bail at a level that could be afforded: a mere $150,000 with 10% posted by Clemmons, and the rest posted by a bail bondsman.
All of these facts have been published in this morning's New York Times, along with a legal expert's opinion that it would be hard to hold Huckabee responsible since there were these three intervening events. If you're going to include this, you'll have to include all of these intervening factors. And doing that, or even mentioning it at all at this point, violates WP:WEIGHT. The burden of achieving consensus is on the shoulders of editors seeking to add material. That isn't happening, at least not yet (since Seregain and I agree that it doesn't belong here), and even consensus doesn't outweigh WP:BLP. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
First off, I think you need to check the news. Clemmons is dead.
I also think you need to read the rest of this thread. WP:WEIGHT refers to theories, not facts. If you feel it's too weighty compared to the rest of the article, by all means feel free to expand the other parts of the article to make up for that. Factual material that cites reliable sources meets WP:V and may be included. Instead of flailing around to find a policy that you can Wiki-lawyer to suit your needs, why not just point out exactly which parts in the article are patently false and/or unsourced, and go from there? Kafziel Complaint Department 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ummm, no. WP:WEIGHT refers to facts as well. Some facts are more important and significant than other facts. It may be a verifiable fact, reported by multiple reliable sources, that Huckabee has a strawberry red birthmark on his left foot; or that he took someone named Mary Lou Smith to the junior prom. Is it worth including in his WP biography? Only when this event rises to the level of affecting his chance of winning a political office does it satisfy WP:WEIGHT. And no, I'm not flailing around. Nor do I have any duty to expand other parts of the article. Clemmons' death is indeed news to me, but you still haven't satisfied WP:WEIGHT. Nor have you achieved consensus. Right now on the Talk page, I see two editors supporting inclusion of this material and two opposed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Phoenix, but you're just plain wrong about WP:WEIGHT. Just as you were wrong about trying to use WP:NOTNEWS, and just as you were wrong about trying to use WP:BLP. That stuff simply doesn't apply. WEIGHT concerns itself with viewpoints, not facts. It is a fact that Huckabee commuted his sentence. It is a fact that he was later shot dead while the prime suspect in a cop killing investigation. Any analysis of those facts or how they reflect on Huckabee would be inappropriate, and I would support removing them (and have already done so).
Consensus is not required for inclusion of facts. Verifiability is. You do not have a duty to expand other parts of the article, but you have no basis for wholesale removal of sourced material either. Take a look at my contributions - I don't edit articles on politics. I like Huckabee just fine, and don't think this should have any bearing on his career. My first edit in the article was to remove hyperbole about how it was all his fault. But the factual aspects of the case are allowable, and nothing anyone can say will change that. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This is developing into a PR war between the right and the left. As editors we should decide first whether the war is "notable", not by the amount of media coverage by one side, but in the coverage by both sides. If its notable, we should chronicle the factual aspects of the war, without picking sides. If it is notable, we need to point out, on behalf of the left, that Huckabee did in fact pardon Clemmons from (effectively) a life sentence. We need to point out on behalf of the right, that Clemmons has been jailed and released multiple times since then, without Huckabee's involvement. Unless either side fails (or refuses) to engage on this, we should no more "bury" this situation than we should "bury" the Willie Horton incident or Anita Dunn "Mao" incident. PAR (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither of you has yet mentioned the question of consensus, although PAR comes the closest by raising the question of whether "we should decide first whether the war is 'notable.' " Seregain and I agree that this material doesn't belong here. Even three to two isn't consensus. I don't believe this controversy can be included here, while including all the mitigating circumstances of Clemmons' many returns to and releases from confinement since Huckabee granted clemency, without violating WP:WEIGHT. Huckabee's culpability for granting clemency is badly diluted by these intervening events. Even if Huckabee does take a nose dive in the polls, it would still merit no more than a couple of sentences. And since that poll hasn't been taken, the discussion is premature. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, man. Seriously. Go back and read what I wrote, and tell me I haven't mentioned the question of consensus. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
From WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." As of now, this aspect has virtually zero significance to this subject. If it is shown that Huckabee takes a nose dive in the polls as a result of these events, then this aspect merits no more than a sentence or two. In fairness to Huckabee, all of the mitigating factors (the 2001 return to prison, the 2004 parole, the prosecutor blowing a chance to put him back in prison, and the judges who set the low bail) also need to be mentioned. All of these factors dilute Huckabee's responsibility for these events. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I get the feeling that instead of listening to what I'm saying, you're skimming the first paragraph while you formulate your next retort. I've already covered the factual aspect of undue weight, about halfway up this thread. The weight of factual information is based on what could be added to the article, not necessarily what is there at the moment. "The overall significance of the article topic." The topic of the article is the life of Mike Huckabee, which is extremely significant and could be expanded greatly. If you want to add those mitigating factors in order to balance out the weight of the criticisms, you are free to do so. You said you didn't want to, but you don't get to just censor the bits you don't like because you can't be bothered to add positive content elsewhere. Stop trying to throw policy links at me; this isn't my first rodeo. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
A few points:
  • We should not be basing our edits on whether or not the intervening events dilute Huckabee's responsibility. If the intervening events are a notable point of contention outside of Wikipedia, then we should include them without comment. Let the reader decide their significance. We are covering a PR war, not picking sides and editorializing on whose attack is justified and whose is not.
  • Notability is not the same as consensus. If we can agree on a definition of notability which is independent of our own POV, then consensus will follow.
  • Regarding notability: From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
In other words, if the media coverage by major sources on both sides of the controversy is significant, it is notable. I would also add that if Huckabee responds to the criticism, it increases notability a lot. PAR (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how we can justify keeping this out. The Governor section needs work whether or not we put this there, perhaps fixing the problems with that section could alleviate any undue weight concerns. I'm shocked that we don't mention Dumond either, but then we don't seem to mention anything he did as governor, beyond winning. Gamaliel (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that as Huckabee was responsible for the early release of Clemmons, and given the coverage of the shootings, this deserves a mention. However I don't think the words Controversy and Controversial should appear in this paragraph. Martin451 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiktionary defines "controversy" as "debate, discussion of opposing opinions". I think the list of sources below supports the use of the word controversy. PAR (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think Huckabee’s involvement in pardoning or commuting people’s sentences deserves specific mention of those who then went on to committee newsworthy crime, then that is an option. However I think it makes more sense to speak about Huckabee’s record on crime as a whole. For instance, “Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations, including 12 convicted murders. Huckabee granted more clemencies than the previous three governors combined. There was an outcry in Arkansas about all the commutations from victims, families of victims, and prosecutors. Some of those that Huckabee released went on to commit heinous crimes, such as Wayne DuMond , and Maurice Clemmons. In 2007 Mitt Romney tried to make Huckabee’s commutations and pardons an issue that reflected on Huckabee’s judgement, and that indicated he was soft on crime. However the national news media did not ascribe much attention to the story untile Clemmons, who went on to committee more crimes, and reiceive bail from law inforcment in Washington before finally shooting and killing for policemen. When asked about his involvement Huckabee pointed out that Clemmons had committed more crimes after release from Arkansas jail, and that based on just those actions that Huckabee knew about at the time, he would make the same decision now that he did then.” myclob (talk)

