Talk:Haley Barbour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Mississippi
Portal
Haley Barbour is within the scope of WikiProject Mississippi, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Mississippi and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage]
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.


[Negative material that was here has been removed. Peter O. (Talk) 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)]

Contents

[edit] No Source for the 1982 Quote!

I clicked on the internet link and no article appears. This is a serious charge, and the comment in the wiki entry is unattributed. I know Haley Barbour, and I have a hard time believing he made that comment. The editor should clear this up, or remove the quote entirely.

[edit] More Info, Anyone?

In the "Other Accomplishments" section, Gov. Barbour's balancing of the $700 million budget deficit without raising taxes is mentioned, followed by a list of areas in which he increased spending. All that's said of where this money came from is "He kept the budget in the black by cutting in other areas." It seems to me that, in order to not be unevenly positive on Mr. Barfour's financial feats, those areas that got cut should be mentioned. I'm pretty sure he cut Medicare or Medicaid (probably both), but someone more knowledgeable should put that information in. (SenorCrunchy 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

Medicare is a federal program, while Medicaid is jointly funded and administered by states. Barbour cut a lot of Medicaid funding from the state budget. I've added a lot of data and citations as to what exactly happened (I accidentally forgot to login before the first edit). I freely admit that I really don't like Barbour as a politician -- he's completely in the pocket of special interests: the Medicaid cuts hit poor retired people and the disabled, while Mississippi's taxes remain among the most regressive in the nation and the cigarette taxes are the lowest -- but I have tried to keep it as NPOV as possible. Suggestions and edits are welcome, but please make sure to let me know why if you feel obligated to remove a lot of information. Shayborg 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1982 campaign controversy

The original section read as follows:

During this failed bid for Senator a controversy arose at a campaigning stump when Barbour was caught espousing racist views in a joking manner. In the presence of the press he and an aide were complaining that "coons" were going to be at a campaign stop at the state fair. Barbour warned the aide, in front of reporters, that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be "reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks."Barbour Campaign Shows GOP's Racist Side

Yet, reading the source, this is not what happened. I have re-inserted information regarding the controversy as sourced in the article. Yet, reading the source, this is not what happened. I have re-inserted information regarding the controversy as sourced in the article.

Huh? The article gives a racist quote which is directly attributable to Barbour. "Barbour warned the aide, in front of reporters, that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be 'reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks.'" Restored 1982 campaign controversy

I've changed the cited source for this to the original NYT article from 1982, which is still available through TimesSelect (free for educational users). Shayborg 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

Reasons for recent edits - point by point:

1. Heading changes -

The headings were '1982 campaign controversy' and '2003 campaign controversy' - I changed them to 1982 campaign for senate and 2003 campaign for governor. Wikipedia is not made for collecting left-wing dossiers on Republican politicians - I don't even like Haley Barbour, but this is a biogrpahical article and thus the important thing is that he ran for those two offices in those two years, not the controversies that occurred. If you notice, though, I did not remove the controversies from the article, I merely corrected them to adhere to a better NPOV and factual accuracy.

2. 1982 'Campaign Controversy' - if you read the article that is sourced, it clearly states that Barbour was not the one telling the jokes - so whoever wrote the initial entry must have intentionally falsified the information. I cleaned up the entry to more accurately depict the controversy.

3. 2003 'Campaign Controversy' - most of this is not sourced at all, so I removed the unsourced portions and added some more information regarding the CCC to make up for it. Per your request, I will remove the references to Trent Lott and Dick Gephardt.

4. Barbour's service as RNC Chairman for 4 years was not even mentioned in the article, and this is certainly a very important part of his bio. Likewise for his work as Executive Director of the Mississippi GOP in 1976.

5. I didn't remove anything regarding the tobacco industry influences, I merely created a new heading for his Governorship and then put the tobacco and katrina stuff as subheadings underneath it.

