Talk:Mike Huckabee: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:56, 7 March 2007 editThuranX (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers20,147 edits →Ancestry ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 08:29, 11 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,884,439 editsm →top: merge blp/living/activepol params into blp=activepol; cleanupTag: AWB
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~WikiProject~~ ~~Arkansas~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	{{WPBiography\|living=yes\|class=\|importance=}}
			{{Calm}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=activepol\|collapsed=yes\|class=B\|listas=Huckabee, Mike\|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography\|politician-work-group=yes\|politician-priority=mid\|musician-work-group=yes\|musician-priority=}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=low\|AR=yes\|AR-importance=mid\|USgovernors=yes\|USgovernors-importance=low\|USPE=yes\|USPE-importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|class=C\|importance=mid\|American=yes\|American-importance=mid}}
			}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=ap}}
			{{Article history\|action1=GAN
			\|action1date=17:20, 20 October 2008
			\|action1link=Talk:Mike Huckabee/GA1
			\|action1result=not listed
			\|action1oldid=246523700
			\|currentstatus=FGAN
			\|topic=politics
			}}
			{{Press
			\| author=Jordan Fabian
			\| title=Huckabee's Misplaced Pages page hijacked
			\| org=]
			\| url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69785-huckabees-wikipedia-page-hijacked
			\| date=November 30, 2009}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\|counter = 3
			\|minthreadsleft = 10
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Mike Huckabee/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=Talk:Mike Huckabee/Archive index
			\|mask=Talk:Mike Huckabee/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}
			<!-- Metadata: see ] -->
			{{Section sizes}}
			{{Annual readership}}

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

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

			I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	I added some more information about the Dumond case in order to provide a more complete picture of what happened. There are still some problems with this entry, but this hopefully balances it out a little more. ] 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091204124651/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010393433_webarrest01m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010393433_webarrest01m.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091203102157/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010386501_clemmons30m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010386501_clemmons30m.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916170904/http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/gopdelegates/index.html to http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/gopdelegates/index.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111142224/http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzc0ODM5YjU0ZjI3ZWJmOWRkNGI1NjljMmY2MmI2NDY to http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzc0ODM5YjU0ZjI3ZWJmOWRkNGI1NjljMmY2MmI2NDY
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904142858/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-454es.html to http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-454es.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	The Dumond section needs to be rewritten. The information about the case is political. It has information regarding the Dumond case which; (1) does not help explain the criticism against Huckabee, (2) uses misleading articles to dismiss the criticism, and (3) is untrue and from unreliable sources. First, it fails to discuss the criticism against Huckabee, for example the fact Huckabee may have lied about his actions taken and used political pressure to get Dumond released. Second, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article it cites to dismiss the criticism is misleading because it is not discussing the clemencies actually granted but is looking at the number granted. Third, the main source it cites disregards most of the other sources this article uses, speicifically articles written by Steve Dunleavy. ("What {Steve} Dunleavy has written about the Dumond saga has been either unverified or is demonstrably untrue".) <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2\|}}}.</small>
	:I do agree that the section in its previous form spent too much time on things that didn't have to do with Huckabee. I was just trying to give the whole story, but I agree now that much of it probably was not relevant to this page. As far as Huckabee's possible attempts to influence the board, the section does mention that and also mentions that he denies it. I'm not sure what else there is to say. If you have anything else notable to add, please do so. As far as the unreliable source (Dunleavy), I only used him as an example of a critic of Clinton's and in order to provide the quote from Dumond's wife. Just because he was wrong about Dumond's innocence doesn't mean we can't use his articles as sources for direct quotes from 3rd parties. Finally, I do agree that the wording of the last sentence is unclear, so I will try to fix that. Thanks for pointing out the problems. Let me know if there's anything else that needs revision. ] 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	Please do not remove the POV tag without an explanation. -- ] 17:02, 06 February 2006
	:There doesn't seem to be an explanation about why the POV tag is there in the first place.. at least not for the Dumond stuff. ] 18:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	::] added the POV tag for the reasons he stated above. That was before any of the Dumond stuff was added. The reason there is an original research tag in the Dumond section is because I hadn't added the appropriate references yet (since I wasn't sure how to do it at the time). I still need to find the full info on some of the citations, but I think it's mostly covered so I'll remove that tag later if there are no objections. - ] 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 12:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
	Does anyone have any objections to removing the POV tag? ]'s reasons for the tag appear to have been addressed for the most part. There is now a significant criticism section to balance Huckabee's accomplishments. I'll remove it in a week or so if there are no objections. ] 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	==Deleted Links==

