Talk:Mike Huckabee/Archive 2

message: SNSAnchor, I have two complaints on your last edit.  ontheissues.org is a nice compilation of sources.  However, best practices is to use primary sources rather than secondary sources.  Could you find the primary source?  My other complaint is that the McCain-Kennedy bill came up once in 2006 and twice in 2007.  It is not at all clear which time you mean that Huckabee opposed the bill.  I have encountered no source which suggests he opposed the bill in 2006.   Jmegill 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Best practices is [sic] to use primary sources rather than secondary sources."  Really?  That is the first time I have ever heard of that "best practice".  In fact, one of our core policies explicitly says that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources."  --ElKevbo 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, ontheissues.org isn't reliable.  The probably with ontheissues.org is that it gets some of its information from wikipedia.  Run google  search wikipedia site:ontheissues.org and you see why avoiding ontheissues.org is a good idea if one want to avoid circular references.  Jmegill 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three sample pages which reference wikipedia  http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Gravel_Drugs.htm  http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Gravel_Education.htm  http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Immigration.htm  For example, I wrote the actual passage that ontheissues.org quotes:  "Giuliani has been criticized for embracing illegal immigration. Giuliani continued a policy of preventing city employees from contacting INS about immigration violations. He ordered city attorneys to defend this policy in federal court. Giuliani has also expressed doubt that the federal government can stop illegal immigration. In April 2006, Giuliani went on the record as favoring the US Senate's comprehensive immigration plan which includes a path to citizenship and a guest worker plan"   Source: wikipedia.org Nov 7, 2006        So...do you think that I am a reliable source?   Jmegill 04:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint on Sourcing 

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

message: This section reads like a National Review article, assuming that the interest of the reader is in discovering if he adhered to a tax cutting political line. Indeed it only cites anti-tax foundations and arch conservative political rags. I myself am more interested in his fiscal policies--that is, on whom did he raise taxes, on whom did he lower them, and what are his proposals as president, than I am in what the National Review of some other equivalent source thinks about whether he lived up to their standards.190.10.54.145 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huckabee has claimed in the past that discretionary spending was 10% of the budget and the other 90% was education, Medicare, and something else.  I don't have the source right here. Perhaps the Charlie Rose interview. this was in the context of what spending was under his control.  It is a bit disingenious, though, for Huckabee to pass legislation to increase Medicare (including ARKids) eligibility and then claim that he had no control over budget increases in medical spending.    btw, the 65.3 figure is low because it excludes the last two years of governance.  It also should be viewed in context of inflation.  Jmegill 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that in light of Huckabee's stance on the FairTax, a lot of your points are moot. Brian Pearson 03:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiscal record 

message: This is a very important issue. What's his position on it? Please includemain article w/ references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.64.128 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political position on Drug War? 

message: Huckabee is a very strong advocate of the Fair Tax. I think it should be mentioned under political positions. Brian Pearson 00:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: – Morphh  (talk) 1:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Morphh! You are very busy but still manage to stay on top of things. Brian Pearson 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Mistercupcake, you may have not read a paragraph under "second full term" which dealt with the subject.  Here is what Huckabee said on a TV show in 2004: Student: Many schools in Arkansas are failing to teach students about evolution according to the educational standards of our state. Since it is against these standards to teach creationism, how would you go about helping our state educate students more sufficiently for this?
Huckabee: Are you saying some students are not getting exposure to the various theories of creation?
Student (stunned): No, of evol … well, of evolution specifically. It’s a biological study that should be educated [taught], but is generally not.
Moderator: Schools are dodging Darwinism? Is that what you … ?
Student: Yes.
Huckabee: I’m not familiar that they’re dodging it. Maybe they are. But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. And I think that what I’d be concerned with is that it should be taught as one of the views that’s held by people. But it’s not the only view that’s held. And any time you teach one thing as that it’s the only thing, then I think that has a real problem to it.  source:  http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol25/8118_is_evolution_arkansas39s_h_12_30_1899.asp   
From the same TV show in 2003   
Student: Goal 2.04 of the Biology Benchmark Goals published by the Arkansas Department of Education in May of 2002 indicates that students should examine the development of the theory of biological evolution. Yet many students in Arkansas that I have met … have not been exposed to this idea. What do you believe is the appropriate role of the state in mandating the curriculum of a given course?
Huckabee: I think that the state ought to give students exposure to all points of view. And I would hope that that would be all points of view and not only evolution. I think that they also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism …    source:  http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/print.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91
So, Mistercupcake, the previous statement about Huckabee is accurate.  Jmegill 05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to chuckle here a little bit because I can't help but feel a little bit like I'm defending a candidate who I disagree with... but in any case I agree with you 90%, the only change I would make is deleting the word "science" from the current version since he has not suggested that creationism be taught in science class specifically; since he is in favor of school prayer, one could argue that he is suggesting that creationism be taught in a UK-style "social beliefs" class. I know very little about these classes except that they involve religious education and that students in some locales have choice as to whether to attend a "Christian world view" version or a "Scientific world view version." Overall I think the candidate has done a bad job of explaining his views on the subject and on science curricula, so I think the version with "science" is close enough if you disagree. Mistercupcake 11:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first exchange in 2004 makes reference to "biological study" and the second exchange in 2003 makes reference to "Goal 2.04 of the Biology Benchmark Goals published by the Arkansas Department of Education in May of 2002".  So this is biology class.   Jmegill 13:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The student and Maher make these references, resp. but we can't assume that Huckabee is answering the question put to him (he is a politician), so just because the exchanges reference these statements, we can't infer that Huckabee's stated position refers to science/biology classes. Mistercupcake 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re political positions 

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

message: On Tuesday September 25, Jon Stewart made fun of Huckabee's (and also Giuliani and Thompson) comments before the NRA..  Huckabee said, "I'm pretty sure that they will be duck hunting in heaven" and  "Somehow the angels took that bullet and went right to the antelope and my hunt was over in a wonderful way" Clip Here: http://rackjite.com/archives/640-Jon-Stewart-Does-the-NRA-and-Looneytoon-Mike-Huckabee.html  Several anonymous editors have attempted to alter the page to reflect Huckabee's comments.  I was not aware that Huckabee had actually made the comments and thought it was some kind of joke.  I wonder if the comments merit a mention either on the Huckabee page or the campaign page.  The larger issue is Stewart is calling attention to the way Huckabee approaches religion.  While Stewart and Comedy Central are apathetic or hostile to Christianity (and gun rights), Huckabee's comments infuse religious beliefs in everyday life in a manner uncommon in many circles.  Huckabee's rejection of evolution, support for Creationism/ID, support for ArKids and opposition to Jim Holt's immigration bill appear to be related to Huckabee's religious views.  What information is out there that describes Huckabee's religious views?  Jmegill 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The clips were cut so it is unknown what the context was to the statements or the reaction of the audience (ie. laughter).  In any sense, it sounds like something someone would say in a jesting manner to get a little laugh.  It is certainly not anything that merits WP:WEIGHT unless this was sufficiently publicized.   Some offhand jesting comment is not something to include in an encyclopedia unless it became part of Huckabee's notability (see WP:BLP). Morphh  (talk) 1:23, 07 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huckabee Comments before the NRA/Religious Beliefs of Mike Huckabee 

message: Where should Mike Huckabees nicknames go such as Tax Hike Mike,.  Also where should the mention that Gov. Huckabee was number 6 on Judicial Watch's "Top 10 most wanted corrupt politicians" go.
This article is starting to look out of whack. The criticism section (many of them very minor criticisms) is getting to big to be on the main Mike Huckabee page ( I mean when its as long as his bio, its going a little over the top). Like other presidential candidates pages have done, I think it is time to make it into a subpage in titled, Criticism of Mike Huckabee. Right now it looks like a negative ad by another campaign :).  --Gnnnews2 01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did move the football comments.  I don't know the background story to it, but Huckabee acknowledged a huge interest in where Univ. of Arkansas plays its football games.  It is not really criticism (people just want the football team to play near where they live), so thus the move to the first full term.  The article needs to be fleshed out more to really describe Huckabee.  I don't see removing the criticism section as a way to do that as it would make for a sterile article.  Adding more information to produce a more rounded picture is the way to go.  I am having some difficulty in finding Huckabee's press releases and speeches from his governorship.  (if anyone knows where the official archive is, let me know).  One of the things I got from reading some press releases is that Huckabee talks about the importance of education, maintaining good health, and attracting business investment repeatedly.  This is not something that the article really shows well.   I also think the article is lacking in details about Huckabee before he entered politics.  I would like to see more information about Huckabee pre-1993.  What churches he was pastor at, what tv station did he work at, press accounts from his election at boys state.  siblings, if any and what they do.  What sermons Huckabee has given when he was pastor.  Favorite hobbies or past times.  I haven't any of his books and I assume that such information would be included in there.  Jmegill 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to separate page 

message: Something to work on... the paragraphs in this article need a bit of work.  Some are one or two sentences that might combined well with others and some look like 20 sentences that need to be split up (like illegal immigration). Morphh  (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the illegal immigration section should be split into two paragraphs.  Jmegill 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment on recent revertions.  I object to deletion of material about football games.  The material may not seem relevant to some, but I think it provides some commentary on how people respond to politics and their interest in such.  I think it is a little surprising that a simple question: where to have football games attracts more interest than any other political topic.  If there is a case for deleting the section, then that case should be made on the talk pages first.  As for deletion of the igloo section, it probably isn't that relevant, but it shows that Huckabee is a good sport.  Huckabee has a winning personality and doesn't get upset when the joke is on him.  Contrast this with James Oddo who throw a Norwegian prankster out of his office using profanity.  Here  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1iNH7W9SC8  As for the other edits, the word "claims" has be to used to describe material which comes from Huckabee's campaign.    Likewise, material that comes from critics is not repeated as fact.  The sentence "During his tenure, the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion" is written by Jennifer Rubin at NRO.  Club for Growth repeats those claims and sources them to (Arkansas Leader 04/15/06) and Americans for Tax Reform respectively.  To be fair, I don't think Jennifer Rubin is the source of those claims and the sentence should be structured, "According to __ , the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion."Jmegill 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dug up the reference to the Arkansas Leader http://www.arkansasleader.com/2006/04/saturday-editorial-huckabees-no.html Jmegill 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formating 