[edit] Stan Zegel

Mr. Zegel, your constant reversions are unprofessional and reek of an ideological point of view. You apparently seek to whitewash Mr. Barbour's career without regard to truth. The fact that he appeared at a CCC barbecue is beyond dispute and was a well-reported aspect of the 2003 election. Your philosophy of NPOV would appear to be that absolutely anything that could be construed to reflect negatively upon an individual should be declared out of bounds. As such articles are meant to be biographies and not hagiographies, you are clearly in error. I have requested assistance in this matter. KrJnX

Mr X, you might perhaps appreciate NPOV by deciding whether this addition of all factual material, similar to what you attempted to place in the Haley Barbour article, would be a fair addition to the John Kerry article:
Kerry was supported by the Communist Party of the USA which posted on its website reprintable flyers urging Kerry's election. Kerry did not disavow its support, many of whose members are also members of the American Civil Liberties Union which has supported Nazi sympathizers marching through Jewish neighborhoods and sued to allow terrorists to carry weapons on New York City public transportation. Kerry also accepted the support of extortionist Jesse Jackson, a professional black racist who collects money from firms that give jobs to millions of Americans by threatening to call for a boycott of their products unless he, his family members or his supporters are paid in cash or contracts. His well-known defensive tactic of labeling any critics as "racist" has kept prosecutors at bay so far, and Kerry welcomed Jackson's support, without revealing what role Jackson would play in a Kerry administration.
All true, but also fair and undistorted presention of the facts? --StanZegel 20:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
If Kerry actually appeared at a CPUSA barbecue, then, hell yes, I would want that information on his biography.
And if the event were sponsored by several organizations, the ACLU and the CPUSA among the 57 sponsors, would you still want it there? --StanZegel 15:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Did you have a point with this aside? If so, it has eluded me. The barbecue in question was an event at the CCC's annual Blackhawk Rally, which raises funds for busses operated by segregrated private academies.KrJnX 20:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
If, however, flyers posted on the CCC website endorsed Bush and he refused to disavow its support, then I would say it shouldn't appear. Passive support from the organization is different from the Barbour's apparent support of the CCC. In addition, the fact that the CCC incident was a widely reported one in the media and can reasonably be said to have influenced the election provides even more reason for the incident to be included.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the story of the CPUSA flyers did belong in the Kerry article. The ACLU comment, regardless of its veracity, would be totally irrelevant. Members of the CPUSA might be members of AAA, as well; it doesn't mean it belongs in the article.
Kerry's acceptance of money from Jesse Jackson would not belong in Kerry's wikipedia article any more than Richard Melon Scaife's contributions to George W. Bush would belong in his article.
The difference between the relatively bland mentions of Barbour's appearance at the CCC barbecue and the irrelevant slam you post is not a subtle one. Tell me, if you considered every mention of Barbour's appearance preciously posted as too POV, why do you not correct the article instead of lazily reverting? And while you're at it, would you care to respond to my point regarding how a wikipedia biography is not intended to gloss over any fact that may reflect negatively on the individual? KrJnX 02:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course a biography can include negative material, if fairly presented. It is a matter of emphasis. Of proportionate perspective. Your proposed additions on Gov. Barbour would be appropriate if the article were many times as long is it is and had a lengthy section about his campaign strategy listing many of the events he attended. To pick one one-of-a-thousand and give it undue emphasis is what makes it unencyclopedic and POV. It is like an article that said:
William Jefferson Blythe ("Bill") Clinton (born 19 August 1946) was the 41st President of the United States from 20 January 1993 to 20 January 2001. During his presidency numerous sexual encounters with women not his wife took place in the presidential offices, notably one involving use of a cigar (later smoked) as a sexual instrument. He had previously been Governor of Arkansas. After his term ended he moved to New York.
Here the emphasis is distorted because very little else of his career is mentioned. If the article were expanded to encyclopedic length, then in a section dealing with the events that led him to lie under oath, details like those above would be appropriate. But to list such detail is a short article as though it was the only thing he had ever done would be quite unfair. It is relatively disproportionate.
Your proposed additions also attempted Guilt by Association. I think you would squawk if someone added the --factual-- sentence: "In the general election of 4 November 2003 Barbour defeated the official candidate of the politial party that promoted, implemented, and defended racial segregation in Mississippi for over a century, Ronnie Musgrove." One needs to tell the story fairly, in perspective, without diverting to take partisan cheap shots. --StanZegel 14:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC
"Proportionate perspective?" You must be joking. Haley Barbour did not enter the limelight until this event became picked up the media and this was the only campaign event that was reported on; therefore, an article full of his noneventful campaign stops would be overly long and totally irrelevant. In addition, Wikipedia articles are perpetually works-in-progress. If you think that this event *would* be appropriate in a longer article, then you have no right whatsoever to just revert the material out. If you believe that to be the case, you are obligated to either leave the article alone or add material to balance it out.
And again you compare irrelevant slams to an honest factual report of the CCC event. Clinton's tryst with Monica in the oval office would definitely be appropriate in the context of the impeachment proceedings. But let's play ball anyway, if I saw such an article, I wouldn't merely lazily shrug off responsibility for correcting it and just revert any mention of such an event, I would endeavor to correct it and place such events in their proper context. That's the difference between you and me, I suppose.
Your mention of Guilt by Association is distended to ridiculous lengths. No one proposes that any mention of Great Britain's involvment in the European Union be amended to point out Britain's involvement in Colonialism. Or that any mention of Mexico's involvment in NAFTA be amended to point out Pancho Villa's raids in New Mexico. Do such mentions belong in the articles Great Britain and Mexico? Of course they do, but they don't belong in wildly irrelevant places. And to bring up the past of the Democratic party in the manner of your example is even less relevant to the CCC incident when one considers that not only do the events you mention not reflect on the current democratic party any more than the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland reflects on the current government of Great Britain, but that the CCC *ACTIVELY* promulgates racism.
In conclusion, you either need to make the article contextually correct or you need to leave the article alone. Your mindless reversions are not the proper way to build an encyclopedia.KrJnX 16:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Mr X, I think you have misplaced the burden here. If you want to add something to an article, it is your responsibility to structure things so that the addition is germane and proportionate. Anything else is just bomb and run, leaving other editors to straighten out the mess to try to fit your random thoughts into the article. Rather than expect others to add a couple thousand words just to create a place for a piece of partisan spin, you need to realize that is your job, and that partisan spin will still be subject to NPOV revision by any editor.
One of them may even go so far as to research your point and find this newspaper story that quotes his Democrat opponent saying he attended the same event himself in previous years, and that he would have attended it that year too, except for a scheduling conflict. After doing so, an editor might even be tempted to conclude that you attempted to insert the issue for reasons other than presenting the whole story. Or that it turns out to be a non-story because both sides were or would have been there, but involving one side is just a smear attempted by someone sore about the election results. Having done that research, they might remove your addition as moot and partisan. NPOV, Mr X, NPOV. --StanZegel 21:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
No sir, you misunderstand the meaning of NPOV. You seem to believe that an article is only NPOV if every bad thing is balanced by a good thing. I quote the NPOV article:
We should ... write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically.
According to this, you are incorrect in your reversion. You may not revert simply based on your opinion as to what amounts to NPOV. It belongs if it's relevant, regardless of how it reflects on the subject. You can't say that it belongs *only* if the article is, like, really, really long. You are to provide context or refutation of the facts, nothing more. If an editor were to revert based on his or her conclusion that it's a "non-story", the editor would be wrong. The editor does not have the right to do that. The editor must simply provide context or show *why* the event is a non-story. Your only weapons in the quest for NPOV are further facts or further context. The use of reversions is not permissible in the presence of relevant facts.
Is the James Eastland article horribly biased? Even in spite of the fact that it reports the truth in a neutral manner? Individuals with an interest in the article are those who are most likely to be knowledgeable regarding the topic at hand. An individual on one side puts up a fact that may reflect negatively; an individual on the other side provides context, or vice-versa. I'll repeat myself: The fact that Barbour's appearance was a well-reported event and can reasonably be said to have had an impact on the race means that it belongs on wikipedia. You can't just revert because you don't like it. Reversions should be reserved *SOLELY* for irrelevant material, vandalism, or incorrect items. You bring up a fair refutation in your response and you even have a source for it. Bully for you. Put that up there to provide context. But don't just revert. Considering your vast contributions, you must be better than that.KrJnX 23:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Partisan Points of View

Partisan statements, restored by anonymous user 64.12.117.8, have been reverted so that the article presents a Neutral Point of View in accordance with Wikipedia policy.--StanZegel 13:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It is not partisan if it is true. Everything from his comments abot HeadStart to his Medicaid program is public record. Look it up. I'd suggest www.clarionledger.com This is the state-wide paper of Mississippi. But of course, I could see why some would want to hide his record. It is horrible afterall. Or just take a look here:

Barbour and HeadStart:http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=31912&pub=1&div=News

Barbour and Medicaid:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11HERB.html?ex=1402286400&en=9a5f320b9b61705d&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

You are not stating the situation from a neutral point of view. Your comments indicate your motivation, and your delight that the selections are spun a certain way. But on the Wikipedia the articles must be fair and balanced: that's what Neutral Point of View is all about. The article needs to be reverted back to NPOV. --StanZegel 02:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My motivation? I voted for Barbour, but his actions have hurt a lot of good people. But the fact remains that what I put in the article was indeed true. Seeing your comment about Wikipedia policy, I went and search articles of other politicans...I see your point. I see that you have tried to have me blocked...as you can see I can get around any ISP ban. But I will refrain since my post did go outside the policy.

No, I did not try to have you blocked. Thanks for checking and observing the policy. --StanZegel 15:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why FOX NEWS is not blaming Barbour and Riley?

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Fox News is the one and only one in major news coverage to place the blame on both Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco. Fox News failed to mention about the responsiblity of Alabama and Mississippi's governors failure of saving their states. You realize that Louisiana's governor is Democrat and New Orleans mayor is now a Democrat. Fox seems to lack their coverage of how many people are still trapped in the city. Fox News has not ever had the pleasure of interviewing Nagin or Blanco. I guess they knew that Fox News was going to entertain their conservative audience by placing blame on those who carry less power than the people at Washington. So now that Fox knows what going on at the local and state level, they need to go after the neighboring states. Of course, Nagin is in a crisis, Blanco is in a crisis, and Bush is in DC trying to make more a publiciity by giving money to these states. Of course, other countries are trying to help and Bush is refusing most of them! Fox News failed to state that the late response time from FEMA, the Bush Administration's role, and of course, the refugee and looters comments, alongside Alabama and Mississippi's non-stop crisis, too! I'm not too thrilled with Fox News coverage. LILVOKA 2005 September 7 13:35

Well, what do you ecxpect from Faux news channel, but anyway, you can goto FOX new channel page to talk about this, not here. --C.levin 00:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polling result without reference source

One unregistered user just post a polling result, please also indicate the source, relevent part has been moved here, please modify the source when you try to move it back to main article.

According to a SurveyUSA poll, Governor Barbour has fared the best politically in comparision to President Bush, Governor Blanco, Mayor Nagin, Secretary Chertoff, and Undersecretary Brown.

--C.levin 23:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing out POV

I edited it out several words which were clearly partisan in origin. "Attempts to smear Barbour" is not appropriate, but "controversy" is an easier word to use. Also branding people with a different point of view as "extremists" is out of line, so I removed that word as well. There seem to be some conservatives lurking around this article attempting to use it for their own purposes.

Some redneck neanderthal insists on vandalizing this article so he can refer to people who were offended by the governor's appearance at a racist event as "extremists", and "attempts to smear him". Use neutral language or go away.

[edit] Nonstop attempts to introduce non-neutral language

Someone continually reverts edits to enter non-neutral designations into the campaign section of this article, specifically, calling the firestorm in the media "partisan", people who opposed the governor's appearance at the CCC event "extremists" and claiming that "attempts to smear him" were made. Flat out crossing the line with that language. Stop reverting the article or I say we lock it down.

--TheBurningHelm 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related to William Warren Barbour?

There seems to be a strong resemblence to old-time New Jersey politican William Warren Barbour. Are they related? Dvd Avins 12:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on information in the William Warren Barbour talk page, there appears to be no common ancestry, for at least the several centuries that the two lineages have been in America. Dvd Avins 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 Campaign Controversy

Alsayid, what are your cites in opposition to justify your enduring vandalism to the 2003 Campaign Controversy? This is how it ought to read:

2003 Campaign Controversy

After two decades in Washington D.C., Barbour announced in 2003 his intention to run for governor of Mississippi. On August 5, 2003, he won the Republican gubernatorial primary over Canton attorney Mitch Tyner.

During the campaign a controversy arose when Barbour chose to speak at the Blackhawk Rally, a fundraiser for the Blackhawk "council school" in Blackhawk, Mississippi. Such "council schools," also referred to in Mississippi lexicon as "academies," were established by the racist White Citizens' Councilmovement in reaction to the demands for racial integration by the American Civil Rights movement. The Blackhawk rally was hosted by the Council of Conservative Citizens (abbreviated CCC or CofCC). The lynchpin of Citizens' Councils has traditionally been opposition to racial integration in public schools

A photograph of Barbour with CCC members appeared on the CCC webpage, and some commentators and pundits demanded that Barbour ask for his picture to be removed from the site, but Barbour refused. Barbour's race-baiting tactic proved to be successful and his popularity within the establishment of white Mississippi grew shortly after this controversey with CCC. He was soon to be elected governor.

Un-named editor, the highly POV nature of your preferred edit speaks for itself. It is important that we remain unbiased, and encyclopedic. I ask that you not attack me or insert clear attacks into the article, and consider that Wikipedia that is not a soapbox. Thank you. --Alsayid 03:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your passage has an unfriendly attitude and clear bias. You just can't say the White Citizens' Council is racist. That's a strong judgment on whatever they do, which is likely more complex than simply being racist. Words like "lynchpin" and "pundits" are way too informal, and are, I think, weasel words. Finally, I fail to see how Barbour's actions are "race-baiting". That's a completely unnecessary claim. The current wording of the passage is by no means perfect, but is the more appropriate of the two presented so far. --Merovingian - Talk 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mongolian: What do you mean "I can't 'say' the [WCC] is racist." Why not? (Emphasis on the word "White") Feel free to argue their history with me here. Otherwise, it is presumed that any racial exclusionary movement is by design "racist." Sorry if this stings you a bit.

From your first sentence, I have no idea how you expect me to take you seriously. How is a petty permutation of my username doing any good?
Anyways, just because a group identifies themselves with a certain race, does not make them racist. What about the NAACP? Could they, by your logic, also be considered racist? --Merovingian - Talk 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What words do you propose in lieu of "lynchpin" or "pundit"? Personally, I like the word lynchpin, but I think lodestar would work, as well. I just don't think many non-lawyers use the word "lodestar."

The words "lynchpin", "pundit", and "lodestar" are inappropriate because they suggest a certain point of view in shades of meaning. We're not supposed to act like lawyers here anyway. --Merovingian - Talk 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, when dealing with the Deep South words like "lynch" just seem to roll off the tongue.

You're kidding, right? --Merovingian - Talk 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As to your exception to the term "race-baiting"--What do you propose Barbour's intent was in campaigning at a fundraiser for a whites only school in the Deep South?

It was campaigning, plain and simple. It's not Wikpedia's place to judge whether or not Barbour had ulterior motives in doing so. Might I also remind you that it is a fact of life as a politician to go out and meet with special-interest groups. --Merovingian - Talk 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I do appreciate your attempt at dialouge, as opposed to the recurring POV vandalism Alsayid continues to engage in. Let's talk about his proposed passage. He edits:

"During the campaign, a photograph of Barbour attending the Council of Conservative Citizens co-sponsored Blackhawk Rally appeared on the CCC's website. The NAACP, which has called the CCC racist, said Barbour should demand his picture removed from the website. Barbour responded "Once you start down the slippery slope of saying 'That person can't be for me,' then where do you stop?... I don't care who has my picture. My picture's in the public domain." Barbour's Democratic opponent, Governor Musgrove, declined to be critical, stating that he had also attended Blackhawk rallies in the past, and would have done so that year except for a scheduling conflict."

Inserting the "NAACP viewpoint" in the paragraph is only relevant in so much as a description for the National Socialist Party in Germany ought to include the Anti Defamation League's "opinion" that the holocaust was anti-semetic. History proves the holocaust, like the Citizens' Council movement, was racist in design.

However, the goal of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to see to it that multiple opinions are given fairly. --Merovingian - Talk 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
To state that there is a "NAACP viewpoint" of the CCC being racist is unnecessarily narrowing. The CCC is certainly racist. Let's look at the CCC in their own words:--Cortez3100
The CCC in Its Own Words
According to the Council of Conservative Citizens’ website (www.cofcc.org, 12/98), Abraham Lincoln was "surely the most evil American in history," while Martin Luther King was a "depraved miscreant.” On the other hand, for the CCC’s Citizens Informer (Summer/94), former Georgia governor Lester Maddox, an unreconstructed racist, was the "Patriot of the Century.
"Each of the three major races plays a distinct role in history. . . . The whites were the creators of civilization, the yellows its sustainers and copyists, the blacks its destroyers.” (web site, 12/98)
"Western civilization with all its might and glory would never have achieved its greatness without the directing hand of God and the creative genius of the white race. Any effort to destroy the race by a mixture of black blood is an effort to destroy Western civilization itself." (Citizens Informer, Fall/94)
"Our liberal establishment is using the media of television to promote racial intimacy and miscegenation…. All of the news teams on the major networks have black and white newscasters of opposite sexes." (Citizens Informer, Fall/98)
“Is it racist to say that it is legally and morally wrong for government to force a mixing of the races to produce a mongrel?" (Citizens Informer, Spring/97)
"The Jews' motto is 'never forget, and never forgive.' One can't agree with the way they've turned spite into welfare billions for themselves, but the 'never forget' part is very sound." (Citizens Informer, Winter/97)
"The presence [in Congress] of even one white person with our interests foremost in his mind is simply unacceptable to the issues-obsessed conservative race traitors. Texas Governor George Bush and his brother Jeb in Florida have manifested their self-hatred by embracing Hispanics ahead of whites. Somehow we must find a way to relieve whites of their self-hatred." ("Open Letter to White People,” website, 12/98)
"If we want to live, white Americans must begin today to lay the foundations of our future and our children's future.... Start today, fellow white Americans. Look at the faces around you: Find the faces like yours, and see them as your brothers and sisters. Find the fair-skinned babies and see them as your children." ("A Call to White Americans," website, 12/98)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1451

To illustrate this, take note of what exactly the "Blackhawk Rally" is. Rather than speak of the controversy in a vacuum, readers to this wiki entry ought to know what type of "controversy" Barbour was embroiled in when he chose to speak at the Citizens' Council's Blackhawk Rally. The following entry does this:

"During the campaign a controversy arose when Barbour chose to speak at the Blackhawk Rally, a fundraiser for the Blackhawk "council school" in Blackhawk, Mississippi. Such "council schools," also referred to in Mississippi lexicon as "academies," were established by the racist White Citizens' Council movement in reaction to the demands for racial integration by the American Civil Rights movement. The Blackhawk rally was hosted by the Council of Conservative Citizens (abbreviated CCC or CofCC). The lynchpin of Citizens' Councils has traditionally been opposition to racial integration in public schools."

The primary distinction between the two entries are Barbour's humorous liberty quotations (which need a cite) in response to the controversy, versus a description of why a controversy erupted. I think there is room for Barbour's quotes in response to the controversy. But, we also need to have an entry on what was so controversial in his decision to speak at a "council school" and to educate the reader about what a "council school" aka "Mississippi academy" is. The phenomena of such institutions is extremely local to Mississippi and most readers will have never entertained the concept of such institutions existing in America (even in Mississippi) in the 21st century. The fact that Babour stump speeched there is fascinating.

[edit] Stan Zegel's POV Edits Yet Again

To paste an earlier post regarding your edits:

"Mr. Zegel, your constant reversions are unprofessional and reek of an ideological point of view. You apparently seek to whitewash Mr. Barbour's career without regard to truth. The fact that he appeared at a CCC barbecue is beyond dispute and was a well-reported aspect of the 2003 election. Your philosophy of NPOV would appear to be that absolutely anything that could be construed to reflect negatively upon an individual should be declared out of bounds. As such articles are meant to be biographies and not hagiographies, you are clearly in error. I have requested assistance in this matter. KrJnX"

Please add to the discussion before you continue your behavior of POV apologist editing on behalf of Haley Barbour. I would like you to talk about your most recent edit to 2003 Campaign Controversy. We have a discussion going here.--Cortez3100