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	"Negative" links keep getting deleted without explanation.] 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://archives.arkansasnews.com/2007/09/26/ahead-of-debate-huckabees-claim-of-black-support-questioned/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120711175928/http://pastors4huckabeeblog.com/prominent-pastors-christian-leaders-who-have-endorsed-huckabee/ to http://pastors4huckabeeblog.com/prominent-pastors-christian-leaders-who-have-endorsed-huckabee/

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

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	Need citations badly. --] 12:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
	==Reclaiming America==
	Citation Here: http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/CONFERENCES/RAC2006/default.asp] 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
	================
	Information in Early Years Section also appears in periodical Current Biography, November 2005
	] 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Durden1186@hotmail.com

			== External links modified ==
	==Health Advocacy and Personal Weight-Loss==
	There doesn't seem to be much mention of his actions promoting anti-obesity stuff, although that's the only reason I've heard of him. Does anyone else think there should be more on this? ] 06:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
	: You're right. Right now, there's only a one-sentence parenthetical summary in the "Other Accomplishments" section. That could be expanded into a full paragraph in that section. - ] 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

			I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:::Thanks for your contribution Larry. I do agree that the weight-loss thing deserves more of a mention here. However, sources are mandatory. If you need time to find sources, we can just put a tag in the meantime, but you do need to insert them eventually. Also, you did appear to repeat some things that were already in the article, so I had to take those out. Note that you can't just copy and paste information from other sources, you have to rewrite it in your own words. Let me know if you have any questions ] 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924012016/http://www.ferris.edu/isar/institut/CCC/philly.htm to http://www.ferris.edu/isar/institut/CCC/philly.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106232356/http://abclocal.go.com/story?section=news%2Fpolitics&id=5937117 to http://abclocal.go.com/story?section=news%2Fpolitics&id=5937117
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211073110/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/the_most_successful_failed_presidential_candidate_in_the_history_of_our_country_146678.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/the_most_successful_failed_presidential_candidate_in_the_history_of_our_country_146678.asp
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406124057/http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/mike-huckabee-americans-to-be-indoctrinated-at-gunpoint/ to http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/mike-huckabee-americans-to-be-indoctrinated-at-gunpoint/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615214431/http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mike_huckabee_fox_contributor.html to http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mike_huckabee_fox_contributor.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	: I have not been involved with this article up to this point (and I'm short on time at the moment), so I leave this link for you guys to decide whether it has a place.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	HUckabee's statements that jewish kidnappers who put him in a concentration camp should be added either to this section or to 'controversies'. ]. ] 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			== External links modified (January 2018) ==
	Editors should review the policy on living persons.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	In particular:

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161012181623/http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=412 to http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=412
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230232512/http://www.moveamericaforward.org/troopathon-announces-mike-huckabee-larry-oconnor/ to http://www.moveamericaforward.org/troopathon-announces-mike-huckabee-larry-oconnor/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	If you want to add something negative, it's ''your'' responsibility to make sure it's sourced and NPOV. If you don't, by policy it should (and if I'm around will) be removed wholesale any number of times. ] 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 10:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
	::Advising you of a policy you are violating is not uncivil. I have clearly announced I intend to follow content policies; labeling this "a bias and an agenda" is itself getting close to incivility. In any case, please review the policy. Further, you should be aware that removals of this kind of material are not subject to the ], but additions of it are. ] 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

			== The article should elaborate more on the ] case ==
	Certain editors appear to still not understand the ] policy:

			The article currently just says that the Dumond pardon was controversial without elaborating on ''why'' it was controversial. ] (]) 11:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
	:The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article '''or appear to side with the critics' material'''. (emph. added)
			== "Huckapedia" listed at ] ==
			]
			An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 15:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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

