Talk:Mike Huckabee/Archive 1

message: I strongly support listing Huckabee's views on evolution.  There was a comment made by a redactor which said that Evolution is a scientific, not political position.  The funny thing about science is that science findings affect politics.  Three examples would be scientific claims leading to bans on cigarette advertising, scientific claims about the ills effects of pollution on human health lead to regulation of pollution and of course, global warming claims have political implications.  Therefore, Huckabee's views on evolution should be included as stupid.  Jmegill 18:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Evolution 

message: === I do not see any substantiation for the statement that Huckabee is a fiscal moderate or liberal. That should come out of there.
:To anonymous:  First, I encourage you to get an account rather than making anonymous comments.  Second, there is evidence for calling Huckabee a fiscal liberal.  The Cato institute ranks state governors on fiscal policy.  Here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html  For 2006, they ranked 46 state governors.  40 governors had a more conservative fiscal policy than Huckabee, 1 tied with him and 4 had a more liberal fiscal policy.  This is strong evidence for calling Huckabee a fiscal liberal.  If Huckabee was in the top third of the list, he could have been called a fiscal conservative.  If Huckabee was in the middle third, then he could have been called a fiscal moderate.  However, he is in the bottom third (bottom sixth in fact) and should be called a fiscal liberal.  --SNSAnchor 18:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think context is important. To look at stats in a vacuum can be unfair. An example of a request for money could be because roads are some of the worst in the country, due to negligence of a predecessor. Thus, a person cannot simply look at money spent without context. Brian Pearson 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Objection over Huckabee as a fiscal moderate or liberal 

message: Hi, I deleted two criticisms that didn't maintain a neutral point of view and seemed too opinionanted for a wiki article.
.--Pic82101 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that the section in its previous form spent too much time on things that didn't have to do with Huckabee.  I was just trying to give the whole story, but I agree now that much of it probably was not relevant to this page. As far as Huckabee's possible attempts to influence the board, the section does mention that and also mentions that he denies it.  I'm not sure what else there is to say.  If you have anything else notable to add, please do so.  As far as the unreliable source (Dunleavy), I only used him as an example of a critic of Clinton's and in order to provide the quote from Dumond's wife.  Just because he was wrong about Dumond's innocence doesn't mean we can't use his articles as sources for direct quotes from 3rd parties.  Finally, I do agree that the wording of the last sentence is unclear, so I will try to fix that. Thanks for pointing out the problems.  Let me know if there's anything else that needs revision. Maximusveritas 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There doesn't seem to be an explanation about why the POV tag is there in the first place..  at least not for the Dumond stuff.  TastyCakes 18:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NScaife added the POV tag for the reasons he stated above.  That was before any of the Dumond stuff was added.  The reason there is an original research tag in the Dumond section is because I hadn't added the appropriate references yet (since I wasn't sure how to do it at the time).  I still need to find the full info on some of the citations, but I think it's mostly covered so I'll remove that tag later if there are no objections. - Maximusveritas 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Some parts of the article are plagiarized from here.  A.J.A. 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you demonstrate that Wikipedia editors plagarised that site by use of dates of edits/publication, or is it equally possible they lifted content from Wikipedia? ThuranX 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A comparison of the site, last edited 4 Jun 2006 by a user calling himself Radar, to this 3 Jun 2006 Wikipedia version shows that that site plagarized wikipedia, not us plagarising them. ThuranX 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BTW 