[edit] Blackhawk rally

There seems to be a revert war over the wording of the blackhawk rally section. The first thing to do is to stop the revert war. The seocnd thing to do is to explore the two versions and decide on a compromise. As far as I can tell there is no dissent from the fact of his attending the rally, none from the fact that CCC is widely viewed as a racist organsiation, none from the view that whites-only schools owe their existence to deep-seated racism. It seems that his political opponents are in the same boat, and do not condemn him; it also seems that the NAACP find it problematic that he chooses to give an apparent endorsement to this institution. We can say both things, as long as we do so in neutral terms. So: start with the facts which are beyond dispute, then give a very short summary as to why this is considered problematic, then give a very short summary of why it might not be. Once we've seen whjat that looks like, then hopefully an agreement can be reached. But a revert war is not going to fix anything, and this is about individual interpetations of verifiable fact so we can't fix it by magically waving policy either. Just zis Guy you know? 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a compromise may be within reach, if civility can be maintained. On to the disputed content. Cortez wants to include that the Rally is a fundraiser for a private segregated academy. I agree that that would be informative.
We also need to keep the entry accurate in that a) the controversy arose when the NAACP complained, not when "pundits" complained, b) Barbour's response regarding the picture needs to be included, and c) Barbour's Democratic opponents also attended Blackhawk Rallies, and so refused to criticize Barbour for doing so. This info is vital so that the passage is balanced, and not misleading.
That brings us to the conclusion of the hotly contested edit. Namely, that Barbour's "race-baiting tactic proved to be succesful" with the "white establishment," winning him the election. Given that BOTH sides made a habit of attending Blackhawk rallies, and said so plainly, We might as well say "Democratic Governor Musgrove's race-baiting tactics alienated his base, costing him the election." Both versions are equally speculative and partisan, and should be left out altogether. --Alsayid 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as you continue to vandalize this article, Alsayid, there is no compromise to your hotly contested edits. Perhaps editing out this sentence, "Barbour's race-baiting tactic proved to be successful and his popularity within the establishment of white Mississippi grew shortly after this controversey with CCC. He was soon to be elected governor," is a fair compromise. However, cleansing out any criticisms of Barbour, as you have done today throughout this article, will hopefully result in administrative intervention. I've gone ahead and removed that sentence as a compromise to your concerns. --Cortez3100

[edit] Negative tone

I probably hate Haley Barbour more than any other American politician, but even to me this article seems a little too negative to be truly NPOV. Is there anything positive to say about him or his policies other than the little Rudy Giuliani bit? If I knew of any good things he's done I'd add them, but I can't think of any. Shayborg 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infant mortality

Tdl1060 keeps deleting this section, claiming that it was "unsourced". This is false, as I stated in the edit summary. The source was the New York Times.

If you want to delete it, Tdl1060, tell me what your real reason is. Nbauman 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, our edits crossed and I missed you adding the source. I removed it the first time along with parts that were simply commentary, and a story about Jamikia Brown that did not belong Haley Barbour's article. Since the link is not open access I could not tell what parts the ref. applied to.--Tdl1060 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
So what is your reason for deleting it?Nbauman 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The section is currently there, I removed the ref. along with commentary that was inappropriate to the article. I then tagged the section c.n. so someone would source it. Now that you have, I'm not going to remove the section.--Tdl1060 17:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] FYI

He won the re-election. I have no source or citation so I didn't bother posting it but I just wanted to get that out there so someone would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.150.157 (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbour's million dollar bet on Social Security cuts. Didn't he welch on that?

I'm blogging about T Boon Picken's million dollar Swift Boat challenge and am speculating that Pickens is going to welch on it. That reminds me of when Haley Barbour stood up on national TV with a gigantic check for something like a million dollars to anyone who could prove that the GOP proposals would cut Social Security benefits. Of course, a number of people took him up on the challenge but Barbour didn't pay a dime -- instead he counter-sued them in Mississippi courts with a nuisance law suit.

I've Googled and Googles about that story but with no luck. Do any of you have a memory of it or -- better yet -- a link to a news article? I'm thinking this is circa 1994 but am not sure. --Calan (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)