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

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

message: This is an excerpt from the Scott Parks 1997 article:     "During his presidency from 1989 to 1991, Southern Baptists were feuding at the state and national level. The conservative wing believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Moderates believed some Bible stories were simply metaphors and parables.  Mr. Huckabee counted himself in the conservative camp, a believer in Biblical inerrancy.  "If you can accept the resurrection, that is the ultimate miracle," he said. "If you can buy that one, the others are easy: turning water into wine and such.""   Jmegill 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what point you're making. BTW, that's a really poor summary of the issues involved.  A.J.A. 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it up with Scott Parks.  That was how it was reported in the article.  I added the section to show that my addition on the main article was not taken out of context.  Jmegill 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like how this is phrased.  It makes it sound like a fact and not the statement of being referenced.  I'm not even sure if it is accurate or important to state Scott Park's opinion.  If you listen to Huckabee's statements on Bill Maher regarding evolution, he is not talking Biblical inerrancy. Morphh  (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more than happy to send you the text of the article if you provide an email address.  This is not Scott Park's opinion.  Scott Park is reporting what Huckabee told him he believes.  Jmegill (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it is not quoting Huckabee saying he believes in Biblical inerrancy.  It is Park's interpretation of what Huckabee believes.. at least from the excerp above.  I'm seeing a conflict on what Huckabee said on Bill Maher and what is implied by the statement of Biblical inerrancy.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meaning or misunderstanding his views.. anyway - something to look at.  Morphh  (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the quotation marks to remove confusion over whose words they are.  I don't doubt that Huckabee believe in Biblical inerrancy.  A second source on Huckabe's Biblical inerrancy is an Arkansas Democrat-gazette article, "Old denominations seek new members" printed on September, 01 1991.  Excerpt:  "Even though Southern Baptists overwhelmingly outnumber other denominations in state membership, Huckabee said the churches won't stand by and wait for members to walk in the door." Our purpose is not fulfilled unless there is outreach. Stagnant Christianity would be unthinkable to us," he said, noting that denominational loyalty has declined with today's church-goers." People are shopping around. The day of denominationalism is dead, and going to a church just because that's what your parents have always done is over. " Growing pains   But Huckabee conceded that the rapid growth experienced by his church hasn't been without growing pains. In recent years, the 15 million-member denomination has been troubled with internal disagreements between conservative and moderate members.  Part of the cause for those disagreements, Farthing said, may be that the conservative teachings are so simplistic that they don't address "the uncertainties of everyday life. " He and Huckabee agreed that the simple, literal use of the Bible was attractive, but they didn't agree on whether that was good.  " Those in the mainstream churches who look wistfully at the growth patterns of those such as the Southern Baptists had better think twice," Farthing said." Most of the mainstreamers and this is to their credit have avoided the simplistic message. The down side is that Methodists may have been wishy-washy and evasive    (NOTE:  Some of the sentence fragments are article subheading.  Lexis-Nexis just provides the text and the formatting is a little messed up.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  A third source is the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article printed on 7/28/1990 by James Scudder titled "A moderate view of inerrancy".  Scudder is interviewing a bunch of pastors.  Excerpt: "GAZETTE: For our purposes here, let's just say a so-called "liberal" in a Southern Baptist church would be a pastor or lay person who did not believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture Jesus literally walking on water, literally turning water into wine, being born of a virgin, and so on. With that in mind, Mike Huckabee, the current president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, has recently said that if all the Baptist liberals in Arkansas got together, they could meet in a Waffle House booth with room left over. Is that true? SNEED: Yes. By the definition you just laid down, there is not a Southern Baptist in Arkansas that would be a liberal, and there would be very few if you stretched it to the Southern Baptist Convention."  Here, Huckabee is referenced as saying that very, very few Southern Baptists doubt the Scripture.  And which is confirmed by Dr. Sneed in the interviewJmegill (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough... Morphh  (talk) 2:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended Quote from the Scott Parks 1997 article 

message: Are there are links to give credibility to references 10 and 11 in "The Commercial Appeal"? I'm still looking but can't find them.....thanksStrunke 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is copyrighted and I paid for access to the archive per article. You can do likewise or  Send me an email to {myusername} @ hotmail.com with Huckabee article in the subject and I will send you a copy.  Jmegill 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and links 

message: It has been brought to my attention that this page is the focus of an organized effort to slant the article pro-huckabee.[1]  These editors claim they are making edits for NPOV, but in reality they are just trying to cover up all bad things of the candidate they support.
[1] Byates5637 13:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the post - we'll judge each edit on its merits and discuss as needed.  Such efforts are usually short lived and more talk than action. Morphh  (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assure you this is an honest attempt to neutralize the article. Look at what I propose in the section above. Also I WILL take action! Shogun108 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shogun108, you are poster millerkevd on the Huckabee message board.  You wrote, "Oh by the way I'm looking for a more positive Huckabee article, but I need to rewrite the "Controversies" part so of course the paulites will hate me..." Another poster on the message board wrote, "We need to hide all of those controversies." Jmegill 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair to Shogun108 (if he is millerkevd), he responded to the "hide all those controversies" poster with "Hide No! Fix the bias yes!".  In the context of the Huckabee message board, such a discussion should not be suprising and we should not instantly use it to assume bad faith.  Usually editors have a position or interest in the topics to which they edit.  We each have some form of bias but it is by working together within the guidelines of Wikipedia that we're able to move toward a neutral and exceptional article.  Wikipedia has ways to deal with dispute resolution and cabal mediation to assist the minority, if policy is being subverted by a POV pushing majority.  I think we're all working toward the same goal - to produce an unbias, well written, factually accurate, sufficently detailed article.  Morphh  (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes Morphh that is what I want. I do not want to destroy a certain point of view to promote my bias. No I want to neutralize the bias inherent in the article. Shogun108 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding new editors 