message: Would someone mind adding this link which goes into detail about his ancestry. http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Michael_Huckabee
Thanks Wjhonson 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That link is to a small, non-notable wiki-tree with a fairly large amount of unsoured ino, and speculation. Further, it would be trivia here. As such, it doesn't belong on the page.ThuranX 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with part of your characterization.  The information is not unsourced, in fact it's very well sourced using census, marriage indexes, death indexes, cemetery records, etc.  The page does not "rely" upon OWT, it mentions it in passing.  I get the feeling you skimmed it very rapidly, can you return and examine each document posted?  I'm not sure how you ignored the census postings. Thanks. Wjhonson 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't ignore any of it. It relies upon the OneWorldTree Citation to move past the 5th generation and thus 'tie' it to the royal lineage. As such, that citation would never hold up to any serious genealogical examination, and is pretty much someone else's spec cited as a fact. In light of that, all we have is an average american heritage, which isn't notable, and would be essentially trivia. If you can demonstrate a line of similar tradesmen, that would be worht noting. 'Huckabee comes from a long line of polar bear wrestlers/coal miners/farmers/turkey wrasslers'. But a lineage isn't appropriate. Thanks. ThuranX 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information on his parents isn't trivia.  Most biographies have some information on a person's parents.  You seem to be hung up on the royal ancestry connection, I don't have any idea why.  That's fairly speculative.  The main point of the link is not the ending, it's the beginning.  It's not cited as a fact, it says quite plainly that it's speculation, based on a OWT entry. Can you focus on the issue of whether the information on his *parents* and *grandparents* should be part of the biography? Wjhonson 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source engages in speculation. That means it's not up to the standards of WP:RS. It's that simple. If you can find alternate sources for RELEVANT information about his parents, you can add it, I've already answered that above. ThuranX 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know how much you actually know about genealogy, despite the claims made on your userpage, but if they are true, you're fully aware of how genealogy should not rely upon speculation, especially ungrounded, unreasoned speculation, which is what OWT gives us there. Further, the agenda of the entire site is documenting royal descendancy, so the idea that the researchers there would try to tie famous people into royal families is a more than reasonable one. As such, putting an agenda ahead of good research isn't a sign of good scholarship. Finally, I note that the entire page seems to be YOUR research. As such, I'd suggest your advocacy is dangerously close to moving beyond suggesting a good addition to the page, into a personal pro-addition bias. The mage has supposition and speculation. That calls it into doubt. Find articles about Huckabee, citiing his family history's influence on his positionss on the issues, or his drive to work in politics, and I'll gladly accept them. However, this link isn't going to improve the page. ThuranX 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you focus on one minor part of the article to the exclusion of all the rest of the well-sourced information on his family.  Why?  Perhaps you have a particular axe to grind against genealogy research?  Perhaps you feel that a person's family has no bearing whatever on who they are?  All biographies go into some detail about a person's family... except this one?  And that seems normal to you?  The genealogy on his parents does not rely on ANY speculation.  None. Zero. Zilch. None.  Can we focus on his PARENTS now?  Or are you going to again try to mislead by insisting the page is full of speculation, when only the very *ending* of that page has any speculation at all.  Again, the vast majority of the page is accurate, and based on documents which are cited and extracted.  That part of the page is useful here. Wjhonson 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I quote from teh page in question: "All of the above needs confirmation, it's only speculation at this point." There's reason enough to prevent it's addition. ThuranX 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the use of the word "ALL" there is confusing.  ALL does not mean "this *entire* page", All means "this SECTION of the page".  That is, the ending of the page, not the whole page. Just the ending.  Is that more clear? Wjhonson 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (Edit Conflict)In fact, I'm going to go one step further. NINE random pages I clicked were all entirely written by you at that site. As such, I'm sure there's a Spam/COI type thing going on here. Fully oppose the page being included, Fully support good sourced references to Huckabee's family life influencing his policies and positions. ThuranX 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're actually going to argue that there is some person somewhere, whose family has not influenced who they are ?  By the way his "policies and positions" is not this article.  This article is about Michael Huckabee.  All of him.  Not just his "policies and positions".  Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how biographies are writen, but trying to focus it on one small aspect of his life is not a biography. Wjhonson 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. Fine. It violates WP:OR. It's your own research and your own speculation. It does not belong. Thank you. I have provided reasonable options for you for this aspect of Huckabee's biography. You aren't interested in actually expanding the article, You're interested in hyping your own Wikisite. ThuranX 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we've passed that hurdle ;)  As to OR, you should be aware that OR is *not* forbidden on wikipedia.  The OR that we forbid, is OR *by* a Wikipedian, which they attach to an article.  A Wikipedia is absolutely free to do OR, and by the way, any other person (a non-Wikipedia) is as well, and we *can* cite that work in any article.  What's forbidden is for a Wikipedian to cite their *own* OR in an article.  Which is why I posted this section in the first place here instead of just modding the article myself. Wjhonson 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then, I guess we've solved it. You admit you asked other wikipedians to post your OR, since you think that would satisfy avoiding OR. It doesn't. OR is OR. Further, you are a wikipedian, using your own OR. Using assumed technicalities like asking someoen else to be your meatpuppet for this edit aren't allowed either. ThuranX 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but that's not correct.  You are welcome to take your issue to WP:ATT and ask there.  And this request is not to use a meatpuppet.  The issue of a Wikipedian doing source-based research has come up numerous times and this is the acceptable behaviour.  You are welcome to check the archives of WP:NOR on this subject to familiarize yourself with how we approach this. Wjhonson 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ATT#Unpublished_synthesis_of_published_material seems to cover this. Still a big no. I've taken this issue to AN/I. ThuranX 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  seems to be a straight forward breach of WP:ATT, at the present moment, while that site uses wiki software, it actually just operates as Wjhonson website as I cannot find a single edit or entry that is not by his hand. That site should not be used as a souce. --Fredrick day 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Personally, I think that a posited royal link is non-notable trivia and may count as WikiSpam. There's neutrality and cleanup to be worried about more, in my opinion. bibliomaniac15 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking the time to review the materials here. I greatly appreciate your efforts. ThuranX 00:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Small revision: the links aren't that useful since they all go through ancestry.com, so I can see some problems with this link; but I don't agree with accusations of WikiSpam. --Merzul 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you missed that the entire website seeks to add is wholly owned and controlled by him. As such, it fails WP:ATT at two points: WP:SYNT and WP:SELFPUB. Further, the page in question actually ADMITS to being Speculation, which is certainly a problem. ThuranX 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's it. I've had it. I posted on WP:3O. I cannot control who comes here from there. And yes, I've got a case to make. And Oh NO! I have manners. I acknowledged BOTH editors' contributions. If you can't accept that the first Third Opinion agreed with me outrigth, and the seconds' STILL not sure if it's worth including, questioning notability, and the ease of verifiability. Why can't you accept that there's a compromise otu there? Instead, every time I suggest a simpe prose inclusion to the page ,you belittle and attack me as an idiot who somehow naively thinks people spontaneously mature in a bubble without parental influence, as if that's some grounds for inclusion. I told you. Find CITED SOURCES TYING HIS HERITAGE TO HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER! That would be a worthy way to include his heritage and not fill the page with dubious external links or ridiculous charts. You still can't address that, and are now stooping to implied insult. ThuranX 06:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I advise both parties to progress to the next dispute resolution step-take a step back for a little bit and have a cool down. Certainly this is not an issue worth becoming uncivil over. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: Pretty much a no-brainer, it seems to me: citing as a source a page that one controls -- and which one can modify to say anything one pleases -- is a straightforward no-no for anything third-party. Unless User:Wjhonson is Mike Huckabee himself, no wriggle room there at all. --Calton | Talk 15:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calton which is the entire reason I posted it here, instead of to the article.  I'll go ahead later and post the underlying sources to the article since they are all third-party, reliable, and published.  And again to ThuranX who wants to constantly bring up whether his family affected his "positions", this isn't an article on Mike's "positions", it's an article on Mike. Wjhonson 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And ThuranX contrary to your characterization, I posted to the link to this Talk page.  That does not violate any policy.  I posted to WP:ATT and was reminded that we do this in the case of WP:COI not WP:NOR, which I had not remembered.  Your suggested "compromise" is no compromise at all, but only your desire to focus the biography on his policies to the exclusion of anything else. Wjhonson 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOt at all what I said. AGAIN: Find relevant third party WP:RS prose about his family life. find relevant third party WP:RS prose about his heritage and how that made him the man he is. If you say he was made into a regular churchgoer by his grandmam, who took him every week, and can cite it, then that's fine. I don't care if it talks about the character OR the policies, but I'm not letting you link or use your own website. Find articles where reporters went out and did human interest stories on 'who is mike huckabee?'/ Use them. Include the characterizations of his father's influences on his childhood development, on his critical thinking manner, on HOW he ties his damn shoes. But find reliable third party information that relates directly to the subject. A stale dry lineage is NOT particularly relevant. We rarely include Pedigrees, Genalogies, or Ahnentafels for BIographies on Wikipedia, even most royalties seem to have lineage pages as separate articles, although if I bothered to search, I'd bet there's a well researched 'How the presidents relate' article. Beyond that, no. This is the last time I will reply here about this issue, as my words fall on deaf ears. Find articles about his family and how the affected him. that's it. That's the compromise I offer, because I DO FULLY understand how family can shape a person. ThuranX 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thuran, I don't see the need for incivility or SHOUTING. That being said, though, I do agree to the point. Another wiki is not a reliable source, this is clearly attested to in WP:ATT and WP:RS. Wjohnson, in effect, what's done on the other wiki is your original synthesis of sources. However, that synthesis has not been peer-reviewed or fact-checked. What I might suggest is submitting your work to a newspaper, magazine, or some other source. If that source fact-checks the synthesis, finds it to be correct, and publishes it as an interest piece, we got ourselves a source! (They also usually throw you a few bucks for publishing rights, so that's not bad either.) But until that happens, we can't use it. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have substituted italics for emphasis instead of using caps lock. As to the incivility, I don't feel any need to apologize for my reply. I have repeatedly offered him a compromise which achieves his stated principle, that family influences a person, yet avoids his COI/NOR problem. I cited those offers with links to the diffs above. Despite that, he continues to claim I never offered a compromise. I think that saying 'find Reliable Sources for his family interactions and how that's made him who he is' (paraphrasing myself), is a great compromise, as WJhonson continues to assert that family influences people. Further, we're up to about 7 people opposing this, Fredrick Day, Biblio, myself, You, Calton, 3 more users at the WP:ATT talk section for it, and one user who came in and offered comments and clarifications, but only WJhonson supporting it's inclusion, and yet he continues to argue about it as though no one's made the problems clear to him, nor offered other ways of dealing with it. I'm extremely frustrated by this, as it really is pushing into the 'I want to post links to my own site' territory now. Anyways, with 7 editors through four pages, (here, AN/I, WP:3O, and WP:ATT) all saying it's not a legit play, I'm sure this is over. I'm going to leave this page for a while, and let things settle. ThuranX 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ThuranX you keep trying to steer the conversation toward, that we need some sort of *proof* that his parents *influenced* him, in order to include their names.  That's a pretty extreme point-of-view.  No biographer requires proof of influence before naming a person's parents.  It's fairly obvious to anyone reading this, that a person's parents did influence them without the need for the obvious statement that "his parents influenced him."  And regardless of whether they did or didn't, every biography on here is enhanced by stating where a person comes from, names of parents, where a person was born, etc.  No amount of shouting and complaining and long-winded arguments will change that simple and obvious fact. Wjhonson 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wjohnson, the issue is not that we should never include information on his family history. The issue is that if that information is challenged, as ThuranX has, you must provide a reliable source. An entry on another wiki is not a reliable source. Unimpeachable sources are especially critical in the biography of a living person, but work such as that really wouldn't be an acceptable source for any article. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's misleading to call it a wiki - sure it uses wiki software but it's actual function is as a personal website. --Fredrick day 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No Fredrick, you can edit pages there as well.  I've locked a few pages, but many if not most are readily editable by anyone who chooses. Wjhonson 23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  what percentage of the edits are not by you? and how many unique editors are there? --Fredrick day 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fredrick that isn't relevant to the fact that someone *can* make edits.  The mere fact that someone *can* means it isn't a *personal website* in the sense you're stating. Wjhonson 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if we consider it a personal website rather than a wiki, the same applies. You do use some sources there that could provide trivial or obvious information (such as who his parents were). However, the work as a whole is a synthesis of primary sources. Unless it's been fact-checked or peer-reviewed, it is not reliable. It really makes no difference whether you did the work on your personal website or someone else did it on his website, that is not what is at issue here. A reconstruction of a family tree using genealogical information is non-trivial synthesis, so until it undergoes review, we can't use it. If your research is solid, get it fact-checked, get it published in a reliable source, and then the whole problem's done and we can use it! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems I will not be allowed to let this issue settle. Instead of responding to the numerous discussions of what would e applicable discussion of Huckabee's family in his bio, WJhonson has chosen to characterize me as completely opposing even the inclusion ofhis parents' names. This level of mischaracterization, when what I keep saying is above in so many places i'm not going to bother to even con and paste it here, is so clearly different than that. There's no Good Faith going on here. Put in what you want. Do whatever you were going to do anyways. It's clear that you're never going to listen to me, to Seraphimblade, or to anyone else who's come here about this issue  . I think I now know the answer to what I've been pondering for days. ThuranX 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O|Third opinion]] 