OK, I know that is not very good... perhaps it is a start. These quotes are a must:

"As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee had a hand in twice as many pardons and commutations as his three predecessors combined. ... Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations in his 10 1/2 years as governor of Arkansas. The acts of clemency benefited the stepson of a staff member, murderers who worked at the governor's mansion, a rock star and inmates who received good words from their pastors. ... During his years as governor, Huckabee granted clemency an average of about once every four days. Huckabee's successor, Mike Beebe, has issued 40 so far this year, fewer than one a week. Bill Clinton, Frank White and [Jim Guy] Tucker granted 507 clemencies in the 17 1/2 years they served as governor." (Andrew DeMillo, "Huckabee Pardons Under Scrutiny," The Associated Press, 12/10/07)

"During his tenure, Huckabee has been criticized for his use of the clemency powers. Through April, the total sentence commutations issued by Huckabee were 146, including 12 for murderers, according to records at the secretary of state's office. A clemency can be either a sentence commutation or a pardon for someone who has already discharged his sentence, such as in Richards' situation." (Seth Blomeley, "It's A Gas, Gas, Gas: Rocker Seeks Pardon For '75 Fordyce Arrest," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 7/19/06) myclob (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Son Tortured and Killed a Dog, Fired by Boy Scouts of America

Since Huckabee makes so much of his family values, it may be worth mentioning that his son was fired by the Boy Scouts of America after slitting the throat of a dog. At the age of 17, the boy could have been tried as an adult for animal cruelty, but Huckabee put pressure on the state police NOT to investigate the matter (even after a letter from the state attorney general requesting an investigation).

Isikoff, M., & Bailey, H. (24 December, 2007). "A Son's Past Deeds Come Back to Bite Huckabee." Newsweek, (p. 9). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking to Americans

He also appeared on Talking to Americans where Rick Mercer convinced him that Canada's capitol building, a smaller scale replicate of United States Capitol made entirely of ice. He actually congratulated Canadians on tape for building a dome over it to protect it. Not sure if its a strong enough of a point to fit under Controversial public comments, but it does show ignorance.

Agreed

I agree it needs to be covered. It is of importance because Canada is America's second largest trading partner; leading American political officials ought to be aware, or at least sceptical, that government of its second largest trading partner and closest political and military ally does not meet inside an igloo -- to say the least. The event was documented on the CBC, Canada's equivalent of the BBC.

Arkansas's top export destination is Canada, with more than 22% of its exports going to Canada -- an amount greater than Arkansas's next three largest trading partners *combined*. 68,800 jobs in Arkansas depend on trade with Canada, which is valued at $1.8 billion. If the Governor of this state had never even flipped through a picture book about Arkansas's most important business partner to know people there didn't live in igloos.... well, I think that's eye-browsing raising, and thus worthy of a footnote at least. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.215.7 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Randal Oulton (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism also noted in Politico article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30014_Page2.html Novalord2 Novalord2 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitewash

Seems that despite my warnings, quite a while back, monitoring of this article fell off. I note that there's no mention of Wayne Dumond, and the problems his release raised for Huckabee. I do not that a lot of editors with clearly partisan names and editing patterns are heavily invested here, cleaning this article of anything which presents unflattering facts about Huckabee. This article is seriously biased for Huckabee at this point, and in no way neutral. ThuranX (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say biased, do you mean encyclopedic? If so, how can we better disparage the subject of this WP:BLP? †TE†Talk 07:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

I think there are hundreds of millions of people worldwide who know this guy ONLY because of his freakish "joke" at an NRA meeting in 2008. Yes, he apologized for it, and yes, it's water under the bridge, and yes, in an ideal world, those hundreds of millions of people maybe ought to know him for something else. But I thought Wikipedia was for the real world, not the ideal world. The article ought to mention the man's greatest claim to fame. 65.96.161.4 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Norris?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Norrishuckabee.JPG Will someone please manage to link this image to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee I'm a fan of both: Norris & Huckabee

thanks ;)

Candidate for President?

The article claims that Huckabee was candidate for president in 2008. That is of course incorrect. He was a candidate in the presidential primary elections of the Republican Party. That doesn't make him candidate for the presidency. Otherwise, it would be astonishingly easy to become "candidate for president". I checked several other articles for previous "presidential hopefuls" (such as Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Steve Forbes, etc.) and the most NPOV verbiage in my opinion is "He was a Republican candidate in the U.S. Presidential primaries in 2008." I will correct the article in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruebezahl (talk • contribs) 09:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Extremely questionable claim

"In his autobiography From Hope to Higher Ground, Huckabee recalled the chilly reception that he received from the Arkansas Democratic establishment on his election as lieutenant governor after it was revealed that he stabbed his mother with a fork when he was twelve because she refused his sexual advances."