message: from the text i submitted when requesting temporary unprotection of Fred Thompson:
:having reviewed the articles for the 2008 presidential candidates, i realized that the majority of the articles did not have campaign logos inserted in them. a minority of articles do have them. a campaign logo/poster/image, by definition, is intended to promote the candidate. promotion implies POV. the inclusion of these images is inherently POV. i've removed these images from a handful of articles, and would like to have the image removed from this article - in that way, all candidate articles will be represented equally, in service to NPOV.
with the re-inclusion of huckabee's campaign logo, his is now the only presidential candidate biography that has such a logo. i assert that either all candidate bio's have such logos, or none. the latter is better, per the justification above. Anastrophe 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clinton's image was readded before this one - I copied part of the summary from that revert.  Images don't have to be "neutral".  If they illustrate the content of the topic under discussion, that is sufficient for inclusion.  I'm sure many articles would like to pull pictures because they present the topic in a positive or negative light, but the purpose of the image is to illustrate the content.  The content is what falls under NPOV policy and even then the NPOV rule simply does not prohibit the use of biased sources, biased images, or biased material, as odd as that may sound. The NPOV rule instead means that Wikipedia itself does not take a position within the article that "this source is correct" or "that source is wrong". NPOV relates to how the material is presented.  Your removal of the image is inappropriate and uniformity across candidates is not a justification for such a removal.  Each article grows at its own pace and there is no rule on uniformity for you to assert such.  Morphh  (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i would dispute only the assertion that there is 'no rule on uniformity for you to assert anything'. true, there are no rules, but there are guidelines for uniformity that are routinely in use on such articles - the inclusion and format of the info box, the structure of the lede, etc.. the whole reason this issue came up for me was when i saw that the mitt romney logo had been increased in size by an editor. that's when i 'realized' the ability to use the logo for promotion - it was a deft 'trick' to push the candidate's visibility in the article without actually saying anything. as i stated elsewhere, i'm not going to revert on this issue any further. i wanted to get it out there, and this discussion is what that's for. i have no partisanship in this matter - none of the candidates interest me. i'm interested in even-handed presentation, only. Anastrophe 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the manual of style for articles in general, which is not a rule but a guideline.  We don't say every biography must have an infobox or no one will.  We're also not talking about general style, you were asserting uniformity with specific articles having pictures or not having pictures on a particular subject (campaign logos).  Now you may be able to argue manual of style or NPOV for the size of the image, but that is a another discussion.  What is the proper size for such an image, if increasing the image is POV than perhaps decreasing it is equally POV.  You have to come to some compromise on the appropriate size for the formating of the article (does it look oversized).  Does the size of the image fit with the content with regard to weight given to the topic area?  I don't know that such a dispute has taken place here but it appears you need to have it on the Romney article. Morphh  (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  As I write this, Hillary's entry has a campaign logo on it too.  She also has an awards and honors page.  Do all the other candidates have the same? --Mactographer 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if by that rhetorical question you are suggesting that absence of same from other articles is a matter of contention, it isn't for me. not every candidate has won a bunch of awards and honors. so you can't exactly include what may not exist. Anastrophe 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care either way on the issue of campaign logos.  Jmegill 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with Anastrophe, and I find WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS a poor rationale for returnign it to the article. ThuranX 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that is the case, then why do you use the same argument here when you claim, and I quote: "Editor leaves it on some candidates and not others?" --Mactographer 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Then delete the other crap too.  --24.6.29.122 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone didn't read the essay, did they? And most of the other stuff has been. there are editors working hard for neutrality here against editors who come from off wiki to promote and protect their candidates... hrmm... woonder where I read that recently? ThuranX 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ThuranX, Anastrophe's argument makes no sense and is not at issue with policy - See my comments above. While I did not base my argument on the rationale you describe, his rationale for the image removal is being overturned on every article that he's made this change to that I can tell.   Morphh  (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anastrophe's argument makes no sense". please, WP:CIVIL. my argument is not nonsensical; but apparently you are stating that as a term of belittlement. please reread my argument. nowhere did i claim it was an issue of policy - please don't put words in my mouth. Anastrophe 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, I did not mean to belittle you. I only meant that your argument was for POV, which to me meant that it was a violation of NPOV. You also asserted that they should be uniform in the service of NPOV. Perhaps you did not mean to claim policy but that is what it sounded like to me. So I was saying your argument did not make sense in regard to what NPOV policy states and the reason you removed the images, which is what I argued above. I hope this clarifies it. Morphh  (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough, thank you. you're right, arguing NPOV is arguing policy. my intent has been more on the spirit of NPOV rather than as an issue of enforcement, if that makes sense (in this case, i grant i might not be making sense! ;^). i hope to have articles avoid even the appearance of POV, particularly with topics that are so deeply prone to POV as 'who best to run the country'. anyway, nuff said. Anastrophe 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoops, so sorry. Morphh, you seem to think my 'no one read the essay' was a response to you. It was to the Rude IP citing Othercrap, not to you. YOu're smoothly arguing a point with other editors. You're not agenda warring. In a section above, I talked about how some editors here are dsicussing things at length rather than fighting, and I see that again here in the main, excepting only those from Huck'sArmy, the website calling for a meatpuppet attack on the page. ThuranX 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm qutie troubled by two things in this discussion: ALL OR NONE, which sounds like an ultimatum, not an editing argument when left unsupported as it was, and 'othercrapexists', which I've seen used twice now, the second time COMPLETELY incorrectly, in fact. I agree that Logos are likely to be a biasing image. IF there are to be such images, their inclusion should probably be determined by an appropriate wiki-project... is there a 2008 US elections project? as US politics project? if not, go right to RfC and let's get this settled. Inclusion AFTER the election is encyclopedic, I'd scan in some older 'truman for president' buttons lying around the house for that, it's historic at that point. the question becomes, is a single image enough to constitute endoresement or biasing? I think that since many of those trying to include such are SPAs and Meat Puppets, as per the Huck'sArmy message baord seeking inclusion as part of its' agenda, that's enough to show me that bias exists in such an image, an we should disallow all of them. ThuranX 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to judge each edit on its merits and not who is supporting or against it. If you check the other articles, there are also discussions there. I hope that I'm not included in the "SPA" / "Meat Puppet" crowd, he's not my pick for prez. Perhaps you should take a step back - you seem to getting "us against them", which creates a more difficult atmosphere. Good arguments and policy should prevail. Morphh  (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Morphh, did you miss my clarification above? i specifically singled you out as NOT an SPA, agenda warrior, or meatpuppet. I complimented your ability to discuss this rationally. If you still think I said anythign bad about you, bring it to my talk page, keep this section focused on the issue at hand. I thought I was clear though, especially in another reply where I called for opening an RfC about this, thus creating a guideline for the entire WP project, not just a page here and/or there. ThuranX 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry.. missed the "many of" and since I was the main disputer of the justification for removal.. I must have assumed.  I did read the other comment and thank you.  I didn't quite understand the RFC thought as I didn't see the argument.  I was just a little worried that you were so focused on the huck-army cabal that the merits of the edits were glossed over.  I apologize if that was not the case, it was just my observation. However, now perhaps we need an RFC as all the AIN cabal are joining in battling the huck cabal.  All huck cabal edits are POV, particularly this graphic which has no justification for removal under the POV policy being stated by the AIN cabal.  What a mess....
Morphh  (talk) 2:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, what? I'm not that article's babysitter. Further, Ultimatums are specifically discouraged on Wikipedia. In the best light, it's another WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, at worst, it's an admission that unless you get your ay, you're going to disrupt pages, which is in itself disruptive. I suggest you strike out the comment above, and refraim from such extortionist tactics in the future. ThuranX 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try to play fair, and get called an extortionist.  s'why I don't bother much with this site anymore. --24.6.29.122 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Though I am new to this article I did see the posting about it at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I support ThuranX's position in the above discussion. I'd remind the other editors that there is tremendous support within Wikipedia for neutral coverage of political candidates. It is not rocket science to determine whether an article is neutral, and whether the arguments on a Talk page sound like they are in good faith. If we perceive that there is a group trying to game the situation, or issue ultimatums, on  a particular article, there is a very good system of notification within Wikipedia to draw attention to the problem and take any needed countermeasures. EdJohnston 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As another total outsider who came here from AIN can I just point out that there is something that doesn't appear to have been hit on yet. Campaign logos are copyrighted, as such they need to be uploaded to WP with a fair use rationale. So far the Huckabee logo doesn't yet have one and will more than likely be deleted at some point. The other thing to remember is that copyrighted images under a FUR can only be used in specific places and for specific reasons. They can't be used willy nilly and just as decoration. As it stands the logo is not a requirement for this article, it isn't specifically mentioned in the article and it doesn't serve (or exist) to clarify anything in the article, therefore it doesn't meet FUR usage. Just thought I'd throw that in the mix. ---- WebHamster 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is an argument for removal that I can support.  On the other points, I am a bit disturbed by the above discussion.  I'm not even sure what EdJohnston is supporting.  The image has been there for quite awhile, and was removed today by an editor that is not any of the described in the AIN (not that it should matter), nor a normal contributor to this article.  Justification for removal has been disputed at every candidate article where removal was done and was not valid use of the policy specified for removal.  So why is the new editor getting jumped on?  They have not presented a force that would "game the system" and they haven't issued any "ultimatums".  I have yet to see them do anything that wouldn't be considered normal editor behavior.  I was the main one disputing the image - debate the merits.  Lets not make this about some cabal.  Give the editors a chance here.  Most articles have biased editors, this is nothing new... at least you know where they stand.  It seems we're ignoring the merits of their edits based on the assumption of bad faith.   Morphh  (talk) 1:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great policy reason. As to the above discussion, and your concerns... Have you read the BLP/N report, also at WP:AN/I? Multiple editors are conspiring off-site to push their agenda, discussing editors on wiki, and using extortion techniques on talk pages to enforce their goals? Mactographer's goal was 'all or none', and he chose to attempt enforcement with this:"ThuranX, I noticed you removed Hillary's campaign logo, so I won't return Mike's if it says that way." That's do A, or ELSE, he'll do B. that's extortion. I've reported this all to AN/I, and to BLP/N. They refer to editors here who don't agree with their views as 'liberal elitists out to make them feel like trailer trash', 'POV warriors', 'bias' (not 'biased'). At least three editors have agreed to pursue this, and possibly the original poster as well. ThuranX 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anastrophe was the one that asserted "that either all candidate bio's have such logos, or none. the latter is better, per the justification above."  When I read Mactograph's statement, I read that he would abide by what everyone else was doing but he would not go for removing it from here if others articles had it added, which is understandable... the policy used for justification should apply broadly, not just to this article.  It was not extortion, he was saying that if the use is applied globally he would respect it, if it is not, he would reapply it here as the justification for removal was deemed invalid.  Where is the extortion?  I think your making a war out of nothing. Morphh  (talk) 2:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'ThuranX, keep Hillary Clinton's page the way I want it, or I'll do something on this page'. See, that's extortion. especially since it's an absurd demand to make. It's all threats, which are breaks with WP:CIVIL, if not some other policy I'm not familiar with. Off wiki actions like this are violations of WP:CANVAS, WP:POV, and possibly other policies. It's really taht simple. Violations of Policy can, and often are, enough in themselves to justify resisting such edits. Had the thread on that site been ' I've been working the Wiki page, and need help finding a citation for Event A or Statement ABC' There would be nothig there. getting help with research from people who know a subject is fine. Getting help in changing an article to the way your group want is very different. I don't understand why you think such behaviors are so innocuous. I never went after Anastrophe, as he had a good idea, if not the right policy to cite. Since not all candidates have logos, its' both POV, and WP:UW, to include them. As WebHamster poinsts out, there's an even better policy, FUR, for it. it seems there's consensus that the policy is right in this application, so I don't think there's much to worry about on the topic of this thread. As to the conduct of this off-wiki message board, it's still objectionable, and still on AN/I. ThuranX 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did he say that he wanted Hillary's page a certain way?  He just wanted them the same way based on the justification.  He was just saying that it was not right for one to be one way and Huckabee to be another, based on the justification used - I completely agree.  It was an invalid justification and if deemed valid should have been applicable to all.  I agree - Am I extorting you?  Normal revert policies apply.  I see no threats... dispute in justification for the change.  Is every revert a threat and extortion... this is insane.  People can talk outside of Wikipedia and I don't see anything overtly worrisome in the blog.  They have a right to be concerned about what they perceive to be bias in an article and discuss correcting it.  It was not POV for some articles to have a logo and others not... so lets remove all the logos... come on. IMO you're stretching policy here to mean something other than what it says.  If we get a sufficiently free logo, I'll argue to have it added back.  Morphh  (talk) 3:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We should either include campaign logos on all campaigns or on none due to the POV issues. Since the logos are generally coprighted, we must make a fair use argument for them. As far as I can tell they add little to the articles since the campaign logos are almost all variants on the same thing: the candidate's name with some combination of red, white and blue. Given that, all the campaign logos should be removed. JoshuaZ 03:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what part of POV policy your using there for justification but I agree on the Fair Use.  Perhaps we should just get rid of all pictures as they present some POV in one way or another.  It's unfair to all those articles that don't have pictures and presents a POV in each article.  Of course, this has no relation to what the NPOV policy actually states.  Morphh  (talk) 3:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Including some campaigns logos and not others is arguably POV since it could be seen as supporting those campaigns more than others(Actually, the more I think about this the more it seems like a really weak argument). The fair use issue is serious however- we aren't adding almost anything with these pictures. WP:FAIR is pretty clear about this sort of thing and even if FAIR were substantially weakened these still wouldn't fall within it. JoshuaZ 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inclusion of campaign logos 

message: Shogun108, you should discuss why you are changing the order of the article.  You should make the case why one order of the article is better than another order of the article.  If not, then I may just change it back to how it was before.  Jmegill 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I had hoped to bring up and make the same change Shogun made. his political positions are the rule, the controversies teh exception, to split a metaphor. His positions go directly to his daily style of governing his state, and to his notability as a candidate by standing out on certain issues or blending into the GOP crowd on others. Further, it's a logical order or us as writers, to set out the ground-work for why things became controversial, by establishing Huckabee's baseline attitudes. HYPOTHETICAL example: 'Candidate Q gives a speech about the evils of gun control, and the benefits of the second amendment, a school shooting occurs with a gun made with a straw purchase or other comtroversial method, huckabee gives same speech again a week later. Gun control groups, parents of injured students, and so on are outraged and rebuke him in the media to a large amount of coverage.' end example. Now, his position isn't controversial in and of itself, beyond that of the general gun control debate, but his unyielding view in the face of counterexamples would be. Knowing already that he's against gun legislation, we as editors can go right to the heart of the controversy, that he was criticized for not re-examining his positions. Again, this is a hypothetical. I concur with Shogun108 on this move, had considered it, but suddenly had to watch for the invasion of Huck's Army of POV warriors. ThuranX 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right I guess I could have started a talk about this, but the edit was minor. I changed nothing. I have another idea as to what to do with the page to make it better I'll start a talk for that one because it is larger. Anyway Thuran is right here. It creates logical flow to the article and fixes a small POV problem with reading the "controversies" before you know his position. I don't think anyone should be against that.Shogun108 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections. Morphh  (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that final statement, SHogun, is exactly why it should've been done, and bringing up things using arguments like that to support your edits is how to achieve consensus, or at least, premise your ideas, here in talk. Keep that up, please. That's how Wikipedia gets stuff done best. ThuranX 20:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your words of advice. Maybe you noticed I am new to how Wikipedia works internally, but I'll learn and maybe I'll contribute to other pages later... So I'll put that to note thanks again. Shogun108 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My position is that no information should be left out in the editing process.  On the Dumas quote, I believe it is relevant and should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the Order of the Article 