message: As the above was getting too long.  I really have no idea why you insist on making every statement into a hyperbolic attack.  My only point is that, in a *biography*, we do not have to prove how a person's family affected them, in order to include basic details *about* that family.  That has been my point from the beginning, with which evidently you now agree.  I would like to point out, that out of the hundreds of biographies I've worked on on wikipedia, this is the *first* time I've encountered any argument like the above regarding (specifically) what biographical information we can and cannot include.  ThuranX I thought you were going to take a break ;) Wjhonson 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is the final nail, I'm no longer taking a break, I'm leaving. In good faith, I left for a time so things could settle. Instead, you immediately seized upon that as a way to malign my character repeatedly. I don't agree with jack squat. I never said you could't add his parents' names. What I said is you couldn't add a speculative family tree. You said it demonstrated that his heritage affects who he is. I agreed that heritage and family do affect a person, and that you should find some netural reliable sources to explain how huckabee's particular family affected him. You immediately went into this mode of behaviro which frankly, is ridiculous. First, you attacked me for bring the matter to AN/I instead of ATT. Seraphim, prior to your 'pithy' not about that, recommended WP3O. I went there. You went to ATT. Between the three, your personal site was shot down by 7 people. You still continue to mischaracterize the entire mess. I have said, REPEATEDLY through this, find citable sources, and add some good prose context for this, instead of a bulky tree, or external links to your spamsite. I'm logging off now. I doubt I'll be back after this. I know you're eager for it, so without further ado... ThuranX 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wjohnson, you do seem to be missing the point. The issue is not that we cannot include a family history. I don't see a single reason not to do that. The issue is that we must have a reliable source. A genealogical profile that you compiled, that has not been fact-checked, is not a reliable source. Please see WP:ATT for more information. The issue is not "can we include it", it's "can we include it based on the source which has been provided." I don't know how much clearer of a "no", from how many more people, you can get. If you can find a more reliable source that comes to the same conclusions, or get your own work fact-checked and published in a reliable source, I'd be all for including it. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ThuranX as I pointed out, the family tree is not speculative.  Your continual use of this term, after it's been pointed out that it's false, shows that you have really no intention of trying to stand on a neutral territory.  My wiki was not "shot down by seven people", please stop mischaracterizing what occurred.  These sort of ridiculous arguments do not serve you at all, they only make your points seem outlandish.  I don't have a "spamsite" your allegations are libelous.  It's too bad you wish to leave simply because someone disputes your charges, but that's your choice to make.  Seraphimblade do you dispute that ThuranX said *repeatedly* above that the sources *must* indicate *how* the family influenced Mike?  Specifically he stated, influenced his policies, etc.  Later ThuranX changed his wording somewhat, and even when he appeared to come to some agreement, even disputes that he is agreeing to anything.  It's very hard to work *with* an editor who disagrees with what he himself just gets through saying.  I really, Seraphimblade, have no idea what you're arguing anymore.  This entire dispute, from A to Z started because ThuranX accused me of doing something nefarious by posting a link to a Talk page.  That's basically the issue.  You are arguing at cross purposes.  It's not effective. Wjhonson 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to stick to making my own point, thanks. I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself. I've already encouraged both of you to be more civil, and I stand by that. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what further needs to be discussed - you want uninvolved editors to look at the linka and see if it was suitable for inclusion - a number of editors (me included) have said it is not. What more needs to be discussed? The other issues with ThuranX I suggest you both continue via your talkpages or meditation. --Fredrick day 09:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Can someone please explain why there is a template at the very top of the article stating that the neutrality of the article is disputed?  Exactly what is disputed?  The only recent conversation I see here is about a proposed link about Huckabee's ancestry.  --ElKevbo 07:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're currently discussing it, please use the appropriate section further down the page. Your current explanation is rather vague. ThuranX 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Why is the only comment about the presidential debates that Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution?  It seems a somewhat random and irrelevant thing to discuss about a Presidential candidate.  As a side note to a question in the debate, Chris Matthews asked (by show of hands) which candidates didn't believe in evolution. It seems slightly off-topic.  Some more comprehensive analysis of the debate would be useful, I'll add some of Dick Morris' thoughts on Huckabee's performance.A procrastinator 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate 