Needless to say, if this is not true and cited then it has the potential to be extremely libelous. Either remove it or, if it's true (which I highly doubt), cite it.128.220.158.41 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed. Seems like some 'joker' had added the libelous bit.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read that book. It's not in there. E. Novachek (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent controversies section

This section sounds a lot like WP:RECENT. If the "controversy" is a flash in the pan story that has no meaningful impact on why Huckabee is notable or it is minor in the scope of his life, then it doesn't belong here. WP:INDISCRIMINATE Morphh (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove Very good point. Wikiepdia is not news and if a second controversy section needs to be made for "recent" controversies, one could also argue WP:UNDUE 71.165.9.190 (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Funadmentalist

Why isnt this mentioned. The fact he doesnt accept the fact of evolution and believes in the ark myth should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtserf (talk • contribs) 10:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 comments on Sandy Hook shooting

Following the December14, 2012 grade-school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the Huckabee entity paraded his view via the mass media that such a horrid incident can be quelled by placing religious beliefs into the minds of school children. I believe Huckabee's poor timing for making that utterance MAY be worthy of placement in his biography but I am unsure so just making mention of the post-tragedy statement here. A Web search should reveal the statement I observed today, 15 Dec, 2012. No link added due to the odds of it becoming quickly useless. Google is thine friend, brethren.Obbop (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added additional references. Huckabee's statement was documented in the national media and even in Germany. I think it's worthy of inclusion due to the attention that it received. Keizers (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Clemency Controversies

Per WP:BLP am editing the clemency section to include relevant facts that have thus far been left out. The following was integrated into the section. The section is omitting relevant information about the fact that the pardons were not for those serving time in prison but who had been released. It fails to mention that he was simply adopting the requests of the Prison Transfer Board. It does not mention that Clemmons' sentence was not eliminated, only reduced, and that Clemmons was back in prison by 2001 and it was the prosecutor's decision to release him. Unmentioned is the fact that there was no public response against Mike Huckabee's decision at the time, the only public response was from the trial judge asking him to make the decision.

Right now the entire section is a hit piece against Mike Huckabee. This is a page on Huckabee and should at least quote his words once on the controversy. None of the relevant information on the controversy is provided that he has mentioned in his defense is provided. Two additional paragraphs of information to balance the section so it gives relevant information and the point of view of the public figure whose page it is, is not too much to ask. --71.57.118.25 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

71.57.118.25, your last edit summary at the article stated: "integrating material in per request". Per request of whom? If that request has come from the Huckabee campaign or anyone else or any other group with a conflict of interest, you need to know that such motivation and content submitted from such a motivation is against Wikipedia policy. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
You requested in your previous removal of the information that it be integrated in, rather than a separate section created for it. This was done according to your request. I read the Conflict of Interest page and it only says that paid advocates should not edit pages related to them. I am not paid by the Mike Huckabee campaign, or I would disclose that information consistent with COI policy. Furthermore, I did sign this post, although I did so at the bottom of the "New Information" section. I can sign above as well, however. --71.57.118.25 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That was me. There's already a section about this. There's way too much detail and self-serving statements in what you added. Huckabee (and his aide) defending himself, should be very brief and on point. I don't think the clemency controversies section should be any larger, so some of the existing detail might need to be trimmed as well.- MrX 17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What excess detail would you say should be trimmed? The page is about Mike Huckabee, if it's going to have a controversies section (which really is bad editing to begin with), it might as well at least provide his point of view on the matter. A paragraph or two referencing his response to the controversy or that of his campaign should be permitted to ensure accurate reporting on living persons. According to WP:BLP,
"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with db-attack. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking."
Right now the section is overly negative, leaves out relevant facts, and does not once quote the person who the page is about. This seems to clearly violate WP:BLP. --71.57.118.25 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, the material is clearly relevant, and there are key facts being left out of the article on the subject, in violation of WP:BLP policy. The article fails to quote or provide the point of view of the public figure who the article is about. If you think the proposed information is too long or POV then please provide a suggestion for how you think it should be shortened and the information included in the article. So far all you are doing is providing objections, not constructive recommendations for how the relevant facts can be included. --71.57.118.25 (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

New Information

Although Huckabee pardoned more than his predecessors, the size of the state prison and the number of people executed was greater as well.[8] Most of the pardons and commutations were not for those serving time in prison, but those whose sentences had ended and were seeking work.[9] Ultimately 92% of all clemency requests were denied by Mike Huckabee over his 10.5 years as governor, and he was acquiescing to the Prison Transfer Board's unanimous request for a sentence commutation of Clemmons.[10]