			I just tagged the "Public image" section as unbalanced. If one goes to the fuller article linked there, ], one will find negatives as well as positives... but in this article, it's just a list of honors and such, nothing negative, and that hardly gives a sense of the public image of this controversial man. --] (]) 00:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
	Furthermore, the lengthy (and from what I read biased) West Memphis Three article does not include the text "Huckabee". Where's the notability? ] 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
			::Hey! I think I fixed the issue you tagged by moving some items into Personal Life, since they have nothing to do with his Public image, and then let the link to the new article stay as the Public image link. That secondary article seems to stand alone well enough without duplicating it. Oddly enough I didn't notice your note here until I had already fixed it. Small world ;) ] 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
			:::I'm not sure that "personal life" is the appropriate place for awards granted to him for his governing work. That his "public image" section wasn't balanced is not a reason not to have a public image section, but to balance it. There should be a short section here, summarizing the material from the other article --] (]) 22:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
			::::I understand. Summarizing seems quite a task since I haven't read the other article, but I am looking for something to tackle, so I can work on that. Hopefully you will chime back in for input.] 16:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
			:::::1. It is my understanding that an article summary does not need footnotes so long as it accurately reflects properly footnoted portions of the article it is summarizing. Am I right? 2. There are many sources in the Huckabee Public Image article that do not meet the reliable sources criteria. If I search and cannot find reliable corroboration of his statements in reliable sources, may that material be deleted, especially since this is about a live person? ] 18:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
			:::::#While vague summaries ("Licorice has both its fans and detractors") don't need to be sourced, it is generally a good idea to put in footnotes on specific claims if it is easy to do so, because that other article is subject to being changed without that change being reflected here.
			:::::#Yes, ] standards do apply to that other article, and improperly sourced material can be deleted... and improperly sourced material that can be viewed as negative ''should'' be deleted. --] (]) 19:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

			Huckabee tweeted a (very unfunny, but that's par) joke about identifying as Chinese. Given that he was clearly joking, that the reliable sources note that it was a rather than a statement, and that he used scare quotes in his phrasing, we should not be pretending it was a serious statement and that that is how he identifies. I have reverted the addition; it should not be readded until consensus is reached to do so. --] (]) 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
	::Okay, I'm a full-blooded conservative Republican myself, and even I think this is getting tiresome. We went through this same thing on the ] article over the summer, and when it comes down to it, ] is not sufficient grounds to remove well-cited criticism such as this. Repeated deletion of such legitimate, validated, and factual criticisms only comes across as lacking NPOV on your part. Whether or not this is actually the case, it gives you the appearance of being a Huckabee supporter who is trying to stretch every little rule in order to keep legitimate criticism of your favorite candidate off the page, and that would be called having a biased agenda. The sources that the West Memphis Three criticism section cites are completely legitimate and inherently relevant to the Criticism section of this article. To assert otherwise is, by nature, fallacious. --] 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	::Okay, let's work on this. Here is the paragraph as it stands, after editing:
	:::"While Huckabee has been, on the one hand, criticised for the clemency he has granted to criminals during his tenure, he has, on the other hand, also been criticised for refusing to reopen investigation into the well-known case of the West Memphis Three (CrimeLibrary profile), a group of convicts whom many believe are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused. During Gov. Huckabee's administration (and since then, as well), there has been a notable movement amongst politicians and celebrities to press for the reopening of the West Memphis Three case. Noteworthy supporters of the "Free the West Memphis Three" cause include Jack Black, Jello Biafra, Marilyn Manson, Winona Ryder, Tom Waits, South Park creator Trey Parker, and former President Bill Clinton (also a former Arkansas governor), who has called it a "troubling case." Two major films have since been released documenting the situation, including an Emmy award-winning documentary on the WM3 case, which aired in the 1990's. Huckabee himself has had little to say on the matter, though the Governor's office did, on March 23, 2003, send out an e-mail to address the matter, which claimed that DNA evidence had conclusively linked the WM3 to their accused crimes and that HBO's documentary was actually fiction. DNA testing for the case has never been completed and test results have never been released, and had the HBO documentary been a "fictionalized account," it would have been disqualified for the Emmy for "Outstanding Achievement in Informational Programming," which it won in 1997 alongside a National Geographic Special. Huckabee's office thereafter refused to comment on the matter."
	::Let's start with the initial foundation at the outset by all of us acknowledging that the West Memphis Three case is both a nationally and internationally well-known situation that is inherently relevant to a comprehensive discussion of Michael Huckabee's tenure as Governor of Arkansas. That is a straight fact, bare to the bone, that does not include any editorializing or POV. It is completely NPOV. So, now that we have established that the WM3 is worth being documented on the ] Misplaced Pages article, how do we address the topic in a way that is NPOV? To AJA particularly, what would you like to see removed from the WM3 paragraph to make it NPOV, and in what specific way is each of the things you would like to see removed POV? Please respond to this without making vague statements about an overall negative tone or loose, general references to the ] article. --] 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