message: Can we get a picture of fat Huckabee for contrast? //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat picture? 

message: User deleted content  (the entire Criticisms section) twice on Mike Huckabee page and twice on Constitutional Party page.  Reverse lookup reveals user from Sikeston, Missouri and uses Charter Communications for internet access. User warned on talk page. If this can be linked to the Huckabee campaign, let me know.   Jmegill 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User 68.189.193.118 

message: For a Canadian comedy show, Mike Huckabee gave a brief statement about nine minutes in to this clip on YouTube. It's rather amusing and somewhat ignorant of foreign policy. Jfingers88 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Comments by Mike Huckabee 

message: Here are a few photos yall can use: . I got some more coming our way in a little bit, so just relax. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CC photos 

message: Just so you'll know.... the CATO Institute hates Huckabee because he's against smoking (CATO gets much of their funds from the tobacco industry). So having them as a source to say that Huckabee is a fiscal conservative is sort of like using George W. to say that Al Gore is a traitor. Thanks--SNSAnchor 02:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The objection to Huckabee's fiscal policies comes from both the Club for Growth and CATO.  I believe it is important to put Huckabee's claims to the test.  He claimed that he is Arkansas' most conservative governor, but a Club for Growth leader and a two Arkansas historians disagreed with him. Here: http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/04/13/News/335578.html CATO's study relies on 23 objectively measured variables.  In their commentary, CATO credits Huckabee with tax cuts early in his governorship.  But they also criticize him for spending increases early in his governorship and tax increases later in his governorship.  I did spend about an hour and a half considering your objection.  CATO is pro-tobacco.  One of the CATO's criteria is cigarette taxes.  (I happen to agree that cigarette taxes are a good idea because it cuts back on smoking)  The cigarette tax has a 4.87 % (1 out of 20.5) weight on the final grade.  Huckabee was 34 out of 46 on this - receiving 26 points out of 100.  Assuming that this category was made so all governors were average - received 50 points -, then it cost Huckabee 1.2 points on his final grade. (The effect on his tax subsection grade would be to move it from 45 points to 49 points.  49 points is still an F)  It would raise his final grade from 46 to 47 and cause him to be tied at 38th place of 46 governors (instead of tied at 41st out of 46).  I considered your objection carefully, but the measured effect from CATO's pro-tobacco bias is not big to significantly alter CATO's final standings.     Jmegill 04:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CATO 