Mike Huckabee in defending his record on the subject has pointed out that 1) Clemmons was never pardoned, the sentence was reduced, not eliminated, 2) the commutation did not release him, only made him parole eligible, 3) "there are no records that the prosecutor, law enforcement, the Attorney General, or victims objected to the commutation. The only responses my office had record of during the public comment period were support letters from the trial judge, and members of the community", 4) Clemmons "was back in prison by 2001 and would have remained there until 2015 due to his parole violations had the prosecutor chosen to properly file the paperwork or enforced the warrants", 5) "The Clemmons of 2000 did not exhibit traits of psychosis and the kind of behavior that he would later express during several arrests", and 6) "The reasons were straightforward—a unanimous recommendation from the board, support from a trial judge and no objections from officials in a case that involved a 16 year old sentenced to a term that was exponentially longer than similar cases and certainly longer than had he been white, upper middle class, and represented by effective counsel."[11]

--71.57.118.25 (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.pressmediawire.com/printFriendly.cfm?articleID=4099
  2. ^ http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/mskoped052305.html
  3. ^ http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzI5MjhhNmQwZjhjMTNlOTgyNGQxN2NkNjQ3ZmIzNzM=
  4. ^ http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/huckabeepledge011608.html
  5. ^ http://www.cfr.org/publication/15249/
  6. ^ Huckabee Thanks Bloggers Jan. 1, 2008
  7. ^ Government of Canada trade bulletin. http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/buffalo/commerce_can/2010/ar.aspx?lang=eng
  8. ^ Associated Press (2007, December 10). Mike Huckabee's Clemency Record Is Under Scrutiny. FOX News. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
  9. ^ Adair, B. (2007, December 28). Yes, Huckabee Pardoned Many. PolitiFact. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
    Tapper, J. (2007, December 11). Huckabee's Plethora of Pardons. ABC News. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
  10. ^ (2009, December 1). Huckabee: 'I Take Full Responsibility' For Shooting Suspect's Clemency. CNN. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
  11. ^ Huckabee, M. (2009, December 1). Washington State Tragedy. Human Events. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
    Smith, B. (2010, October 18). Huckabee's Clemency. Politico. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
I think User:Jytdog did a really good job in summarizing the information so I'll withdraw my concerns about the section. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Recommendation on Controversy Sections

I think best practice under WP policy would be removing the Recent Controversy section and merging in any material that was especially prominent in the news into other sections. The Clemency Controversy section should also be renamed, consistent with WP:CRITS policy:

An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy.

Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section.

Articles on artists and works by artists often include material describing the opinions of critics, peers, and reviewers. Although the term "criticism" can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment, the word "Criticism" should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers. Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments".

In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.

Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies

--71.57.118.25 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

David Barton Quote

I noticed the following quote was re-added to the Notoriety section:

"In April 2011, he was criticized for a remark he made, "I almost wish that there would be a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, at gunpoint, to listen to every David Barton message," in praise of David Barton.[1]"

Right now that source from TheStateColumn is not working, if the criticism is to be kept on the page it should have a working source showing this was a prominent concern. I checked for potential sources for that quote earlier when removing it to see if it was noteworthy and it didn't look like it featured prominently in the news.[2] I didn't just remove it before because it had a dead link, but because in checking, I did not think it looked like a prominent criticism.

Aside from MotherJones, ThinkProgress, Patheos, and a lone Huffington Post source, this doesn't look like an issue that was really reported on by the mainstream press. Just from the sources I'm seeing it looks less like a prominent newsworthy criticism and more like a claim that made the rounds of internet blogs. I'll accept it as a valid addition to the article if some sources can be provided showing this featured prominently in the news as a controversy, but right now it seems like WP:Undue to me. --7157.118.25a (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Mike Huckabee: Americans to be indoctrinated at gunpoint".

I notice for example it got mentioned in a single Huffington Post article[3] and a lone NPR article[4] but other than that it doesn't look like the rest of the media really picked up on the issue. Not sure that's enough to warrant mention on the page of a presidential candidate. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Christian Post, Salon, The Atlantic, and The Week also.- MrX 22:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
That is a bit more coverage than I thought existed. Alright, I suppose the quote can stay then as long as there is a working source for it added, my original impression from going through those initial pages of search results was that the quote hadn't received mainstream coverage. As long as the dead link is replaced I'll withdraw my concern however.
That will mean 6 of the 8 paragraphs in the Notoriety section, formerly the Recent Controversies section, will be negative though, and that is despite two paragraphs I found from the Public image of Mike Huckabee page to help balance out the section. I was trying to more evenly balance the section consistent with the WP:CRITS policy that sections shouldn't be dedicated to negative criticisms. --7157.118.25a (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina Detail

Also, I'd like to reinsert the following detail:

"accepting 75,000 refugees and providing $75,000 in state funds to aid hurricane victims"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Huckabee&diff=641743688&oldid=641743125

The 75,000 refugees number is mentioned in the Governing Magazine article as a major reason that Huckabee was named one of 2005's Public Officials of the Year. So that number is most definitely sourced. I was mainly influenced to include it by the page's final paragraph,


http://www.governing.com/poy/Mike-Huckabee.html

The $75,000 number can be sourced as well although I should have included a source for that.

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/50378/huckabee-oks-additional-relief-500-more-guard-members-to-la

When running my searches I noticed it was mentioned on the page Hurricane_Katrina_disaster_relief#State_and_local (although whoever included it originally failed to source the claim) which was a factor in why I included it originally.

At any rate, both of those figures are accurate. --7157.118.25a (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I just re-added the material in a slightly different form and just quoted Governing Magazine this time so that it's their words, not mine now. I separated the information into a new paragraph since his actions on Hurricane Katrina appear to be a major part of his Governorship, enough so that they resulted in him receiving the most publicity of his career to that point. That 2005 year was a major point in his career however, with PolitiFact verifying that he received high honors that year. So I do think a single paragraph on his Hurricane Katrina actions in 2005 is relevant.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/10/mike-huckabee/top-5-in-fact

That was by the way the same year he was presented with AARP's Impact Person Award also. So 2005 was a turning point in his career. According to George Washington University,


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/cands08/huckabeemain.html

My point is, he received 5 major awards/honors in 2005 alone right after Hurricane Katrina. --7157.118.25a (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro-tax record

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/05/mike-huckabee-big-government-conservative Although Huckabee has endorsed a flat tax proposal called the “fair tax”, his governorship included efforts to expand government funding for low-income children and increases in gas and tobacco taxes.

What's the exact details on his tax increases? Hcobb (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Pic

I don't think it's a good idea to install a top pic that the installer thinks conveys "anger", so I reverted.[5]. However the other photo is a bit dark, so I brought it to the Graphics Lab.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point, which I overlooked. Similarly, the poorly-lit photo (which can't be fixed in post by the way), doesn't show Mr. Huckabee in a favorable light (literally and figuratively). As I mentioned in my edit summary, let's take a poll so that we can arrive at a lasting consensus.- MrX 17:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the non-angry pic is at the Graphics Lab right now, so let's give them a chance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The Graphics Lab can make the photo brighter, and change the blue cast on his face, but they can't actually change the lighting so that it illuminates his face rather than his receding forehead.- MrX 17:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's see. Those guys can be pretty amazing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
They have done a very good job, and this image is now my favorite.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


Poll

Please help us select an infobox photo for this article from the following (you can add your own to the gallery if you wish). Please rank your top three choices of the following: - MrX 17:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Image 1
May 2015
Image 2
February 2012
Image 3
June 2011



Image 4
March 2014
Image 5
March 2014
Image 6
June 2011


  • Example vote: I vote Image 2, Image 4, Image 5 in that order. --John Doe 00:00 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Poll
Threaded discussion
According to that link, "Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus." Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I was concerned that the poll would be used in order to make a final determination, consensus building should be the primary way of determining which photo is best. I don't think the one photo exhibits as much anger than it would if he had his mouth open, speaking, to me it more so exhibits seriousness and confidence. But I'm not particularly a fan of any of the current images being considered. My preference before now was the Image 2 because it is well lit, and displays his face clearly. Calibrador (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't view this discussion and survey as being more than tentative and temporary. Consensus can change, and more pics can become available. While Image 2 is not bad, it's four years old and not very flattering. What do you think of pic 1 now that the lighting is improved?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that one should suffice. Calibrador (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Redundant content in the lead

I object to the repeated addition of redundant content to the lead. Why bombard our readers with the same information in two adjacent paragraphs? Also, WP:BRD.- MrX 02:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your diff is obsolete. Here is the correct diff. There is no redundancy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. If we move "It is his second run for the U.S. presidency." to the top paragraph where it logically belongs and remove the trivial sentence, "The setting for Huckabee's announcement of his presidential candidacy was in Hope, Arkansas on May 5, 2015.", then I will be OK with this content.- MrX 03:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If we say he ran in 2008, and say he is running in 2016, then it makes no sense to immediately thereafter say it's his second run.

If you think the later-in-the-lead info about the setting of his announcement is trivial, can you please explain why it's not trivial in the lead of these candidates:

  • Hillary Clinton, last paragraph of lead: "announcing her second run for the presidency in April 2015."
  • Bernie Sanders, last paragraph of lead: "His campaign was officially launched on May 26 in Burlington."
  • Martin O'Malley, last paragraph of lead: "O'Malley publicly announced his candidacy in the 2016 presidential election on May 30, 2015, in Baltimore, Maryland...."
  • Jim Webb, last sentence of lead: "On July 2, 2015, he announced that he would be joining the race...."
  • Lincoln Chafee, end of lead: "Chafee formally announced the launch of his campaign on June 3, 2015...."

The setting of the announcement is not important enough for the lead paragraph, but it is plenty significant to conclude the chronological remainder of a lead. This is especially so in Huckabee's case since the location of his announcement had special meaning in his life, as the place where he grew up. By the way, do you notice anything in common among the five bulleted candidates above, User:MrX? In any event, if the remainder of the lead following the lead paragraph is chronological, then it strikes me as bad writing to omit the last chronological item.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - the opening statement should be general as to what he has done and why he is noteworthy for as many reasons as are critical. Gov of Arkansas, Talk Show Host, Lt Gov, and former candidate. That is says in the third graph he announced his 2016 candidacy. He is not notable for being a candidate, but for his actual accomplishments and positions prior - until (unless) the candidacy goes further. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil rights

I tagged the 'Civil rights' section as problematic. It currently says "Huckabee pays attention to black votes and holds that the GOP should not ignore hispanics." This is pretty meaninless and certainly not a position statement. It looks like someone read http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm and decided to cherry pick a couple of items that reflect positively on the subject. Unless we can find some secondary analysis of an actual articulated position on civil rights, I recommend leaving this section out and defaulting the other sections of the article which discuss civil rights indirectly. His only real position outside of LGBT issues seems to be that he will not be racist. - MrX

What do others think?

Please sign your comment. The subsection in question is virtually empty and there is lots of material to work with.[6]. I'll change the header to "Race relations" to distinguish from the other subheaders.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I prefer to remain anonymous. I suppose "Race relations" might be a better heading. I still believe we should add substantive material, and not just the Reader's Digest version found at ontheissues.org.- MrX 01:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The rewrite looks much better. Thanks.- MrX 02:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention his kids

Kind of a big omission, no? They're in the infobox but not mentioned in prose. I admit I came looking for that info to see how the article handles the story of his son David killing a dog (which has gotten lots of coverage over time: [7][8][9]) but none of his kids are mentioned at all in the article proper. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mike Huckabee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mike Huckabee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Mister Huckabee first let me say that I have always had great admiration and respect for you and watched your show every week. However, You made a statement about Mit Romney that I wish to comment about. You said that Mr. Romney inherited a lot of money but you neglected to say that since he had his own money and didn't need his inheritance he gave it all away. If you wish to comment my email is kizzie@live.com

Jackie St. Joseph, Missouri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.218.110 (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Huckabee/Archive_3&oldid=1259719136"