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

message: I object Bryan Derksen's edit to the Dumond subsection.  He changed   "Dumond had been attacked and castrated prior to his trial for the rape" to "Dumond was castrated prior to his trial; he claimed that he was attacked by two men in his home (though district prosecutor Gene Raff suggested it was a case of self-mutilation and a urologist who'd studied the topic told the Forrest City Times-Herald that self-mutilation isn't that rare among psychologically disturbed sex offenders)."  
Comments on how and why Dumond was castrated are tangential to an article about Mike Huckabee.  The level of detail is not necessary to understanding the controversy.Jmegill 01:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Jmegill, but facts are facts, take a look at this article. Derksen's edits are totally legitimate. --SNSAnchor 03:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jmegill isn't contesting he facts, but the level of detail. I support the older version as well. It's simple and direct. Others who wish to read up on the case can go look it up. What's relevant to Huckabee is the sentencing reduction and resultant recidivism, not disparaging Dumond's assertions; that should go into a Dumond case article. Huckabee wasn't criticized for doing the chop work, jsut for opening the door early. ThuranX 03:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has rules for discussing living persons WP:BLP.  Jmegill (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumond edit 

message: I object to the last two edits by SNSAnchor.  The addition of the phrase "The same year, Huckabee was named “Friend of a Taxpayer” by American for Tax Reform (ATR) for his cut in statewide spending." should be put with Fiscal Record subsection, not under the first term subsection.  This is because it more logically goes with a discussion of his fiscal record.  The second to last edit has a couple of problems.  The way it was edited the structure of the edit reads 1.) Huckabee's campaign talking points  2.)  Fiscal Criticism  3.  Repeats Huckabee's campaign talking points.  Thus, the edit carries redundant sentences. The first sentence "Huckabee cut taxes over ninety times while governor,..." is redundant with "Huckabee's campaign has countered these arguments by saying that Huckabee cut taxes 94 times including signing the first broad-based tax cut in the history of the state".  Jmegill 04:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why "Tax Me More Fund" is relevant to discussing Huckabee's fiscal record.  It ended up collecting a laughable amount of funds.  I would just as soon eliminate it.  Jmegill 05:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was made in response to criticism for his record in the area of fiscal matters. It also drew opposition for being a campaign trick. In any case I also edited the fiscal record part I think I only removed one article, but I was shifting and making the article flow better so that it seemed more like an encyclopedia entry explaining the details as they happened. The order provides for a much more stable read. You may add anything as long as it does not detract from the flow. It took me forever to create an article which presented this issue as being a controversy with two sides to the argument. I was trying and I think I did all right I all ready asked a few people and they said it didn't weigh to heavily on either side. The information allows the reader to choose a side and from what is provided it is easy to support either side without feeling like you where convinced to change your opinion. I hope this works out for everyone, because I think this is how an encyclopedia should be written when writing about criticism or controversy.Shogun108 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one issue I have though is the "Arkansas Democratic Gazette a credible source for fiscal issues? I noticed that the "It was reported" was this paper so I added the name of the source into the article. Do you think it should still be used? Shogun108 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arkansas Democratic Gazette is reporting its numbers from what the Department of Finance and Administration gave it.  Jmegill 13:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Shogun108, exactly WHO did you ask about the balance of the article? Certainly no one here on Wikipedia, per your contribs list. Please do not claim consensus based on Off-wiki discussions over at Huck's Army, or your family, or anywhere else but here. There's no way to verify that you've got such consensus. ThuranX 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were some deletions and some additions.  I object to the deletion of "According to a National Review writer, during his tenure the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion". Jmegill 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was cited, put it back in. Also, Stop wit thhe 'I object' talk. it's really confrontational, and it is not helping build consensus. It pushes people away. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, and we can afford to be more civil and less formal. How about this: Shogun, since The Nat'l Review segment was cited, why did you remove it? ThuranX 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted some edits because they fail to represent both sides of the controversy and thus violate the neutral point of view policy. The "Tax Me More Fund" is very relevant to this topic it was created in response to Huckabee not raising taxes.--SNSAnchor 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read through both versions and I don't see where it violates NPOV.  What part of the controversy is not represented, and if there is something missing, why not add it instead of reverting the entire thing.  Shogun's changes, I thought, made it flow much better.  Instead of back and forth, back and forth, he said she said... it does a much better job keeping the arguments together.  It discusses much of the criticism for his history in the first paragraph, discusses much of the rebuttal in the second paragraph, and then goes into comments on the presidential election in the third.  This has much better flow and is easier to understand.  I think it makes each section stronger.  I'm not an expert on it, so perhaps I missed on small piece of criticism that may have been left out, to which there should be discussed here as to inclusion.  The "Tax Me More Fund" was included in the version that I read... not sure what the issue is.  Morphh  (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, after reading though it again, I do believe now that it is fine as it is. Thanks Morphh for the feedback. ----SNSAnchor 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to revert to my version, but I will add "According to a National Review writer, during his tenure the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion. I didn't notice that I'd deleted that which is why I asked for you guys to look it over so I'll do as Morphh recommends and before we have editing wars make sure your ideas have met a general consensus. I confess I did ask my parents and that the review was off wiki, but I cannot prove their bias except by saying they do not follow my own. Of course that has no backing. I just wanted you guys to know I put an honest effort into maintaining the integrity of the article and of the issue REMEBER: The section is called controversy not criticism so it must reflect both sides equally, but not give preference to any. In witch case a person who reads it will not feel obliged to change sides given their view. There is no persuasive prose in it I made sure of it. All sources are cited so. I will say it again I am reverting to my version and adding the citation I accidentally left out. Thanks for the feedback! Shogun108 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I don't think every change should go through some talk page consensus process.  This would likely greatly interfere with getting things done and the WP:BOLD idea.  However, if it is something large, something disputed, you're removing something, or adding something significant, then it is best to start a discussion.  If there is disagreement in the discussion, we should work to compromise to gain a consensus.  Morphh  (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I usually share your sentiments, I don't particularly mind the extra tact and review, as a result of the influx of editors from hucksarmy. That said, Most of the contested material's coming here fast anyways, so let's not discourage talk page use. too much is ALWAYS preferable to too little, because too little leads to 3RR and edit wars. SHogun108's mostly coming around to wiki-style editing, and Jmegill is also generally working within guidelines. I do worry about the SPA nature of both, but so long as they continue to work together, and with others, I'm not going to make any more deal about that. ThuranX 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: An editor attempted to add aditional information on Grover Norquist, but Huckabee's relationship to him is irrelevent. His comments were though. I cited the date. If you have ANY problems tell ME. I WILL fix them. Edit wars is not the answer so I'd prefer if you told me what you thought was wrong and we discuss it. Shogun108 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dumas characterization should remain the section.  Huckabee does have a history with Norquist.  In 2001, ATR (Norquist organization) praised Huckabee calling him friend of the taxpayer.  In 2006, Norquist dismissed Huckabee calling him a serial tax increaser.  In 2007, Huckabee signs ATR's pledge.  Jmegill 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before changing it let's wait for a third fourth or even fifth opinion. I don't think it adds or detracts anything from the passage and as such seems irrelevant. So I guess I'll consider it, but not too much because we are talking about Huckabee not Norquist Shogun108 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Fiscal Record 

message: The edit on Huckabee's first term is not supported by the source.  The bond issue vote happened on June 15, 1999.  The vote passed 80-20. Huckabee signed the bill two months earlier on April 1, 1999.  Taxes went up immediately upon signing the bill.  Now, logically, how can 80% of the state support a tax increase two months before they voted on it?  The source clearly states that the bond vote does not affect the tax increases.  The bond vote is only on whether Arkansas issues bonds to speed up road repair or uses the tax increase to finance road repair on a pay as you go basis.  The source is copyrighted material which I paid for from a newspaper archive, but I am more than willing to email anybody who asks for the full article in question if they have any doubts about it.  I emailed the full article in question on September 3 to the editor in question.  The second edit "because of previous years of mismanagement" is POV and will be removed.  The Jim Cooper quote should be place in the fiscal record subsection since it is dated Oct. 13, 2007 and is designed to counter criticism.  Jmegill 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I ask is that editors read the relevant documents before making edits.  This is the bond issue act signed on April 1, 1999.  http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/1999/scripts/ablr/bills/bills.asp?billno=HB1500  and this is the gasoline and diesel tax increase also signed on April 1, 1999 http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/1999/scripts/ablr/bills/bills.asp?billno=HB1548  Jmegill 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Comments on Edits 

message: Why isn't there an Español link in the "In other languages" box??
I found an article at es.wikipedia.org, so does someone know how to get it linked here?? 67.149.116.181  —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Morphh  (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish?? 

message: Information from the campaign or candidate should be sourced as coming from the campaign or candidate.  Information which comes from a reliable third party source can be stated as fact.  This is my reasoning for the last revert.  Jmegill 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of my recent changes have been to preserve information about Janet Huckabee, maintain what has already been put in the fiscal record section and to accomodate useful edits.  Jmegill 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stated,Asserted 

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

message: Does anyone know where I can find the text of the actual Amendment one that was on the ballot in 1996?   The Amendment established a minimum property tax of 25 mils (Arkansas property is assessed on 20% of the value).  Supposedly, only 6 out of 311 school districts were below 25 mils.  The Amendment received support from David Pryor, Mike Beebe, Ron Russell of the Ark Chamber of Commerce (and other business leaders) and was Jim Guy Tucker's idea.  Huckabee didn't have to support it and the issue was contentious for Tucker.  I am unclear over how redistributionist the formula was and whether this represented a significant change in terms of tax burden and also school expenditures. One source says, " All money raised by school taxes in 319 individual districts would have to come to Little Rock and be dispersed statewide. That way, the same amount of money would be spent on every child in public schools regardless of how rich or poor the child's district" and "a measure to redistribute local property tax money to equalize school funding statewide.".  Also, "At its heart is a provision to remove constitutional restrictions on distributing local property tax proceeds statewide to even out big differences in education funding available to rich school districts and poor ones."  Also, "The amendment requires that districts that bring in more money per student than specified in the funding formula send the extra money to the state for redistribution"  Also, "It would require that all school districts earmark for the state an amount of money equal to the revenue generated by a 25-mill tax; the state would ensure that the money is distributed among the districts.  The amendment would not force a tax increase in most school districts, and each district would keep any revenue it generates in excess of the state minimum. "  A letter writer complains, "Amendment 1 means the end of local control. If it passes, Arkansas, like several other reform states, will begin an impossible fight to regain local control of their schools, lost when a state mandates "equalizing funding.""
The Alternatives mentioned to Amendment 1 were tax increases or a school consolidation program. (school consolidation did later end up happening, but Huckabee later ended up endorsing a plan of consolidation)  The previous year, some persons had to pay a 10% income surcharge.  I would appreciate any insight on this issue.   Jmegill 03:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendment One of 1996 