	::::::AJA, If we are going to take Google Searches into account to judge how "notable" a controversy is, then let's go over to the Misplaced Pages article of another Republican presidential candidate with a big "Criticisms/controversies" section, that of ]. Giuliani's Misplaced Pages article gives an entire ''section'' to two particular controversies surrounding Giuliani's tenure in public office. Namely, the gun control lawsuit controversy and the Brooklyn Art Museum controversy. When I Google "'brooklyn art museum' giuliani," I come up with 421 results. When I Google "'gun control lawsuit' giuliani," I come up with 17 results on only 4 different websites (one of those websites being the ] Misplaced Pages article itself). So, are these two controversies notable enough to warrant having their own section header on the Rudy Giuliani page? If not, then I'd like to see you take the same kind of interest in protecting Rudy's Wikipage from such "POV editorializing" as you do with your candidate of choice, ].
	::::::Now, I'm assuming that, as someone who likely is in favor of Mike Huckabee for the presidential nomination, you don't want to have to also go through all of Huckabee's potential rivals and delete all the criticisms that Google less than 500 hits for them also, so let's get right to the point. The West Memphis Three situation is one that IS notable, if the cadre of big-name celebrities (and even a former President) hasn't provided evidence enough. Virtually any criminal justice course you will take in college, if it addresses false convictions or coerced confessions or wrongful imprisonments or anything of the sort, will cite the West Memphis Three case as a key example. It's extremely well known. It has an Emmy-award winning documentary that was done on it. There is no issue over whether it's a notable case. Huckabee definitely has something to do with the case, as the article which the WM3 paragraph cites shows that Huckabee's office has directly addressed it and that Huckabee's office made two significant erroneous claims about the case and then refused to comment after the claims were disproven. Huckabee has been criticised many times for his refusal to reopen investigation into the case, if the thousands upon thousands of letters sent to Huckabee's office on the matter aren't evidence enough. Do you want me to go through and find every single webpage that shows someone criticising Huckabee for his lack of action in the matter? What will it take to avoid an edit war here and convince you that, at the very least, the WM3 situation is ''worth discussing'' on this Misplaced Pages article. At the very least, it deserves to be noted in some way or another on the ] article. If we can at least agree on this premise, then maybe we can work out a way to present the issue without it seeming POV. Can we at least agree on this? --] 04:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

	asking me to prove or disprove a negative is a debate argument fallacy tactic i won't rise to. Contribute or stay out of it. It's notable, it's been sourced, and since your'e uninterested in helping, I see no reason not to replace it. ] 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I never asked you to prove a negative. You keep resorting to misrepresentations because that's all you have. ] 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

	:Actually, Ai.kefu gave you a long reply about the notability issue. Please reply to that issue. ] 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	::I explicitly mention, and dismiss, Ai.kefu's reply. You respond with "Actually, Ai.kefu gave you a long reply..." as if I had ignored it or denied its existence, ''right under my discussion of it''. At this point it appears you are no longer even attempting a serious discussion. ] 18:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::Actually, all you do IS dismiss ai.kefu. You don't explain or reply to him at all. You effectively say 'I'm choosing not to see ai.kefu's arugment at all, since it says things I do not want to see'. The criticism of Huckabee is valid. It is notable, as substantiated by Ai.kefu. It has been sourced extensively now, and any and all 'colorful' words were removed already. There no longer exists ANY reasons you can substantiate for not including it. I will give you some time to compile a valid, lengthy, clear point by point reply in wich to explain any remaining issues. If you cannot, or do not, then the information will go back in. ] 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::You need to stop playing games. You both have yet to demonstrate the notability of the criticism, and have yet to produce a neutral text which cites reliable sources (as opposed to "Free the West Memphis Three").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	== BTW ==

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

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

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

	== Reiterations ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	:::You won't make clear the issues beyond buzzwords. be clear, be specific. That's all I've asked, repeatedly. You refuse to. It is that simple. ai.kefu asked you to interact. you refused. Your constant reply it 'it's biased against huckabee, BLP' then you revert it out. It's pointless to try to interact with you. You don't interact back. you say things like "I already said it, go fix it'. We ask you WHAT needs fixing, you say, I told you.' We look ,and we're back to 'it's biased against huckabee, BLP'. You need to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR about what is so horribly BIASED. I've said it before. Criticisms don't make people look good. That's WHY they are CRITICISMS. He's a candidate for President. To NOT include sourced items posited by his detractors would be to whitewash him. You keep trying to do that. I keep stopping you. It's that simple, unless you can clearly point out WHAT sections of this criticism are so biased? And you can't. If you could,you would have by now, I've asked before. repeatedly. You could avoid all this percieved incivility by me if you'd done that. You won't. You attack me , edit war, then protest. Frankly, I don't think you can be neutral about him.
	:::THIS IS MY FINAL APPEAL TO YOU. BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS BIASED IN THIS SECTION. Do it or don't, you know what your silence this far has wrought. It can go on and on like this, or you can COMMUNICATE. ] 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