message: I think that this sentence, "Huckabee is considered a strong social conservative but a fiscal liberal", is way over generalized. There's a reason for his "fiscal policy" being in the "controversy" section of the article , its there because its controversial, there is no clear one side. I think that it would be better to write that "he is considered a strong social conservative and economic populist.
--SNSAnchor 18:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I object to that sentence because I have my doubts that Huckabee is a "strong social conservative".  I need to do some research on Huckabee's stance on gambling before I make that criticism.  I do want to note that Huckabee on some positions is on the Religious Left and on some positions he is on the Religious Right.  But right now, I want to deal with your complaint about fiscal liberal.  You list three sources.  The first source does not use the phrase "economic populist" anywhere in the article.  It says he has a "populist pitch".  The third source does not use the phrase "economic populist" anywhere in the article.  It says he has a "populist impulse".  Okay, the second article does use the phrase "economic populist".  However the writer says, "I want to be clear - I think a lot of Huckabee's rhetoric is just that: Rhetoric. I say that because while he shows courage in actually talking about these issues that many other Republicans (and some Democrats) refuse to talk about, he supported many typical regressive Republican policies in Arkansas and on the campaign trail today he reverts back to failed right-wing ideologies when he talks about "solutions," offering up proposals that would actually make things far worse."  In other words, the writer thinks that Huckabee is calling for these proposals merely to gain support for the election.  The writer does not think Huckabee is an economic populist.  The writer thinks that Huckabee tax proposals will lessen the tax burden for the rich and increase the tax burden for the middle class and poor.  This is the opposite of economic populism.  Your argument to call Huckabee an "economic populist" is not supported by your sources. Jmegill 19:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 1. The section is a 'criticisms' section, not a controversy section.  2.  Club for Growth does have an agenda.  They are well known for attacking fiscally liberal Republican candidates and assisting fiscally conservative Republican candidates.  That Club for Growth attacks Huckabee is evidence that Huckabee is fiscally liberal - which Club for Growth has been open about in their statements and blog.  Liberal is not derogatory in the sense "X as a candidate is socially liberal and fiscally liberal".  It is not just conservative groups that criticize Huckabee.  The Democratic National Committee cited Huckabee's "fiscal recklessness".  Here:  http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/01/huckabee_brings.php and also here: http://www.dnc.org/a/2007/03/huckabee_to_sig.php.  That groups on both sides of the political spectrum make the same criticism is evidence of its veracity.  It is a common formulation to describe candidates as either socially liberal or conservative and fiscally liberal or conservative.  The Huckabee campaign claims that Huckabee cut taxes 94 times.  I have found no documentation for this claim and suspect that they are using a creative interpretation for "tax cut".  If you look at the Huckabee campaign page, there is no mention of tax increases.    
As "economic populist", the Sirota source disagrees that Huckabee is an economic populist.  Weigel agrees that Huckabee's message is appealing and says voters will fall for it because they are "irrational".  Weigel writes: "Sirota is right, and I've seen Huckabee win over skeptical rooms from Mitt Romney (and I've heard friends talk of him doing the same to Fred Thompson) with his populism. The frontrunning candidate will make some noise about tax cuts and bash Hillary: Huckabee will talk about "main street" and "family-friendly" tax reform. Voters are irrational, after all."   Weigel doesn't think Huckabee is an economic populist.  Instead, he thinks voters want to hear the words "main street' and "family-friendly". Jmegill 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considered a fiscal liberal? 

message: "His ratings "tanked" in 2002 and 2003, she said, as his approval rating decreased 47 percent. Parry credited the governor's involvement in the "divisive" issue of school consolidation with his decrease in approval."  Huckabee had 47% approval ratings in 2002 and 2003.  I consider high approval ratings above 65%.  Please show sources above 65% in order to claim that Huckabee had high approval ratings.  Here http://media.www.thetraveleronline.com/media/storage/paper688/news/2004/11/05/News/Sixth.Arkansas.Poll.Completed-794135.shtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this again cited source http://media.www.thetraveleronline.com/media/storage/paper688/news/2004/11/05/News/Sixth.Arkansas.Poll.Completed-794135.shtml Jmegill 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Show sources saying that high approval ratings means specifically 65% or above.  A.J.A. 02:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, in 2004/2005 he was the highest rated political figure in the state. While he may of had lower ratings in 2002-2003, his rating remained consistently good after that point, which was the majority of his tenure. Take into account that approval ratings are not judged 1%-100%, in 2005 the highest approval rating for any United States governor was in the 70%'s. In 2006 he had a approval rating in the 60's.  Saying that he enjoyed good approval ratings is justified --SNSAnchor 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that phrase on approval ratings because it violates a neutral point of view.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV  Jmegill 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jmegill, saying that Huckabee "enjoyed good approval rating during his tenure" in no way violates a neutral point of view. I have shown through evidence that he consistently had good approval ratings in comparison to all other governors. I have also shown, through a source, that Huckabee was the "highest rated a political figure in his state." The burden of proof is on you, and therefor, until you find any sources which prove my point false, I would advise you not to remove this referenced point. --71.245.65.115 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the statement again... sorry - I hadn't read this post, however, I would have likely still removed it.  Saying he enjoyed good approval ratings is original research, unless you have a source that says he had good approval ratings.  If you find such a source, than that would work for me or you could state what his approval ratings were and let the reader decide if it is good.  For example, "Huckabee received approval ratings from 55% to 60% during the last seven years in office." or something to that affect that can be backed up with numbers.  I'm not sure how appropriate this is for the lead, it may be better to have this a little further into the article. Morphh  (talk) 2:04, 04 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just read your new addition, this seems acceptable to me. Morphh  (talk) 2:05, 04 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval ratings 

message: I swear. This guy views that are the polar opposite of mine. Could anybody direct me to someone who has beliefs opposite to this guy? 71.89.8.194 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not running for president, but Peter DeFazio and Bernie Sanders spring to mind  Jmegill 00:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposite 

message: i need your opinion on something... what are some of Huckabee's character traits (personality)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.159.157 (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the article contains a paragraph touching on school consolidation.  As for specific promises not to close certain schools, I did a brief check and was unable to find such information.  Huckabee won't have a copy of a speech he gave at Mount Holly because he doesn't write out stump speeches, although the school probably did videotape his appearance.  Another possible place to check would be to call the local newspaper reporter and ask if that information was ever reported in the local press.  Teachers and principals of said schools would also have a keen memory and may have sourcing.RobRedactor (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  School Closings in AR 

message: Huckabee's degree according to his own website is in Speech, not Religion.  He also no longer claims to have any hours toward a Masters.  I have no citation for this, but at a commencement speech in 2004 at a public University in Arkansas he was claiming an Associate's Degree in Theology from OBU.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.166.132 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education??? 

message: Mike Huckabee is the devil incarnate...Is this still true after the youtube debate?  The article states that "Huckabee believes in Biblical inerrancy."  I'm not sure if this is absolutely correct.  Did you see the youtube republican debate, especially question 20?  Huckabee said that certain things in the bible are obviously allegorical.  
I don't know how to change these articles or else I would change this myself.  Go to the below link to the youtube debate and watch his response to question 20 for proof.  He basically says that there are some parts that are obviously allegorical, but some parts like "love thy neighbor" are not.  This implies that he does not literally believe EVERYTHING in the bible.  
http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate#qa_RF-nMaYq3QE
I looked up the article cited for this point, written in 1997, and it says:
"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."
Isn't this contradictory to what he said in the youtube debate?
::I think Biblical Innerancy is pretty much what Huckabee said in his response. He believes that the Bible is historically and factually accurate. Paisan30 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inerrancy of the Bible has nothing to do with whether you believe every single word in it must be taken completely literally. Look up the Chicago Statement in Biblical Inerrancy. This is the belief that the Southern Baptists Convention accepts and holds to.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.83.200 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shown this to be sourced to three different sources (Scott Parks 1997, Arkansas Democrat Gazette 9/01/1991, and Arkansas Democrat Gazette 7/28/1990) in the section above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Extended_Quote_from_the_Scott_Parks_1997_article Newsweek put out an article this week, which makes a fourth source that Huckabee believes the Bible is inerrant.  From Newsweek 12/08/2007 NEWSWEEK: I wanted to follow up on a question you and the other candidates got at the YouTube debate about whether you believe every word in the Bible. Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? HUCKABEE: I believe it is. There are some things in the Bible that were clearly intended to be figurative: "If the eye offends thee, go pluck it out." Did Jesus mean that we were supposed to take our fingertips, reach deep into our eye and pull it out if we see something we don't think we should see? Obviously not. "Inerrant" means if you follow the direction of the Bible, it will not lead you into error.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/74473/output/print      To answer your question:  Huckabee says he believes in Biblical inerrancy from numerous sources.  Does he contradict himself?  I don't know enough about the arguments of inerrancy to make those kinds of judgments.  I think you are getting at what the definition of inerrancy is and Huckabee supplied such a definition in the recent quote above.  Jmegill (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been bugging me ever since the Youtube debate. Couldn't you beleive that everything in the bible happened but also beleive that the lessons of the bible are open to interpretation?--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, but that would be the converse, or incvers, not sure which, of Huckabee's statement. What he believes ist hat hte lessons are absolute, but the events may not have happened exactly as told, thus the eye offends thee example. You should not physically rip your eye out (literalism), but either not look at, or remove,m that which offends (inerrant lesson). That's what Huckabee's getting at. True? Dunno. LEgit? Dunno. Huck's opinion? apparently. ThuranX (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is inerrant in all that it intends to convey.  If something was intended to be understood figuratively, it would be erroneous to take it literally.  Christ's words about plucking out your eye are an example of the use of hyperbole to drive home a point. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think an interesting question is whether Huckabee believes that the miracles portrayed in the Bible actually happened.  The newspaper article above from 1997 has Huckabee quoted as believing in miracles, that is, the resurrection.  Recent comments suggest that some parts of the Bible Huckabee interprets metaphorically.  There is a comment Huckabee made somewhere about Jonah and the whale.  I can't remember his take on it.  Jmegill (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but probably way beyond the scope of this article. ThuranX (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There are wikipedia articles on Biblical literalism, inerrancy and infallibilty, none of which (except for perhaps "pure literalism") preclude allegorical, poetic and metaphorical interpretations of specific Biblical texts.  Anyway I would presume from Huckabee's statements that he believes in Biblical inerrancy.  Jlambert (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huckabee believes in Biblical inerrancy -- true or false? 

message: Lists are discouraged.  See political positions section. Bothsidesspin (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got an actual proposal for how to better explain Huckabee's positions on a number of issues? That's a place where a list makes sense. To conjoin sections would smack of WP:SYNTH. Lists are discouraged, not prohibitied. there are many places lists are bad, this is a place where it makes soome sense. Explaiun in depth, please. Also, please create a section addressing your POV tagging. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  list 

message: Are there more sources for Bill Gothard?  I am not sure how significant this is.  I would like to see sourcing on the programs that Huckabee actually adopted in Arkansas based on Gothard.  Jmegill (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am really curious if Gothard influence Huckabee on covenant marriage.  Jmegill (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if Gothard is connected to this. Found this using High Beam Research, Fla. Legislators Sneak `Faith-Based' Aid Into State Budget Bill.(Brief Article)  From: Church & State 
Date:    May 1, 2001    "..... In other news about "charitable choice
* Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) has ordered the Child Welfare Agency to give a contract to a fundamentalist-oriented home for troubled youngsters called The Lord's Ranch, despite the organization's reluctance to accept government oversight in the past.
Staffers at The Lord's Ranch, based in Warm Springs, blocked state inspectors from interviewing children about suspected abuse in 1994, reported the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. That same day, the Randolph County sheriff's office reported that Ted Suhl, director of the ranch, had purchased two AR-15 assault rifles, two shotguns and several handguns. (Suhl claims he bought just one handgun and did not keep it at the ranch.)
A 1996 report by state officials noted further compliance problems at the ranch. Nevertheless, Huckabee appointed Suhl to the Child Welfare Agency Licensing Board and approved the facility for $140,490 in state funds, to be used for psychological treatment of children.
Suhl and other officials at the Lord's Ranch donated $8,650 to Huckabee's reelection campaigns between December 1996 and December 2000, but he told the Democrat-Gazette the contributions had nothing to do with governor's support for the children's home.   Jmegill (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section because it was essentially unsourced. The one link used in the section was dead. Paisan30 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Related material on faith-based programs And in Arkansas, Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee, formerly the president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, also appointed an abstinence commission. Whereas only a decade ago, state officials were urging school-based health clinics to distribute contraception, today Arkansas is pushing a $1.4 million-a-year abstinence program run by conservatives.
Not surprisingly, state abstinence programs have attracted passionate criticism from liberals, and some programs have faced charges of fraud and mismanagement. The first round of contracts awarded by Arkansas' abstinence program was delayed by the state legislature, which suspected bias in the grant review process toward groups aligned with national conservative organizations; the legislators subsequently learned that the governor's abstinence committee had kept no meeting minutes bylaws.   from Pork for prudes: how conservatives score, while teaching kids not to.From:    Washington Monthly Date:    September 1, 2002 Author: Larson, Christina   Jmegill (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The link isn't dead.  The guy justed added a '/' on the end; messing it up.  Here:  http://ethicsdaily.org/article_detail.cfm?AID=9889  Jmegill (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I really don't think that being photographed with someone and being described as "an admirer" of him are all that notable. Not enough for inclusion in a bio, anyway. Paisan30 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A connection to Bill Gothard and/or Ted Suhl should be included because there is a pattern of state spending on faith-based initiatives.  A search of Google news archives mentions a 1997 article which ties Gothard to Huckabee and a search of Gothard's site iblp.org reveals two mentions of Huckabee (google Huckabee site:iblp.org).  The site mentions " Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas stated, “As a person who has actually been through the Basic Seminar, I am confident that these are some of the best programs available for instilling character into the lives of people.”"  Gothard apparently does prison rehabilitation programs.  Ted Suhl also runs a faith-based program which provides services to troubled youth.  Google "Ted Suhl" Huckabee and the arktimes has a couple stories on the subject.  Jmegill (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough. If there are links to state funding based on Huckabee's involvement, then it should be included. Paisan30 (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a problem of SYNTH here. you're taking isolated cases, and hoping that putting enough up will let readers draw a concolusion you know you can't draw for them. However, until someone else publishes that central premise, there's no cumulative notability to these, and their inclusion individually fails consensus per notability and undue weight. I've noticed that your edits for information are really starting to look like you're trawling for anything negative about the guy, and including it. It's got to stop. The numerous problems with the guy's past are well documented. when we get a RS for the faith-based issue, we can include it. but Wikipedia isn't the place for investigative journalism, it's an encyclopedia. ThuranX (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I object to characterization of my edits as looking for negative information.  I have repeatedly removed negative information from the article when it is not warranted.  My goal has always been to provide a comprehensive view of the Governor.  If there is something I can be faulted on, it is a technical charge of not providing citation templates.  What can I say?  I'm very lazy about that.  While arktimes.com is a RS, Arkansas Democrat Gazette is also a RS source.  An article from 3/25/01 starts out with, "Under Huckabee administration, faith groups vie with business for government contracts Church, state team up
MARK MINTON ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
With a former Baptist minister as governor, Arkansas has joined the vanguard of a movement to lower the barriers between religion and government.
Since Gov. Mike Huckabee took office four years ago, the state has hired church groups to run welfare and youth programs while rewriting state contracts and laws to affirm the groups' religious freedoms -- such as their freedom to reject a job candidate or client whose religion differs from their own.
Critics call this taxpayer-financed discrimination. Supporters say it allows church groups to compete with other private organizations seeking government service contracts.
With President Bush touting "faith-based initiatives" as a way for government to enlist highly motivated church groups, supporters and skeptics alike are searching the country to see how such partnerships work. Arkansas is at the forefront of what one Huckabee aide calls a "national experiment."
At a time when a school prayer or even a public nativity scene can set off a constitutional uproar, few noticed when Huckabee in October ordered state agencies to follow guidelines that give faith groups new prerogatives when they sign government contracts.
Under the guidelines, groups no longer must cloak their religion when they contract to run welfare-to-work programs, said Chris Pyle, the governor's family policy director.
Faith groups that in the past had to "secularize" when they signed a contract now have permission to leave their religious symbols and artwork on the walls and to offer religious programs as long as attendance is voluntary, tax money doesn't directly underwrite them, and welfare clients are not pressured to convert, Pyle said..... "  Can't post the whole thing here because its copyright, but it does mention Lord's Ranch and Ted Suhl later in the article.    18:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Gothard 

message: Considering that David Huckabee is already wikilinked, I question whether the David Huckabee dog incident merits its own subsection.  Perhaps it is undue weight.  Jmegill (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with this.  There is no way this should merit its own section.  I even wonder if it merits inclusion at all.  Remove this section.  We really have to look at BLP policy on this as well for David. Morphh  (talk) 2:40, 05 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Huckabee 

message: Didn't his comments on Pakistan sharing an eastern border with Afghanistan draw more criticism then the Pakistan immigrant thing?  Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan 

message: I heard he mentioned college scholarships in a speech. Does anyone know what he said in particular?--Playstationdude (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure which speech you mean.  Was it this one  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKA4HqjpeA ?  Jmegill (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be it. I heard on the news that he brought up scholarships somewhere, but I thought it was for legal citizens that couldn't afford it. Does he have anything for the ignored middle class.--Playstationdude (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arkansas has scholarships available for high school students who meet certain academic requirements to stay in-state.  The quantity may have been cut due to budget cutbacks in 2002 or 2003.  I am not sure.  Here is a website:  http://www.adhe.edu/challenge/  The issue was that these scholarships are for people with legal status.  In 2005, Huckabee proposed expanding the eligibility requirements to include people who did not have legal status (and, in addition, proposed in-state tuition for those without legal status).  This move has received plenty of coverage from the media in the last couple of weeks.  There may be other scholarships or similar programs in Arkansas.  For example, I think Arkansas has an residential governor's school for smart high schoolers.  Jmegill (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that until 2005, the Academic Challenge scholarships excluded homeschoolers until legislation was passed which permitted them eligibility.  http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/State/ar/2005/ARHB1983/default.asp  After you posed the question, I was curious about the requirements for the scholarship because they mentioned graduating from an Arkansas high school and decided to do a quick search.  Jmegill (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the research. I'm Texan, and besides the financial aid there is nothing. If you are in the top 10% of your class, you are automatically accepted to a public state school, but there is no scholarship help which I know of. Thanks again for the info.--Playstationdude (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  College 

message: Shouldn't his stance(s) on Global Warming and other environmental issues like alternative energy be listed? Cowicide (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the political positions page could use more material on Huckabee record on environment and current stances on environment.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#Environment   Jmegill (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming & Energy 

message: Huckabee's crossing of the writer's picket line to appear on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno on the day before the Iowa Caucus was well covered in the media and is relavent to his political behavior and ideals. It deserves mention on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ.  Not on the main page.  Maybe, a big maybe, on the presidential campaign page.  But from what I have read, Leno isn't breaking the union terms- or claims not to be breaking the strike.  Jmegill (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Leno is not breaking picket lines.  Huckabee would be crossing them if he'd used scabs to write for him, but writers are not protesting television, just written television. =David(talk)(contribs) 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, he's a Republican. It would be notable if a Democrat did it. You know - man bites dog, and all that. --Elliskev 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossing the Picket Line 

message: where should Nick names like Tax Hike Mike and being # 6 on Judicial Watch's 10 most wanted corrupt politicians go?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.100.56 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On a blog, a political discussion forum or in an editorial, but not in an encyclopedic article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Paisan30 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nick names like Tax Hike Mike and being # 6 on Judicial Watch's 10 most wanted corrupt politicians 

message: If there is a sub section on David Huckabee on the Mike Huckabee page it should give a more detailed account of the incident rather than a one sentice description that is purely anti-huckabee and gives no balanced description of the incident, on one said of a hearsay story. This is an encycolpedic website, only having one sentice on one side of a hearsay situation is rediculous. Rtr10 (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have deleted it, per the policy on biographies of living persons. It's nothing more than inflammatory, and expanding it, even to rebut, lends the accusation undue weight. And, for the record, I'm a Democrat, and an Obama supporter, lest I be accused of whitewashing Huackabee's article. Not that you were going to accuse me of that, I'm just making it clear that mine was not a POV-based edit. Bellwether BC 04:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *No I definitely had no intent of pointing that at you of having a political bias in your editing, I do however think who ever created the sub section used very poor judgement in the creation and did not follow Wiki policy. I am totally fine with the deletion and definitely have no ill feelings towards you, I think the deletion is better for the article and that is what we should always be working for. Rtr10 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that a balanced sentence or two can be included. We simply link to the main controversy, summarize it as has been done more than once (Huck came under fire for his part in an incident involving DH.(cite, link) Huck's people refute the media coverage. (cite). I'm not going to edit nor agitate for its' inclusion, but if we don't discuss it, we DO need to wikilink it, as his possible abuses of power in the firing of the sheriff are relevant to his gov'ship and his character. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is included with the source that was used it MUST BE a FULL representation of the situation. If it was the one sentence/one sided story that sub sectioned before, that will not stand and I will not stand by with a blatant one sided story as before. It must be BALANCED. The original content was FAR from being balanced and was an obvious anti-huckabee bias edit. If that happens again, I will personally delete it. Rtr10 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as I stated above that it should not have had its own header but it should probably have some inclusion, unless we feel it would be giving undue weight in Huckabee's biography.  I don't think that everything that appears on the news belongs, but if it is notable enough then we should include it.  If included, it should be brief and offer something from each side. Details may not be needed depending on weight.  Something like Huckabee has been criticised for an incident regarding his son, DH (wikilinked to article).(cite) Huckabee defended his actions yada yada yada.(cite)  So we may not need to go into the details of what happend, only that the incident took place.  This allows us to include it without having to go into the detail of a full description / rebuttal.  If you describe the incident, then you have to include the defense as well, which may make it longer then weight would allow for its inclusion. Morphh  (talk) 20:07, 06 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Morphh's solution matches mine fairly well, so I support it. As to Rtr10, you're showing signs of WP:OWN, so calm down, lest you get into trouble. Threats of absolutism are verboten on Wikipedia, and shouldn't be made. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no threat made or intended ThuranX, we both know that good and well. There is no need for you to make such comments threatening me. I was simple saying that I would not stand for vandalism and that is what a one sided story is, to slide by on the page. I stated that I do not care what is done with it so long as it stays neutral, so I don't see how you could possibly claim that as being "absolutism". Remember, I was the one who opened up the discussion. I have no claim as being the ultimate authority of this article, if I did I would not have started a discussion about it. Just use some common sense before you try to threaten me. Thanks. Rtr10 (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Huckabee sub section 

message: Please don't remove the wikilink for Capitol Offense from the lede. Red links aren't bad, especially when there's a high likelihood they'll turn blue soon. Bellwether BC 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redlinks are not to appear in the lead.  Nonetheless, thank you for turning it blue. =David(talk)(contribs) 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I wasn't aware that redlinks were never allowed in the lead. Is that policy, guideline, or just a rule-of-thumb? It's nice to know, though, as I plan to do a lot of article writing, and also to assist my students in even more. Bellwether BC 03:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies; I've looked through policies and guidelines, and though I thought it was put down somewhere, I cannot find it.  I've always seen a tendency to keep redlinks out of the lead as much as possible, though...maybe it's just something personal.  My profuse apologies; carry on! =David(talk)(contribs) 03:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *It's no big deal. I usually don't advocate for redlinks anywhere in an article, but with one that's so obviously going to be a blue link at some point, I thought an exception would be in order. Then I decided to just go ahead and get at least a stub added tonight. Bellwether BC 03:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huckabee's band