message: Although the section about Mr. Huckabee and his wife running on the same ticket may be an interesting piece of trivia, it hardly merits listing under the "controversy" section. Is it controversial for Mrs. Clinton to run for the same office her husband once held? Please.
I suggest the section either be removed or relocated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.30.198 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is significant.  The Times article mentioned that the run almost cost Mike Huckabee the Governor's race in 2002.  It was a major campaign issue and the Republican party in Arkansas was more than a little angry at the Huckabee.  Maybe putting in my context like Janet Huckabee's offensive comments towards Jews or use of a state airplane would help the reader see why the voters abandoned Janet on this race, but I don't care to go in too much detail here.  Jmegill 02:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I wanted to mention this on the talk page before I do this as perhaps a short discussion will make it unnecessary but I have discussed it in the past and the article continues to concern me.  If we do submit this for request for comment, please don't take it as anything against the editors working to improve the article.  Sometimes things just need a little more discussion from external sources to get us on the proper path (if any issue is found).  Due to the sensitivity of BLP with regard to a U.S. presidential candidate, we need to be very cautious and make sure we're presenting the material in the most neutral way.  My concerns are with the controversy section and issues with WP:BLP particularly regarding BLP criticism, NPOV article structure, and NPOV undue weight.  When looking at the table of contents, the controversy overwhelms the article and gives undue weight to headers that do not reflect important areas to the subject's notability in comparison with the rest of the article structure.  Take a look at the John Stossel article before and after, which underwent a similar process of BLP / article structure and undue weight changes.  All the important content and criticism is still there but it is presented in a way that does not bias the article and puts it in context for the overall biography.  I'm not sure how best to address it but I thought perhaps an RFC would get some opinions of other editors that are not as vested as our longtime editors and HucksArmy.  The consensus my be no changes, and I can accept that, but I think we need to have more discussion for this high profile biography.  Morphh  (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment on the latest edit (tdl1060) is that this particular criticism is better on the Presidential campaign page and/or where it was.  I think I am going to revert it because it deletes  some of the Huckabee's team response to criticism on fiscal matters and takes an absolutist anti-Huckabee stance with regards to the fuel tax. In general, I would like to see material move from the Controversy section to other parts of the article rather than the other way around.  I would like not to see sub-subsections in the controversies part because that makes structural POV allegations easier to lodge.  The way the article is now is two parts: his life told chronologically and then his life told thematically.  Early life, early political career, and Governor of Arkansas is a chronology.  Poltical position, Controversy, Presidential ambitions, Health advocacy are themes. It appears to me that the Stossel article was mainly changed by eliminating subcategories of Criticisms.  A couple sentences of the  health care and pesticide criticism were dropped as well as the section on school choice/education.  The article has a similar format:  chronological and then thematically.  Let me ask you:  should the Controvery section be renamed "Awards, Praise and Controversy" like it is on the Stossel article?  One could make a case that that would mitigate structural POV allegations.  My thinking on the question is politicians, by their very nature of being politicians, attract criticism or controversy.  Being overly concerned about NPOV when dealing with politicians sanitizes the articles.  I think the criticism should stand as well as the politicians response to such criticism. That is one reason why I am against the deletion of Rudy Giuliani's controversy page.  Here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani   I've repeated this before:  school consolidation/Lake View lawsuit is big issue with regards to the Huckabee, yet I don't fully understand this issue and the sourcing on it (such as Jim Holt's proposed legal end run around the court) is incomplete.  This also has a tie-in to national standards testing in Arkansas and educational spending.  I am thinking that a catchall "Education" section might useful to describe this issue thematically.  Jmegill 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not targeting deleting any criticism - I'll leave that up to the normal discussion/editing, although some might benefit from a little summarization in a restructure or might be better placed in other Huckabee articles as you describe. I would like to see some of the sections integrated where possible as described in WP:CRITICISM. I also see the change in structure from chronological to themes that you describe. The larger theme subheadings, such as Political positions, Controversy, and Presidential ambitions seem to be appropriate but many of the smaller "issue" headings should be looked at. I don't care for the "Books" or "Health advocacy" being main sections either. Books should be integrated into a life or profession section either titled "Author" or just a paragraph without a header. Health advocacy should also be integrated or subsectioned under some area of his life. Sections under Controversy, which could be renamed to include praise, should be integrated to other areas where appropriate or combined into broader section titles that do not reflect a list criticisms. This also helps remove areas for trolling. Perhaps the entire structure should be considered. Maybe we should do larger themes over the chronological by breaking it down into sections in "Early life & education" and "Personal life". Then a main section on his Professional career. Then perhaps a section on controversy and praise. Morphh  (talk) 1:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? Wikipedia has time constraints? To what end? to hype the candidate? Absurd. Articles move at the pace they move at, no faster nor slower. That this article moves slowly in some aspects is due to the obvious and clear agitation of HucksArmy, who've been discussing this page on their forum for weeks. We have to evaluate every single edit more closely, revert more, and so on. NO agenda pushing here. 'hurrying' to reach some rather arbitrary content or viewpoint benchmark in time for primaries is against our core policies. ThuranX 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huckabee is a douchebag though, you have to remember that. Sammiejoiluvbuts (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ThuranX, my thoughts on urgency are related to the effects regarding BLP and the harm that could be caused due to non-neutral presentation.  BLP certainly has time constraints depending on the content such as the statement "removed immediately and without discussion".  Wikipedia is obviously a source of information for some considering candidates.. be it Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton...  If we have an article on one of the candidates during the period of time for which most people are looking to gain information and Wikipedia is presenting Huckabee in a way that biases the article (as I described above) - I think that is of great concern and should be delt with quickly.  Wikipedia could do "harm" by not following the policies of BLP and thus effect his chances at election because of our presentation.  It may not matter in three months - the harm will already be done.  Doesn't matter to me what candidate you're for, we should all have the goal of presenting the material neutrally here. Morphh  (talk) 14:48, 04 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Link  Brian Pearson 01:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The context was back in August when there were arguments over whether to describe Huckabee as a fiscal moderate, a fiscal liberal or a economic populist.  Ultimately, it was dropped from the introduction.Jmegill 06:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the man can be described without the labels. Brian Pearson (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The expunging of the data is not sourced and does not provide Huckabee's reply, which has to do with safeguarding personal information.  With regards to issues which are more important, Huckabee's record on schools and education, as well as his attempts to promote marriage are most important.  Jmegill 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondly, I think that the Author section should go at the bottom of the page.  The Presidential ambitions section can be slimmed down and the information therein transferred to the presidential race page.  Jmegill 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter too much but why do you think that Author or Books should go at the bottom?  Being an author (one of his professions) and discussing his books seems like something that would go before the theme based praise/criticism.  I won't consider this as a references section or further reader.  The bullets should be removed and the section should be expanded to discuss the books a little more. Morphh  (talk) 18:13, 04 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say because that's how I've seen it done on other pages, but that's how I've seen it done on other pages.  It's not a terribly good reason.  As a list it should go at the bottom with the references, but if the section goes into detail, then it could warrant a higher placement on the page.  I have only read "Character is the Issue" of the five books. The book is important in describing Huckabee's beliefs and outlook.  Perhaps under Awards, Praise, Theme, and Controversy, there can be a section describing how Huckabee views the world  Jmegill 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, one of Huckabee's professions was public speaker.  He did some professional speaking for side income when he was lt. gov.  Jmegill 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I removed this from the main article for some discussion. The only thing here that makes this anything to consider is the last statement, which links to a self described liberal blog.  I don't see that the statement that "some political commentators to cry foul" is supported in the article. This is not a reliable source and the accusation could be very close to libelous.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.  Morphh  (talk) 15:53, 04 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The expunging of the data is not sourced and does not provide Huckabee's reply, which has to do with safeguarding personal information.  With regards to issues which are more important, Huckabee's record on schools and education, as well as his attempts to promote marriage are most important.  Jmegill 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondly, I think that the Author section should go at the bottom of the page.  The Presidential ambitions section can be slimmed down and the information therein transferred to the presidential race page.  Jmegill 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter too much but why do you think that Author or Books should go at the bottom?  Being an author (one of his professions) and discussing his books seems like something that would go before the theme based praise/criticism.  I won't consider this as a references section or further reader.  The bullets should be removed and the section should be expanded to discuss the books a little more. Morphh  (talk) 18:13, 04 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say because that's how I've seen it done on other pages, but that's how I've seen it done on other pages.  It's not a terribly good reason.  As a list it should go at the bottom with the references, but if the section goes into detail, then it could warrant a higher placement on the page.  I have only read "Character is the Issue" of the five books. The book is important in describing Huckabee's beliefs and outlook.  Perhaps under Awards, Praise, Theme, and Controversy, there can be a section describing how Huckabee views the world  Jmegill 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, one of Huckabee's professions was public speaker.  He did some professional speaking for side income when he was lt. gov.  Jmegill 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This is not a useful heading - I see exactly one award in there, and almost no praise.  I'm not even sure what "themes" means - another version of "political positions", perhaps?   And I think controversies are best handled when integrated into the appropriate section of the article, as has been done for Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.  The section's focus is not at all clear and has no analogues that I can think of in other biographies - seems to be a catch-all section.  So I would break  it up and move the parts as follows: create a "personal image" section or some name like that (health advocacy, gift registry, public comments and any other things about his personal image);  appropriate governorship term (fiscal record, Wayne Dumond, Janet Huckabee/Secy of State};  political positions - which would be much  better rendered not as a list (illegal immigration).  I'm willing to  do the work, but wanted to raise it here rather than waste my time.  But I think this section has to change. Tvoz |talk 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Morph (I think) earlier pointed to the John Stossel page which had an Awards, Praise and Controversy section.  I used that formula, but I also added "Themes" because I didn't know how to deal with material concerning his religious beliefs which seem to touch many aspects of Huckabee's life.  Perhaps there could be a full section devoted to Huckabee's Personality and Beliefs.  Like you suggested, Personal Image.  I could see integrating the Janet Huckabee part into the first governor term because it fits there chronologically.  But other controversies such as fiscal matters or Dumond play out over time.  The Dumond case was an issue in 1996/1997 and then again in 2002 when it was brought up in the 2002 Governor's race.  The Dumond case also ties into concerns over clemency.  So where would it fit in chronologically?  On fiscal matters, should there be a summary for a 10 1/2 year record or should each tax cut and tax hike be dealt with separately? In general, I believe that there should be controversy sections, especially for politicians who frequent have to take stances on divisive issues.  In fact, the only way a politician can avoid controversy is to not get elected. That said, I can see that having a separate controversies page would lead to a POV fork. (Although in Giuliani's case, there were so many controversies that to exclude them would be biased towards Giuliani).  In this page's section which includes controversy, there is balance because Huckabee's responses to criticism have been included.  That is one of the reasons why the section is as large as it is.  It is ironic that it can be argued that this section has undue weight because of its length when the length is due to balance. Jmegill (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I stopped following Stossel some months ago because of the high level of contentious editing going on, so I didn't remember that section (or it may not have been there when I was editing there) - nor am I sure I'd recommend that article as a model in general, but I think the problem here is  that in any case that model doesn't really work on this article. If I'm not mistaken there is only one award here, and not exactly a major one - it should certainly be included, but elevating it to a section head seems off to me.  I would go for the "personal" section to include religion beliefs. I see what you're saying about the chronology problem - I'm not really looking for strict chronology, as you're right that sometimes an event happens and its repercussions happen much later - so I suppose I'd place Dumond in whichever gubernatorial term it happened in, and say there that it became an issue later on as well.  Fiscal matters perhaps would be better in political positions - not sure about that.  I haven't tried to actually re-write this, so  I realize that my suggestion per se may not quite work, but I want to raise the question of that catch-all section and see what we can do about it.  Tvoz |talk 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Janet Huckabee section can go in the first full term.  And the gift registry can go to the second term.  As for awards, there is a paragraph in the first full term which lists some of them.  I'll leave it there for now.  The other sections fiscal record, illegal immigration, and now Dumond deal with things which were much discussed when they happened in Arkansas and also have been discussed in the national media.  I would like to keep as much detail as possible on the topics.  Jmegill (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Tvoz's ideas here.  Also, I've moved it a couple of times but Jeremy221 keeps moving it back - I think the Presidential ambitions section should go above the theme based praise, controversies and such.  Since several of these can be integrated into the governership sections, perhaps this will reduce the conflict but I think the presidential section should follow the Governor of Arkansas section.  Morphh  (talk) 18:28, 07 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee#Awards.2C_praise.2C_themes_and_controversy Awards, praise, themes and controversy] 

message: After reading the entire page, I'm left with the feeling that I just read a campaign brochure for Huckabee.  This is a highly-biased entry with barely a mention of Huckabee's many scandals while governor or of his borderline legal/illegal acceptance of "gifts" similar to those received from this Baptist congregations.
I had hoped to read a balanced article displaying both his successes and failures but mostly read a litany of great accomplishments.  Gee, he's closer to being godlike than I knew.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.38.95 (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What sourced information do you think should be included?  Jmegill (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure.  This is Waas' followup story.  The previous Waas story was released on 12/4 and a link added and phrases added to the Dumond section to reflect the information Waas reported.Jmegill (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Jmegill (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I'd hoped someone else would nuke it from orbit, but since they didn't I have. that was absurdly propaganda, and it's gone now. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright issues on that image are more of a concern; however the current image is kind of crappy, compositionally speaking and unprofessional for an encyclopedia. Given that we're dealing with a fairly prominent U.S. figure, there should be a public domain image of him somewhere without a microphone.  Borisblue (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's not the best, but it IS the most recent previous image. We did, at one point, have a nice, legit ,good image of him, i think from an official portrait, but that went away, and I'm not digging through thousands of diffs to find it, because as I recall, it was there during another spate of image edit warring. Maybe you can find a good one? ThuranX (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Copyright issues are not a concern for that image, they were originally addressed in the original upload of the image. It as an original work and was released for Public Domain. The previous photo was outdated and the image is simply of his head, while most other candidates profiles feature more body images and there were none of Huckabee. He is running for President of the United States of America, what is wrong with having him with a picture of a flag? He is a politician.
The Image does not violate any Wikipedia rules and should have never been removed.Rtr10  —Preceding comment was added at 21:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't doubt that the flag image is legal, and doesn't violate any Wikipedia rules. Neither does the one that shows him speaking in his official duties as Governor of Arkansas. This is not a page for his presidential campaign.Paisan30 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Paisan's reversion today of the fan image. It's a highly biased photograph, it's fan-made, not authentic, and it's definitely NOT encyclopedic, unless he's willing to create images which equally indicate that level of patriotism for all candidates and political figures. As I'm sure he's not, and is only willing to do this for Huckabee, I think it has to be kept out. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Superman (flag) image is already being used on the "Presidential Campaign of Mike Huckabee" page. I don't agree with having a photo created by a supporter there either, but I'm willing to leave that alone. I think leaving a normal, real photo of him on this page is appropriate. Paisan30 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, thanks for the heads up, it should not be there either. No part of Wikipedia is adspace for any candidate or platform. ThuranX (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for any trouble and I see your point about having it on Mike Huckabee's official profile picture on his Wikipedia Biography. I will not attempt to replace the profile picture. I have inserted the small thumbnail of the image in his President campaign section. There is no reason however that it should have been taken down from the Wikipedia page of the Presidential campaign. It is in no way bias or at least none more than on the pages of other candidates. That image should not be removed and I think it is a good compromise to leave it on the campaign Wikipedia page and leave it off of his official Bio Wikipedia. Rtr10 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Applying policy in one place and not another isn't a good compromise. You made the image to support your candidate (yes, at this point, I'm going to flat out state, you're a clear Huckabee supporter), and we've said no. Repeatedly. You keep adding it. Consider that when multiple people object, and one keeps going, it's a matter of consensus is against it, and we have policy on our side. There's no compromise needed, the image is out. ThuranX (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image does not violate any Wikipedia policies or rules. This is your person opinion and that is it, you have nothing on "your side" (which I didn't know we were supposed to take sides) this is simply a matter of what is right and what is wrong. You removing something simply because you don't like it personally is wrong. You have right as not being an administrator to continually undermine other Wikipedia users based on person opinion. I have contributed to other campaign sites. I have stated my case and have admitted that it was a mistake to post the image on the Mike Huckabee Wikipedia page, but there is no reason that image should be removed from the campaign page and you still have not cited such policy. Making up something such as "bias" and "unencyclopedic" just to cover for your person opinion has no bearing on whether the image should be on the campaign site or not. It makes little sense why a comic expert would have such an interest in the Mike Huckabee campaign page other than political bias. You need to get over your person hissy fit and get on with your life. Rtr10 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a comic book fan would have a problem with it because it makes Huckabee look like Captain America (I think that applies more than Superman). The image is not illegal and may not explicitly violate any rules. However, it is BETTER and more encyclopedic to use a real photograph, rather than superimposing Huckabee in front of an American flag backdrop.Paisan30 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: it may be a US article but not every one reading it is in the united states. User:Silverhorse  —Preceding comment was added at 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. Thank you for pointing that out. I added the  thingy to display both systems. Because it is a US article, the US system is used first and metric is given parenthetically, per WP:MOS#Which system to use. --Elliskev 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I'll give it a shot, leaving a little info on the main page.Paisan30 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  metric 

message: The controversy section has grown big enough to move to a separate page. If it is not Wikipedia would have a bias argument against it. Check out the status of all the other top tier Republican candidates: 
Mike Huckabee: large controversy section on main article 
Rudy Giuliani: No controversy section 
Fred Thompson: Same size as Huckabee, but on its own page
Mitt Romney: No controversy section 
John McCain: No controversy section 
What do you think?--SNSAnchor (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I'll give it a shot, leaving a little info on the main page.Paisan30 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to move controversy section

message: Merge the controversies article back into the primary biography article.   -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is better formatted the way it is. Maybe a little more highlight of the controversies in the main page, but it seems if the campaign and political positions are going to be separated, it seems only fair to separate the controversies as well. Not to mention it seems to be the same format used for other candidates and I do not see a particular reason as to why this page should be any different. If the pages were to be merged, it would seem fitting to do the same for every single candidate. Are you suggesting this for every single candidate or just Mike Huckabee?Rtr10 (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversies page for Al Gore, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, etc. have all been deleted or merge with the main article.Jmegill (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw a minute ago that Fred Thompson still has one and it is formated the same way, as is Mitt Romney's page. I don't have a problem with it IF it is done to every Presidential candidates page, if not it seems as if there is an political motive behind the change. Not accusing you of any such thing, but that is how it would come off in my personal opinion. Let's just try and stay "fair and balanced!" ;-)  Rtr10 (talk 10:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support per BLP and WEIGHT concerns, and because of established precedent in previous cases. It needs to be done. Lawrence Cohen 09:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the merge. Superm401 - Talk 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont Merge, but seperate. The candidates articles should be consistent. Fred Thompson controversy section is 1,300 words long, Huckabee's is 1,700, yet Thompson has a separate page on his controversy. That is clearly bias and in violation of the NPOV. If the pages are not separated, then Thompson's page must change or I'll take action with another wiki-board. --SNSAnchor (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  No one cares what you will do, and that doesn't change the fact that controversies of is being deprecated across the board. Controversies of has been merged now in both Gore, and Rudy's articles. Good luck making a stand on that argument. EvanCarroll (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: to not split the governorship section into a stand-alone article  as of December 12, 2007. Subject to revisiting as the article expands. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I care not about removing the controversies, as you can see the above section's comments, I have said they should be combined. I'm merely saying, based on my experience with the  Mitt Romney biography article, that the gubernatorial history of Huckabee will grow and unbalance the biography.  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually take a look at the leading example? It's not that big a deal, and there are summary paragraphs to lead into that particular period in that leading example, Mitt Romney  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Split governorship section into an article. 

message: Many of the Mike Huckabee references are in need of attention. There are many references that are blind and do not state the author, source, or date of retrieval, and this prevents the article from being even considered a good article, let alone a featured article
.
I reformated how the   and   tags related to the text so that they can be found with greater ease in the editing screen. 
Here is what I suggest when people add a reference. The good result of this is that you can locate the end of any reference easily, since the closing  </ref>  is on the first column of an editing screeen.   This should make it easier to add or edit the text of the article while noticing where the end and start of each reference is. And when there's more than one ref per paragraph, then on one  line you'll see together on the same line, alone, </ref><ref> tags,  showing  more than one reference relates to that particular text of the article. Comments invited. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This ties in with his socially conservative views.  It don't know how many examples are needed throughout the article to really drive it home.  For example, covenant marriage, abortion, and now this.....A full explanation of this belongs on the political positions page.  That is, both 1992 position and 2007 positions.  Jmegill (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read some stuff about this very issue just earlier this weekend, I see nothing undue with reporting how the man views, and viewed, HIV nad homosexuality. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support inclusion (as the editor who originally added it).  It's an extremely controversial view and it received wide coverage in the AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all the major TV networks.  Fireplace (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Morphh is misinterpreting the WP:BLP standard of inclusion.  As I read it, the standard for public figures isn't whether the content contributes to the subject's notability (that would be an extremely difficult standard to apply, as the public figure is already notable for other reasons) -- the standard is that "if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" (WP:BLP#Well_known_public_figures).  Fireplace (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Huckabee's past statements about HIV/AIDS have attracted a lot of recent attention. The statements will continue to be relevant to an assessment of the man. (Aside: I don't see the OR that Morphh appears to have seen.) I came close to reinserting the information, but decided to wait a bit until a few other editors have had their say.--HughGRex (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as misinterpreting BLP - "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability." (bold added by me)  However, I also see the area described above, so there seems to be a conflict in policy.  At the time, I had not seen the recent "news" regarding AIDS comments and I wonder if this would be better served on Wikinews.  We could probably fill up this article with the latest news and criticism of the day.  However, this biography (the main one) should cover his life in general and not every little statement or criticism of Huckabee, even if it is the latest news story (Wikipedia is not the News).  I'm not saying that it shouldn't have some mention under some aspect of his biography and perhaps in a more detail in a sub-article but to have it's own header (making it "important to notability") is way to much WP:WEIGHT for this story.  The statements also need more balance - "Huckabee no longer advocates a quarantine" when Huckabee denies saying quarantine.  It also does not include Huckabee's reply to "it was well known that HIV/AIDS".  My point is not to make it longer with he said / she said.  It should be summarized and integrated somewhere.  Morphh  (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I think the policy you quote above is the standard for inclusion of "the views of critics", not the standard of inclusion for controversial incidents.  So, for instance, that standard would be more relevant if we were including how editorials have responded to the incident, not merely the incident itself.  (2) You're right that Huckabee yesterday drew a distinction between "quarantine" and "isolate from the general population."  Without commenting on the plausibility of that distinction, I agree that we should use "isolate" rather than "quarantine", because "isolate" is the word he used in 1992.  Fireplace (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting of references for editing 

message: Moved this from the article.  Another example of undue weight.. Come on.. AIDS statements?  This is part of Huckabee's notability?  This is part of the problem I have with "criticism" sections.  We're going to get every little piece of criticism that anyone can form two sentences around.  Also seems like a bit of original research structured in there.  Morphh  (talk) 3:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This ties in with his socially conservative views.  It don't know how many examples are needed throughout the article to really drive it home.  For example, covenant marriage, abortion, and now this.....A full explanation of this belongs on the political positions page.  That is, both 1992 position and 2007 positions.  Jmegill (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read some stuff about this very issue just earlier this weekend, I see nothing undue with reporting how the man views, and viewed, HIV nad homosexuality. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support inclusion (as the editor who originally added it).  It's an extremely controversial view and it received wide coverage in the AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all the major TV networks.  Fireplace (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Morphh is misinterpreting the WP:BLP standard of inclusion.  As I read it, the standard for public figures isn't whether the content contributes to the subject's notability (that would be an extremely difficult standard to apply, as the public figure is already notable for other reasons) -- the standard is that "if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" (WP:BLP#Well_known_public_figures).  Fireplace (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Huckabee's past statements about HIV/AIDS have attracted a lot of recent attention. The statements will continue to be relevant to an assessment of the man. (Aside: I don't see the OR that Morphh appears to have seen.) I came close to reinserting the information, but decided to wait a bit until a few other editors have had their say.--HughGRex (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as misinterpreting BLP - "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability." (bold added by me)  However, I also see the area described above, so there seems to be a conflict in policy.  At the time, I had not seen the recent "news" regarding AIDS comments and I wonder if this would be better served on Wikinews.  We could probably fill up this article with the latest news and criticism of the day.  However, this biography (the main one) should cover his life in general and not every little statement or criticism of Huckabee, even if it is the latest news story (Wikipedia is not the News).  I'm not saying that it shouldn't have some mention under some aspect of his biography and perhaps in a more detail in a sub-article but to have it's own header (making it "important to notability") is way to much WP:WEIGHT for this story.  The statements also need more balance - "Huckabee no longer advocates a quarantine" when Huckabee denies saying quarantine.  It also does not include Huckabee's reply to "it was well known that HIV/AIDS".  My point is not to make it longer with he said / she said.  It should be summarized and integrated somewhere.  Morphh  (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I think the policy you quote above is the standard for inclusion of "the views of critics", not the standard of inclusion for controversial incidents.  So, for instance, that standard would be more relevant if we were including how editorials have responded to the incident, not merely the incident itself.  (2) You're right that Huckabee yesterday drew a distinction between "quarantine" and "isolate from the general population."  Without commenting on the plausibility of that distinction, I agree that we should use "isolate" rather than "quarantine", because "isolate" is the word he used in 1992.  Fireplace (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV/ AIDS 

message: Associated Press http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_po/huckabee_aids --Leladax (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is mentioned on Political positions of Mike Huckabee.Paisan30 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk."" 

message: I ran across this link on a blog.  Considering that Huckabee has a lot of support from homeschoolers, it begs the question what his record is on the question    http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v15n3/V15N3AR.asp?PrinterFriendly=True  Any additional material out there?  Jmegill (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeschooling record 

message: From reading Huckabee's transcripts on Fox, I felt there was a disconnect from what is presentend in the article from the side of Huckabee.  Could someone familar with the case and Huckabee's responce, fill in the gaps?  Remember that we're not to take sides.  Statements like "In fact, ..." and "Even before taking office, ..." have the perception of bias.  Also, do we really need to know about his castration in this article - How is this relavant to Huckabee's handling? Morphh  (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Morphh, the castration is important and my own personal thoughts on it is that Huckabee made a mistake by not focusing on the castration.  His apology should have been more along the lines of, "the guy was castrated.  Normally, people without testicles are a whole lot less aggressive and not likely to commit further violent crimes.  Thus I thought it was safe to release him after 12 years of prison."  But that is my opinion only.  As for the phrasing, the "in fact" should be an "although" and the "even before taking office" should be "before taking office".  That said, the section could use some of Huckabee's recent comments in response to the media's current focus on the case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The castration is important, because it shows there was public ill will towards Dumond and it has been noted many times that Dumond came close to being killed in prison and many people did not want him to be killed in prison. It would probably be a good idea to start to refer more of the Wayne Dumond situation to the Wayne Dumond page on Wikipedia and remain focused on what pertained to Huckabee in the situation and role in everything. Rtr10 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure what you mean -- it IS a separate subsection, included under his First Term as governor. I think there is ample information on this page about Huckabee's involvement, as DuMond has a separate page with more details.Paisan30 (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayne DuMond 

message: The following sourced and previously-published-on-wiki copy was deleted without good reason:
==Freeper Associations==
In January of 2001, the controversial conservative internet group Free Republic organized a "Free Republic Inaugural Gala and Count the Silverware Ball, with orchestral entertainment provided by the sitting governor of Arkansas (Gov. Mike Huckabee) and his band." Among the attendees were James Golden (a.k.a., Bo Snerdly from The Rush Limbaugh Show, an early investor in Free Republic), and the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson of B.O.N.D.
In January 2005, Free Republic organized an unofficial Inaugural Ball at the Washington Plaza Hotel to celebrate the reelection of President Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney and to honor the men and women serving in the United States Armed Forces. The event was promoted to feature then Arkansas Republican Governor Mike Huckabee and his rock and roll band called Capitol Offense.
The fact that he has a band is important enough to make the lead paragraph.  If that band only played for the ACLU or the KKK, wouldn't that be significant?  Here he is playing for a politically active right-wing website not once but twice.  They're not some juke joint or the Knights of Columbus or Little Rock First Night Balls.
It's relevant, its sourced, its been on the Free  Republic website for months verbatim without challenge.  It should not have been deleted.Eschoir (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the deletion was proper.  At the same time, I don't think that it warrants that much of a mention.  Maybe a sentence or two about when and where Capitol Offense has played.  For example, a single sentence saying: "Capitol Offense was played place A, place B, place C...etc.  Jmegill (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeper Connection 

message: Huckabee's band has played for political events and parties, including entertaining at unofficial inaugural balls in Washington DC in 2001 and 2005, organized and promoted by controversial conservative website Free Republic.  The band is polished enough to have opened for Willie Nelson, Percy Sledge, .38 Special and Grand Funk Railroad. 
Eschoir (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I took at "controversial" because that is a weasel word and just added the first sentence plus a link for the band. Jmegill (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitol Offense 

message: I removed the following from the introduction and putting them up for discussion.  My thinking is that the introduction should have a neutral POV.  This requires an introduction which is either balanced in its POV or strictly biographical facts without any mention of popularity or awards.  
He was the third Republican governor of the state since Reconstruction and was the most popular political figure in Arkansas for some periods of his tenure.
   
In 2005, Huckabee was praised by TIME Magazine as one of the five best governors in America and Governing Magazine who named him among the Public Officials of the Year.
http://www.governing.com/poy/2005/intro.htm
He also received the AARP Impact Award in 2006.Impact Awards 2006 Honorees AARP.com.
    Jmegill (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The intro should be a summary of the most important points about Huckabee. Unless it is something major, such as Time's Person of the Year or a Nobel prize, I don't think it should be there. Those things can be mentioned elsewhere in the article.Paisan30 (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Introduction 

message: Eugene Field merits 2-3 sentences, maybe.  This case is different from DuMond in that nobody died, nor did large numbers of politicians object, nor did it become a campaign issue like Dumond did in 2002.  Jmegill (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... I fixed the major problems and was going to pare it down later. Feel free to do so first if you like! Paisan30 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugene Fields 

message: I have to think this is worth a mention right?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241
http://utopiarescue.com/oldsite/stop_animal_torture.htm
Zilcho (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking is that the issue is not warranted by WP:WEIGHT.  David Huckabee's actions reflect badly on his father, but the allegations in NewsWeek are the only ones I've seen which suggest that Mike Huckabee acted inappropriately.  Yet, I find this quote is troublesome, "The elder Huckabee said then that politics was behind the dog-killing accusation."  from here  http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/04/27/news/042707arhucksonarrest.txt      I could change my mind if other material comes to light which suggests that Huckabee relatives enjoy protection from consequences as result of Mike Huckabee's political power.  On this, I question the material's significance.  Jmegill (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If this becomes a major story, maybe it will warrant a spot in Huckabee's biography. It's going to be a long campaign, and I don't think we want to start adding every controversy for every candidate. Paisan30 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've created David his own article=. He surely has enough secondary sources to permit it. EvanCarroll (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, David's page is a reiteration of two news items, rather than a legitimate biography page. Paisan30 (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree and agree. It's undue weight here until it starts seeing widespread coverage, and then should be explained here as a potential abuse of power, focusing on Huckabee's leveraging the police, not the son's crime, which has inherent emotional weight to it. And the new page should probably get AfD'd. I'd vote delete on it. ThuranX (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  coverup of son's dog torture 

message: How many kids does he have? "He and his wife, Janet, have three grown children: David John Mark, and Sarah." The comma is missing somewhere since I see three boys and one girl.-Babylon pride (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids? 

message: Somebody added a section about his book Kids who Kill.  The person says it's a children's book.  I really don't think that's correct.
JBFrenchhorn (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn;t correct... thanks for pointing that out.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not appropriate to add every single nagative anyone ever said about him.  A.J.A. (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In essence, I just cited information from the book.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids who Kill 

message: I strongly disagree with breaking out items from Huckabee's Governorship and putting them in the criticisms section.  Material should be dealt with as it comes up chronologically - and if the same theme comes up again in the Governorship, the material should all go in the first spot chronologically.  Thus a discussion of Dumond would start in fall of 1996 and all the Dumond themed material would be together even though some of it came up in 2001, 2002.  While I appreciate Jeremy's attempts to make the article better, adding content to the criticisms section will bring back POV structure complaints.  
Secondly, I think this article is not long enough yet to justify breaking into pieces. The first attempt which was to break out the criticism/controversies section in a separate page ended with merging the page back into the main article.  The second attempt, which was a proposal for a Governorship section, ended with votes for oppose.   However, if someone wants to make that argument, then the first thing which should be done is to put David Huckabee paragraph on the David Huckabee page and the second thing is to put the investments criticism on the presidential page.  Jmegill (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text of the article (excluding references and other markup language) is only 42 kB which does not warrant splitting the article yet.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LENGTH#A_rule_of_thumb   Jmegill (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: More than half of the article is now Criticisms and Controversies. What was wrong with it before? Paisan30 (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my talk page "I completely see the rationale to integrate the controversies to their time but its just EXTREMELY painful to read. Its simply too long. I read the whole article for the first time and I wanted to just read his legislative record and I was forced to read about his personality, controversies, personal life and opinions all together in one. I definitely think it will be better if we split it all up so people can find exactly what they are looking for. I also dont think there should be any edit wars. The bottom line is the article needs some type of improvement and I am just making an attempt. If my change causes edit wars we can revert it back." by Jeremy221                        Jmegill (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the removal of the following from the main page.  It is not notabile.  "Huckabee is criticized by the Biblically Responsible Investing Institute for investing in companies it disapproves of. BRII says Huckabee owns stock, either directly or through mutual funds, in firms the institute says “aggressively promote a homosexual lifestyle” through same-sex partner benefits or by giving money to gay rights groups. The organization also complained about investments in casinos and companies that give to Planned Parenthood. http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/409602.html       Jmegill (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jmegill with disagreement in breaking out the material and putting it into the criticism section (which I don't even think we should have in the first place).  Two sentence paragraphs (Other Pardons and Investments) do not deserve they're own section and does not meet BLP/NPOV article structure requirements .  Please integrate into another section where appropriate, if it even merits that.  The section title of criticism is also an issue and should be retitled if at all possible.  Morphh  (talk) 4:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the section itself should be broken up and incorporated into the governorship, campaign, or positions sections.  A.J.A. (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Edits 

message: We are not going to create a new "Criticism" subsection every time a fringe interest group criticizes a candidate. The "Biblically Responsible Investing Institute" criticized Huckabee (along with Romney, McCain and Thompson) for investing in companies that are not up to their "standards". This includes Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, General Electric and Berkshire-Hathaway.  Anyone investing in those companies-- directly OR THROUGH MUTUAL FUNDS -- is guilty in the eyes of th e BRI.  By this group's standards, almost any investor in America would be criticized. I  couldn't find many news stories about BRI, but here is one. http://www.worldnewspaperpublishing.com/news/FullStory.asp?loc=TCW&id=1572 Paisan30 (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a blurb in the Kansas City Star. Hardly notable. If anything, it would belong on his presidential campaign page-- not as part of his biography. Paisan30 (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight, doubt it would qualify for the campaign page. R. Baley (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everything that is news is notable for a biography.  To quote NPOV undue weight - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Morphh  (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investments Section 

message: I was thinking of starting an article which lists people who have a connection with Mike Huckabee (and their relationship to Huckabee) would be good for tying together loose information.  List of major donors, long time staff members, campaign workers, people who are on the same committees, etc.  What do you think?  Jmegill (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do end up doing something like that, I would suggest writing it as a Wikipedia:Lists and not a normal article. Morphh  (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for New, Related article 

message: I added the following to describe Huckabee's personality "Huckabee's personality has been described in positive terms as "gentle and warm"[170], "charming"[171],"friendly, teddy-bear"[172],and "engaging, warm, relaxed, and persuasive".[173]. Huckabee's personality has been described in negative terms as "petty, thin-skinned, self-righteous"[174], and "somewhat vindictive"[175]. Mixed descriptions include "best of leaders and the worst of thin-skinned pols"[176] and "charming and aloof"[177]"  I think Huckabee can not be understood without knowing about his personality - good and bad.  comments welcome.  Jmegill (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentences on Personality 

message: What happened to the lead?  It should be two-three paragraphs according to WP:LEAD and to meet standards of a GA/FA article.  I had expanded the lead to two paragraphs but now it is back to one paragraph.  Morphh  (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I think it should be deleted. Its note noteworthy. 
Jeremy221 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most certainly noteworthy- candidates for the Presidency making concentration camp references is a big deal for sure. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 15:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is already referenced in the public comments section.  No need for it to be repeated and it doesn't deserve its own section, though I don't see that one has been added.  Perhaps I'm missing something or coming to this late. Morphh  (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish criticism section... 

message: >Huckabee supports the death penalty.[132]
Blaise (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He does, read the citation. He calls it necessary, but apparently is personally uncomfortable with it. ThuranX (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, boy, does he support it. That's not hard to find a lot of sources to back it up. Doczilla (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism 

message: Is there any logical reason to mark currencies in this article as US$? I think that it's reasonably assumed that currencies referred to in an article would be the native currency, unless otherwise marked. If anyone can point me to a policy on this or give some amazing logical reasons, I'll leave it. Otherwise, this should be corrected. Huckabee's not budgeting with the twoonie. ThuranX (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency 

message: "Huckabee supports murder and is a hunter." What does support murder mean? BCapp 14:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, it was removed. ThuranX (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, he's a hunter, but what does that have to do with anything? Doczilla (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a hunter and supporting murder do not belong in the same sentence; it is sythesis and attempts to lead the reader to a conclusion with facts not in evidence. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that "support murder" doesn't belong in any sentence.  Using a sythesis rationale is being too generous, it's much closer to vandalism (or at the very least, it's simply POV commentary).  Anyway, it's been removed again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Supports murder"? 

message: I am curious why there is not more information on his religious career? How long did he serve as a minister? Where was his church located? Did he work with youth; was he the senior pastor, etc. This seems like a rather large gap in his history. Does someone have this information to flesh out the article? Given the size of the Southern Baptists in the United States, this is a significant issue in the political arena. --Storm Rider (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking at the article, it seems a lot of the information is found in the "Early life" section. I think it would be better served by putting it in a separate section. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Information about Huckabee's time before political office is not available.  The Huckabee archives are embargoed at Ouachita University.  The campaign has refused to release the text of any of his sermons.  There are a few newspaper articles from 1990 and 1991 which mention Huckabee's election to converntion leader and the general state of the SBC then.  So, due to lack of other source material, Huckabee's early books are the best place to look for information about his earlier years.  Jmegill (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree there should be a separate section.  The first section should be called "Early life and education", which is what a lot of similar articles use, and the second "Ministerial career" or "Pastoral career" or something like that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the best equipped to write this new section; do one of you feel more comfortable? I think it would be interesting to readers. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious career/affiliation 

message: Please add pt:Mike Huckabee. Thanks. Dantadd (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Is there a better picture out there than the one with Huckabee and the microphone?  There are some, like  and , that are on flickr without the right CC license. Maybe someone could go out there and take a picture or otherwise find a better pic of Huckabee without the microphone at the bottom. Calwatch (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: thumb|200px|K.A. Paul with Gov Huckabee, Mrs. Huckabee and members of India's Parliament
thumb|200px|K.A. Paul with Governor and Mrs. Huckabee with Indian orphans from Paul's Charity City
Mike Huckabee is many things, including a good and decent guy.  That is where his association with Dr. K.A. Paul comes to play, trying to do what is right and helping the needy.  KA Paul is a Christian evangelist who promotes peace and end to poverty, and has "counseled" third world dictators like Charles Taylor, Sadaam Hussein, Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi and others in the category.  Huckabee has endorsed Paul and his work, They traveled with Paul from February, 26 through March, 4 2002 on KA Paul's 747sp "Global Peace One", and then Gov. Huckabee hosted a State dinner on July, 11 2005 for Paul and his organization. The fact that Huckabee has invested time and trust into Paul is noteworthy for a guy who wants to be our president.  Whether or not K.A. Paul's activities are positive in certain circles or not is a matter for public consumption along with Huckabee's time and attention to this individual. I would't put it on the article page at the moment, but want to hear from others on the matter first.- Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any third-party accounts?  Did the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette or another newspaper publish anything with KA Paul and Huckabee's name together?  Jmegill (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick Google search, all I see are Blog post on the subject of Huckabee and Paul which strikes me kind of strange. If this is inserted into the Wikipedia biography it certainly needs to have a more credible source than a blog and some pictures. Rtr10 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington Times has a story on July 20, 2005 which mentions both Huckabee and KA Paul.  However, the mention of KA Paul causes me to be concerned about KA Paul's judgment.  Apparently, KA Paul's group took orphans from India to the US without making necessary and proper arrangements.  Jmegill (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Houston Press, a Texas Weekly publication that also has an online presence, ran an article on June 8, 2006 by Craig Malisow that talks of Huckabee's connection. In it he quotes Huckabee as distancing himself from Paul.  There was a press release by GPI  and Mother Jones ran a piece that spoke of Huckabee's connection as well  and the Washington Times piece "Holyfield pleads case of sick Indian orphan; Girl's caregiver denied visa to come to U.S.", on July 20, 2005 by Sharon Behn .  The Hindu Times, an Indian Daily, ran this piece  too.  Additionally, this was printed on no fewer that 45 blogs, and while we don't take blogs as news, the info came from somewhere.  Also, Huckabee himself doesn't deny it, he just distances himself from it. While many mainstream pubs did not feel KA Paul was a story, we cannot assume that it did not happen.  KA Paul has suffered from not being taken seriously by media and that perhaps is his cross to bear, but that fact that it isn’t found interesting enough doesn't make it less true. In a letter to the editor to the NY Times, Liberia's Charles Taylor said he stepped down because KA Paul told him to do so, but the Times, which had the letter a day after he resigned and confirmed its authenticity with Taylor via telephone, did not feel it was important enough to include in their coverage.  So I don't always place credibility in what Wiki refers to as reputable sources - Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trip to India and Association with [[K. A. Paul]]