	::::It looks to me as if almost every sentence in that paragraph is sourced. After ] put up the NPOV tag (which I agree with until this is settled) ] simply removed it all again. I restored it because I , as I said, it seems sourced to my eyes. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	:That link is to a small, non-notable wiki-tree with a fairly large amount of unsoured ino, and speculation. Further, it would be trivia here. As such, it doesn't belong on the page.] 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:29, 11 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mike Huckabee article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Musicians / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arkansas / Presidential elections / Governors Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arkansas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American C‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Mike Huckabee was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 20, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Jordan Fabian (November 30, 2009). "Huckabee's Misplaced Pages page hijacked". The Hill.

Section sizes

Section size for Mike Huckabee (39 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	7,020	7,020
Early life	5,196	5,196
Pastoral career	3,457	3,457
Political career	22	53,419
Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas, campaign 1992	7,621	7,621
Governor of Arkansas, 1996–2007	8,131	14,945
Clemencies	6,814	6,814
2008 presidential election campaign	11,781	14,940
Vice presidential candidate speculation	3,159	3,159
Speculated 2012 presidential campaign	6,593	6,593
2016 presidential campaign	3,853	3,853
2018 Florida gubernatorial election	1,345	1,345
First Trump administration	3,653	3,653
Second Trump administration	447	447
Media career	5,288	5,288
Political positions	71	21,776
Abortion	1,028	1,028
Health care	353	353
Free trade	498	498
Race relations	1,687	1,687
LGBT rights	1,873	1,873
Conceiving children outside marriage	1,757	1,757
Role of religion in public life	4,661	4,661
Climate change	1,730	1,730
Military	597	597
Immigration	1,428	1,428
Gun control	248	248
Fiscal policy	3,422	3,422
Israel & Palestine	2,423	2,423
Public image	2,990	2,990
Personal life	19	8,764
Music	1,186	1,186
Organizations	2,440	2,440
Weight loss and advocacy of good health	5,119	5,119
Bibliography	4,948	4,948
See also	143	143
References	28	28
Further reading	410	410
External links	5,071	5,071
Total	118,510	118,510

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mike Huckabee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Huckabee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Huckabee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The article should elaborate more on the Wayne Dumond case

The article currently just says that the Dumond pardon was controversial without elaborating on why it was controversial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Huckapedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Huckapedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced public image section

I just tagged the "Public image" section as unbalanced. If one goes to the fuller article linked there, Public image of Mike Huckabee, one will find negatives as well as positives... but in this article, it's just a list of honors and such, nothing negative, and that hardly gives a sense of the public image of this controversial man. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey! I think I fixed the issue you tagged by moving some items into Personal Life, since they have nothing to do with his Public image, and then let the link to the new article stay as the Public image link. That secondary article seems to stand alone well enough without duplicating it. Oddly enough I didn't notice your note here until I had already fixed it. Small world ;) Ihaveadreamagain 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "personal life" is the appropriate place for awards granted to him for his governing work. That his "public image" section wasn't balanced is not a reason not to have a public image section, but to balance it. There should be a short section here, summarizing the material from the other article --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Summarizing seems quite a task since I haven't read the other article, but I am looking for something to tackle, so I can work on that. Hopefully you will chime back in for input.Ihaveadreamagain 16:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

1. It is my understanding that an article summary does not need footnotes so long as it accurately reflects properly footnoted portions of the article it is summarizing. Am I right? 2. There are many sources in the Huckabee Public Image article that do not meet the reliable sources criteria. If I search and cannot find reliable corroboration of his statements in reliable sources, may that material be deleted, especially since this is about a live person? Ihaveadreamagain 18:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

While vague summaries ("Licorice has both its fans and detractors") don't need to be sourced, it is generally a good idea to put in footnotes on specific claims if it is easy to do so, because that other article is subject to being changed without that change being reflected here.
Yes, WP:BLP standards do apply to that other article, and improperly sourced material can be deleted... and improperly sourced material that can be viewed as negative should be deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Chinese identification

Huckabee tweeted a (very unfunny, but that's par) joke about identifying as Chinese. Given that he was clearly joking, that the reliable sources note that it was a sarcastic quip rather than a statement, and that he used scare quotes in his phrasing, we should not be pretending it was a serious statement and that that is how he identifies. I have reverted the addition; it should not be readded until consensus is reached to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories: