Talk:Mike Huckabee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mike Huckabee article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
  1. Dec 2005–Sep 2007
  2. Sep 2007–Dec 2007

Contents

[edit] School Closings in AR

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) Can anyone find text of any of Huckabee's speeches? His school closing plans closed at least 3 schools that he flew to in the State police helicopter and told the children there that their school would stay open. I know that Mount Holly was one of them as I was there but cannot find a source.

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)

[edit] Education???

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)


Mike Huckabee did receive his B.A. from Ouachita Baptist University in 1975 and M.A. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1980 according to these sources below.

Please see links:

http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/mikehuckabee.html

http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=10

OK Now 7 (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Also, what should be possibly added for Mike Huckabee's B.A. is that he received a Bachelor of Arts in religion and a minor in communications.

OK Now 7 (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huckabee believes in Biblical inerrancy -- true or false?

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)


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)
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)


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)
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)
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)
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)
Interesting, but probably way beyond the scope of this article. ThuranX (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
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)

[edit] list

Lists are discouraged. See political positions section. Bothsidesspin (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Judical Watch

The Judicial Watch stuff is highly POV and partisan. 69.19.14.20 (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, not to mention it was removed for not being relevant to the 2008 presidential campaign. If the editor who reinserted it wants to comment on how it is relevant, please do so below before reverting an edit. Rtr10 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Judicial Watch did not single out Huckabee. Clinton, Obama and Giuliani also made their list. Is Judicial Watch notable enough to get a mention in the bios of every politician it criticizes? No. Paisan30 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. By itself, the list is not notewothy enough to appear in the articles of any of the people named. There could conceivably develop a larger context in which it could fairly be mentioned, but that context doesn't currently exist. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know folks; the last time I looked Huckabee was running for president of the US. Judicial Watch is a conservative, nonpartisan watchdog group. Their comments on all presidential candidates is valid and worthwhile. What you seem to be doing looks very much like whitewashing an indepth review of this candidate.
To claim this is a "partisan" review is specious; if it was a liberal group one might get away with it. Do you have any legitimate reasons or is it that you just dislike negative information being covered? --Storm Rider (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's noteworthy enough for inclusion. JW's a well-known political commentary site, not some random blogspot blog. Their article was covered at HuffPo, and Drudge, so it got covered by other sources, and so on. debates about the incestuous nature of political websites aside, I think the article's notability can be established by it's coverage elsewhere, and thus, included. ThuranX (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You can't really put "debates about the incestuous nature of political websites aside." That's the whole point. Just because an opinion is offered in one place, and then repeated on dozens of like-minded blogs and websites doesn't mean it is noteworthy. There isn't a threshold of noteworthiness amongst the blogs that makes something automatically worthy of inclusion once it's been mentioned by enough of them. At the very least, it would need to get play in the regular journalistic media (newspapers, television, etc.) The JW "report" is essentially an editorial, and there is no need to edit an article about a politician every time somebody writes an editorial about them, good or bad. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing any evidence that Judicial Watch does not match the standards of a verifiability; Loonymonkey, or any other editor that has deleted this information, can you provide any evidence it is not verifiable? When you have something that is referenced by a reputable source, there is not reason to delete it; in fact, it is the single, greatest threshold for inclusion. More importantly, it completely meets the standards of neutrality, which would seem to be wholly lacking in all of your reasoning for deletion.

The reasons you have provided:

  1. "An opinion is offered...does not mean it is noteworthy." This is silliness parading as reason. Huckabee is a presidential candidate; a politician seeking the highest office for a politician and a neutral, conservative think tank has named him corrupt. How can anyone say that it is not noteworthy? This seems more like a base attempt to keep negative information from readers.
  2. "it would need to get play in the regular journalistic media (newspapers, television, etc.)" Please review policies, this is your personal opinion and is not the policy of Wikipedia. This also applies to your last reason; Wikipedia is about policies and not your personal opinions, POVs, and agendas.
  3. "The Judicial Watch stuff is highly POV and partisan." This is just a flat out lie. I think this editor is confusing POV with negative. A neutral, third party's review of the history of politician is not POV; it is their factual review of a politician's actions. Partisan??? Huckabee is a republican and JW is a conservative group. To be partisan it would have needed to be done by someone like Move On, a liberal group attacking a conservative politician.

No legitimate reason to exclude the information has been given. To delete the information points to two major policies that are being broken ownership and balance. This petty edit war violates our policies and the continued deletion of the material amounts to vandalism, and may very well result in editors being blocked. --Voire Dei (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to recheck the definition of vandalism - this is quite clearly content dispute. The JW article was written about his actions as governor; if the JW article is to be mentioned at all on this page it therefore needs to be placed somewhere in the "Governor of Arkansas" section as it has no direct relevance to Huckabee's '08 campaign. As for major policies being broken, the text mentioning the JW article comprises roughly half of the entire '08 campaign section; that is obviously an undue amount of text for this article and therefore a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. I personally don't feel that the JW article merits any mention in this page because, though it has been referred too by a few other news sources, I don't feel like JW is considered to be a reputable judge of who is actually the most corrupt politician. However, for a compromise would people be opposed to shortening the section and moving it to immediately follow the mention of Time magazine's listing of him as one of the five best governors?--Rise Above The Vile 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's appropriate. Putting this story in the Campaign section gives it undue weight. As you mentioned, the JW information is currently the most prominent point in this section. There is already a Presidential Campaign article, so this biography page should only be a short summary of the most important points about the campaign. Judicial Watch is not one of those points. Paisan30 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, there is currently NO mention on Giuliani's page of this story. Paisan30 (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That objection falls under WPOTHERCRAPEXISTS and doesn't make for a good argument for exclusion. ThuranX (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for exclusion. I moved it to the appropriate place in the article. I was just pointing out that Giuliani's page makes no mention of it, since another editor said that he has added it to both articles. Paisan30 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Voire, regarding "No legitimate reason to exclude the information has been given" you really need to go back and review the policies on this. It is not up to other editors to "prove" that something doesn't belong in an article. In edit disputes, the onus is on the editor arguing for inclusion to make the case that the information is necessary to the article. Further, what is your evidence that Judicial Watch is reliable? They certainly aren't journalistic. This "list" is simply an editorial (and not even an editorial published in a mainstream source). You can make a very good case that the information referred to by Judicial Watch is relevant and should be included (and back it up with other sources), but the JW article by itself is simply the opinion of a few and should not be given undue weight.
And finally, you have a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. I would suggest you read the linked page on that subject to avoid mistakes like threatening that editors in disagreement will be "blocked" (which just comes across as sort of laughable and distracts from whatever point you are trying to make). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I read the article incorrectly on Vandalism. I reads:
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Your repeated deletions without any reason amounts to vandalism.
All that was offered by those who deleted the text was basically "I don't like it", "it does not belong", etc. There is not basis for its exclusion. It has been legitimately referenced. The policy you now attempt to twist to your own means reads: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The editor did this; it is impossible for readers not to go directly to the source to understand the complete context of Judicial Watch's position and expertise. You actually think a journalist is more qualified than a group that is "a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation", that "promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law." Do you have any sources that state this is is part of the extremist fringe? If not, you have no grounds for your position. Although I am tickled pink that you got a laugh, my objective is that you actually learn the difference between writing with an agenda and writing in a neutral manner. --Voire Dei (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did read it incorrectly. Or are you actually trying to make the case that all of the editors that disagree with you here are, in fact, attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Unless you simply assume bad faith of, I don't see how you could believe such a thing.
It's great that Judicial Watch calls itself "non-partisan" but that doesn't mean they are (and it doesn't have much to do with our discussion, anyway). The issue isn't their impartiality, it's the simple fact that just because an organization editorialized against a politician doesn't mean that their opinion must automatically be added to an article. As I said, if you're really concerned about the information they refer to, you should source those facts (not their opinion summarizing those facts) and weave it into the article. I, for one, would certainly not object. But as you don't seem to be interested in doing that (it is a lot of hard work, after all) I and many others will resist the inclusion of isolated editorial opinions. As for writing with an agenda, all I have to say is "physician, heal thyself." I have no interest in Mike Huckabee as a politician. I do have an interest in insuring that Wikipedia Politics does not devolve into a collection of pro and con editorials about politicians.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The deletionists have gotten completely off the leash here. An editor does not have to justify that every bit of information he puts in is "necessary" to an article, and the person removing information from an article most certainly does not enjoy some special status that would demand others not revert him. To the contrary, Wikipedia says that anything notable gets put in and uses a WP:3RR that is the same for everyone. Whenever Huckabee interacts with an organization or an organization interacts with him in a way that is noteworthy enough to be described by reliable sources, it's appropriate to put into the article. If you look up Judicial Watch you'll have a hard time arguing they aren't a notable entity.
It is true that in theory if you rounded up every notable organization and newspaper that gave Huckabee or any other candidate thumbs up or thumbs down (with sufficient fanfare to be reported as news by someone other than themselves, that is), you'd have a really long list. Which is great - that's what Wikipedia is for! We'd eventually have to split it into its own article List of Mike Huckabee endorsements, ratings, and denunciations and put it in a nice pretty table and everyone could look up their favorite organization on it and Wikipedia would be another article richer. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


From these sources it seems that Judicial Watch is not above reproach.

http://www.savingjudicialwatch.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Fitton

OK Now 7 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Computer Hard Drives Destroyed article from ArkansasNews.com. This is one example of an ethics charge brought against Mike Huckabee. This points out how easy it is for anybody to charge a governmental official with an ethics violation. http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/07/27/News/342875.html

OK Now 7 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Gothard

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)

I am really curious if Gothard influence Huckabee on covenant marriage. Jmegill (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

That's the material you need to use as a source. That supports the premise your other information builds on. Now you can move forward. As for the looking for negative information, while I have seen you remove some, you certainly add much much more negative information than positive, and you do so regularly. I'm not stopping you nor regularly reverting you, but I would like to see you undertake either overall less editing of the article, or do the same volume, but in a more balanced manner. You sometimes seem to pull the negative parts of articles here, and I'm sure you're omitting the positive sides of some. Try to keep your editing balanced, and it makes keeping the entire article balanced easier. Also keep in mind, I've defended your edits in the past, so if I"m percieving some possible trouble, perhaps that's a sign that there could actually be problems, not just people randomly objecting to you. ThuranX (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Huckabee's disregrard for due process, the separation of powers doctrine, and basic concepts of justice

<math>Insert non-formatted text here</math>In a nationally broadcast radio, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee once compared the State of Arkansas to a “banana republic.” See, "Huckabee: State like a 'banana republic'." Arkansas DemocratGazette 7 Nov. 2000. At http://rickspencer.com/wcc.asp, you will find absolute proof of gross abuse of injured workers and every concept of justice and due process upon which this country is founded by Former Governor Huckabee’s administrative. This proof unequivocally establishes that Mr. Huckabee allowed the insurance and self-insured industries in Arkansas to control how Judges vote in cases presented to them without regard to the facts or the law. You will also find absolute proof that Huckabee attempted to establish a “business friendly” environment in the State of Arkansas through the use of coercive tactics that are similar to the tactics used by the dictators of the “banana republics” to which he compared this State. Specifically, in response to influences and pressure from private interests and to further his quest to create a “business friendly” environment in this State that favors private enterprise, Huckabee’s administration focused extreme pressure on the administrative law judges of the Workers’ Compensation Commission and the Commissioners themselves to decide claims presented to them in favor of employers and insurance carriers or else these judges would be fired. This pressure focused directly and substantially upon the mental decision-making processes of the administrative law judges and Commissioners. The affect of this pressure compromised and impaired the appearance of impartiality which is so essential to any concept of justice and fair play. In fact, at least three administrative law judges were fired by Huckabee because they did not decide cases presented to them in the manner dictated by Mr. Huckabee. The constitutionality of Mr. Huckabee’s actions has been challenged by Attorney Rick Spencer, in Mountain Home, Arkansas. The brief which Mr. Spencer has submitted to the Appellate Courts in Arkansas, as well as the depositions of members of Mr. Huckabee’s staff as well as Mr. Huckabee himself, which corroborate these allegations, can be found on Mr. Spencer’s web site, which can be found above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rookie72116 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a bombastic screed, but what do you expect us to do with it? Mr. Spencer's website in this instance falls under a blog, more than anything. It's an educated blog, but it's an Arkansas resident with an axe to grind. I don't think we can use his ideas here. It may be that some of his citations can be used, but that's a different question, and a lot of work to ask others to do. review his citations, and see what you can bring to the article. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UT

The deposition testimony is more than a blog or an Arkansas Resident with an axe to grind. The deposition testimony is sworn testimony by Huckabee, his chief of staff, and several members of his staff. There testimony is not the opinion of Mr. Spencer or any other Arkansas resident. They document the actions and attitudes of Mr. Huckabee. Whether it can be used in this article, I don't know. The deposition testimony of Mr. Huckabee and his staff members do provide insight into Mr. Huckabee's values.

Interesting material, but all it boils down to is "Rick Spencer alleges that Huckabee pressures and fires judges. Huckabee denies the allegations. Finally, the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct has dismissed Rick Spencer's complaint." http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=1c9b8e7f-45ca-4d4d-92ac-d86ad94ec7ec The affidivits are troubling, but do they amount to a news story? Can you going into the Arkansas Democrat Gazette archives and find something that they have printed on the matter? The Arkansas Times seems to be the only one which prints the story. Jmegill (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's hearsay and an axe grinding site, I agree. Not notable unless something changes significantly. ThuranX (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Huckabee

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)

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)

[edit] Pakistan

Didn't his comments on Pakistan sharing an eastern border with Afghanistan draw more criticism then the Pakistan immigrant thing? [1] Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] College

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Global Warming & Energy

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)

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)


[edit] Crossing the Picket Line

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Nick names like Tax Hike Mike and being # 6 on Judicial Watch's 10 most wanted corrupt politicians

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)

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)
Agreed. Paisan30 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Channel 3 KTBS in Texarkana did a recent story about Mike Huckabee. The part about Dennis Young is interesting. http://www.ktbs.com/news/Mike-Huckabee:-The-Next-Man-From-Hope-Part-Two-8433/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.181.105 (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Here's part one http://www.ktbs.com/news/Mike-Huckabee:-The-Next-Man-from-Hope-8410/# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.181.105 (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Huckabee sub section

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)

  • I would support completely deleting it, per WP:BLP, but expanding it, even to rebut, gives it undue weight. Bellwether BC 04:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I am fine with deletion as well, but to have it as a one sentence, one side of a hearsay story is not encyclopedic content. All I am aiming for is neutrality here and the original one sentince sub section just seemed like an anti-huckabee statement as if it was coming from an opposing campaign or something. I would be more than pleased with deletion though, because I do not think the story is worthy of encyclopedic content, but if the story is going to stay, it needs to be a full representation of the story. Rtr10 (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Huckabee's band

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)

Redlinks are not to appear in the lead. Nonetheless, thank you for turning it blue. =David(talk)(contribs) 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)

[edit] Guilt by association smear

"Governor Huckabee was a keynote speaker at the Southern Baptist 1998 Convention in Salt Lake City [183] in which one convention sermon offered by a different minister referred to Salt Lake City as "headquarters of a counterfeit Christianity."[184] " This sentence should be removed from the article because it does not refer to something Huckabee said or did. This is a guilt by association smear. The question of Huckabee's views on Mormonism should only include information that Huckabee himself provided and not include what his associates said or did. Jmegill (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Thank you for noticing this. =David(talk)(contribs) 02:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Baptists and racist past

This is curious topic that seems to be applied differently depending upon the individual. Mitt Romney's page talks about his ancestors and their practice of polygamy, which would seem to a similar attempt to smear by association with Mormonism. I wonder if it would not be appropriate to discuss the racial issues of the Southern Baptist Convention; the only reason this church exists is because of their commitment to slavery, which did not change until the mid 1970's when Huckabee was graduating from his Baptist college. SBC Churches did not even allow blacks to be members of the vast majority of their churches. This would seem to be a volatile topic, but true none-the-less. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Romney's ancestors have a biological relationship to Romney. Huckabee's fellow pastors do not. The Southern Baptists split off from the other Baptists in the 1840s. Moreover, to state that "commityment to slavery, which did not change until the mid 1970's" is either highly objectionable or gross sloppiness on your part. I doubt that there is any SBC church that was committed to slavery in the 1970s. Jmegill (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The language from the SBC article states:
"The discontent of Baptists from the south regarding slavery eventually led to their withdrawal from the national Baptist organizations. Meeting at the First Baptist Church in Augusta, Georgia[1] in May 1845, they formed a new convention and named it the Southern Baptist Convention. They elected as its first president William Bullein Johnson (1782-1862), who had served as president of the Triennial Convention in 1841."
"The consequences of the decision to separate from other Baptists in defense of the institution of slavery have been long lived. A survey by SBC's Home Mission Board in 1968 showed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit Americans of African descent.[2] During the SBC Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover the Southern Baptist Convention of 1995 voted to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery.[3] The racism resolution marked the denomination's first formal acknowledgment that racism played a role in its founding. Today there are many diverse and even self-consciously ethnic churches within the convention."
Based upon this information the very existence of the Southern Baptist Convention was based on a racist premise. Only 11% of SBC churches would even allow blacks to be members of their congregations. Maybe I am reading the article wrong, but it seems clear that they even admit their racist past. Huckabee was not just a member, he was a pastor. I think it is clear that Huckabee today completely disavows this past and is not a racist, but when he graduated in 1974 from a Baptist college was he active in working against this position? I suspect some pastors had to be active in reversing the past position.
As an aside, your logic Jmegill would seem to say if Huckabee's parents were proven to be racist then it would be okay to mention it because of their biological relationship. Also, do you have any proof that Hackabee was a voice for change in the SBC or was he just part of the silent majority that rejected blacks as members? That sounds much more aggressive than I wish to be, but you seem to appreciate bluntness or maybe it is just sloppy logic. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the article? One sentence references race relations in context of the Huckabee's local Baptist church. That sentence answers your question. Jmegill (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
How kind of you to ask; yes, I did read this article. However, the reference, which was used for no less than 7 different statements, is for an article published in the Dallas Morning News, 9 March 1997. It provides no indication of when Huckabee was active in encouraging the all-white Immanuel Baptist Church to accept black members. Also, which Immanuel Baptist church; the one in El Dorado or Little Rock? Neither one mentions this openness on their websites, but I don't think that is significant. Does anyone have access to this newspaper article that is used so much? It would seem that is key to the conversation or I am missing something again that seems so obvious to your enlightened mind. I will make a deal with you, you start acting human and I will tone down the sarcasm; however, if you are comfortable with this tone let's continue needling each other. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is yours for the small price of $2.95 http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Huckabee+Morris+Baptist+Inerrancy Or you can ask a librarian to help you get access for free. If you would stop complaining and figure out a way to read the article, then you would learn that the church was in Pine Bluff and this was in the mid 80s. Jmegill (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You might want to quit jumping to conclusions or stating the ridiculous. No where does the article say that Immanuel Baptist church is in Pine Bluff. If you read English you would notice that the article simply states that Huckabee as a pastor in three cities: Arkadelphia, Texarkana, and Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Not once does it say that Immanuel Baptist church is in Pine Bluff. Are you implying that he was successful in integrating all the Baptist churches in which he was pastor or are you just guessing; you certainly did not get it from reading the article.
Who is complaining? Can you say projection? I have remarked on an oddity; but given his run for the presidency his affiliations, and being a pastor for the SBC, are their admitted racist past seem to have some merit. For now, your narrow mind has probably said enough and it is time for other editors to comment. Is there a reason for it not to be mentioned? --Storm Rider (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/74469/page/4 The church is in pine bluff. I had thought I picked up that piece of information from the article, but really it was in Newsweek. Perhaps I should have mentioned Newsweek as a source before I had you shell out 2.95 for Scott Parks. My bad. Really I don't think that the racist slur is going to work against Huckabee. The SBC's past actions on race should not be mentioned in this article because it is irrelevant to Huckabee. There is no evidence that Huckabee has racist sentiment or feelings and plenty of evidence that he cares about blacks and hispanics. For example, while Governor, he significantly increased government spending for low income children, many of whom are members of minority groups. Jmegill (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any mention on the Obama page concerning his association with an overtly racist church. Well as of March 2007.... See http://web.archive.org/web/20070307121338/http://www.tucc.org/about.htm and http://tucc.org/about.htm  ;-) Jlambert (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The 'oddity' doesn't actualyl seem to involve huckabee directly, as far as citations provided show. Your interpretations of the SBC history and huckabee's personal timeline ,and the overalpping therein is all your own SYNTH. Find some sources, and we can look at it. As is, we don't need to go for Guilt by Association. As Huckabee notes, he says enough himself to get himself in trouble. ThuranX (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Huckabee handles himself pretty well; he is an excellent communicator. This only came up because of the ongoing conversation over at Mitt Romney's page. Religion seems to play a role on the Republican side of things in this election. I was curious how it was being handled elsewhere. To find references about the Southern Baptist Convention having a racist past and that the majority of Southern Baptist churches denied membership is easy...as easy as it is to find references that Mormons practiced polygamy and were also racist (though they never denied blacks membership, they denied the priesthood to almost all blacks). I think the bottom line, ThuranX, is that you all are saying that being a member, or even an active leader, of an organization that may have a racist past is not relevant to an individual's article?
I do not support stating that Huckabee is racist simply because he is a member of the SBC; that is certainly synthesis. However, if religion is going to play a role then it would seem that religion will play a role for each candidate. The only reason the Southern Baptist Church exists today is because they broke away from other Baptists because of their belief and support of slavery. That position did not change until the middle 1970's. Huckabee graduated in the mid 1970s and then became a pastor for the SBC. Having grown up in the South, I can promise it was a topic of discussion in the 1970's. I think both are relevant and it is not synthesis to bring them up; it does seem inappropriate not to mention it. Doesn't seem like hiding the weenie to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How is it any different from being a citizen of, say Alabama, which has a relatively recent racist past? Do we bring up segregation in every biography of every person from Alabama?
If the Romney article discusses Mormon polygamy, that's an issue for the Romney article talk page. --Elliskev 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference is in an order of magnitude. The church was set up and continued to practice racist policies until the mid 1970's. Alabama was not created for racist policies. I am sure you see the difference. An exaggeration, but an apt one, is like saying we should not talk about David Duke's past in the KKK when he had political ambitions. Of course we should talk about it and we did in the day. I think it is pertinent to this page and it is relevant to his history. It is an elephant in the room that everyone ignores because it is so unpleasant, but it is a fundamental part of his makeup. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. You are talking about the second largest Christian group in the United States with over 16 million members. What makes it relevant in Mike Huckabee's article? --Elliskev 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see the relevance. That a religion has a checkered past isn't always relevant. Look over at Gavin Newsom, where religious SYNTH is also a problem. Or, can we point out that as a Catholic, JFK should be tarred with the feathers of the inquisition? Where's the cut off, where's the limit? this is a can of worms, and I oppose opening it. ThuranX (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


(new indent) This seems to be more difficult to understand than I thought. It is understandable that for any organization, and particularly religious ones, to review history and admit wrong doing. What is applicable about this? I will be blunt. We are not talking about the bloody middle ages. We are talking about when the civil rights movement was at its peak in the 1960's. The reason the Southern Baptists church exists, by its own admission, is because of their desire to defend, protect, and promulgate slavery in the US. Their actions into the 1970's continued to be racist. This is the same church that Huckabee chose not only in which to be a member, but to become a minister. At the time of his becoming a minister Southern Baptists churches still did not allow blacks to become members of their churches. The SBC did not participate in the civil rights movement, but rather sat on the side lines. George Wallace, another SBC member, exemplifies well the mind of their membership at the time of the civil rights movement when he spoke those terrible words, "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". This is the church Huckabee grew up in, prospered in, and chose as his career. It was not just a passing fad, but became his life.

Think about it, we are praising him for integrating a SB church in the mid 1980's! This was well after the rest of the US had become integrated. We are giving him credit for something the rest of the world is doing? Surely you see the silliness of such a task. It is like telling a 20 year old that he has accomplished something because he no longer throws himself on the floor in a tantrum similar to a two year old; it is no accomplishment. It would have been different if he had done something at his college as a student or he was active in the civil rights movement, which he was not. He not only sat on the sidelines, but chose membership in a group that continued to have a racist culture.

It is not slanderous to Southern Baptist churches to discuss history nor is it slanderous to their membership. It is factual history. Also, just because people are unfamiliar with history does not mean it should not be known. In 1995 the SBC sought forgiveness for their past; they acknowledged it, I wonder why it should not be acknowledged here. He was more than just an active participant. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just nuts. You're refusing to look at this rationally. --Elliskev 02:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It's unreasonable because it reflects a strong bias. Jlambert (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
So all southern Baptists who have Bios on wikipedia need it included that they are all bigots and racists. Understood. Then I want all catholic pages to state that they are cannibals, who excuse their sin by calling it magical transubstantiation, and that they all endorse torture because they don't condemned the Inquisition. All Jews personally held the spear that slew Jesus, all Muslims wear bombs, all Hindus worship cows not dieties, all Buddhists are Richard Gere, all Wiccans and new agers are actually satanists, all Scientologists are Fair game murderers, and so on. IF you agree to personally go make all those changes to all those pages, then we'll let you have your way on the SBC thing. No? Too ridiculous? not by your logic. You aren't listening to reason, and consensus is clearly against your edits. Please move on. ThuranX (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should lower this article to the level of nonsense that has occurred on the Mitt Romney articles by editors with anti-Mormon agendas. The history of the churches these candidates belong to is irrelevant. Alanraywiki (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that. It's entirely possible that the religious orientation of a political figure matters incredibly. Consider Shi'a and Sunni conflicts. If Huckabee was on record espousing the racially oriented views of the SBC, that would matter, jsut as Romney's would matter more if he'd said somethign about the controversial past. HUckabee's religious views certainly matter vis-avis his declarations that his faith would guide his politics, but there's nothing there about HIS faith being a racist one, jsut that his church had a racist history. ThuranX (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Allow me one last comment and that will be it. I wanted to clarify my comment because I think ThuranX and I agree. I am only saying past history of the churches (whether LDS, Baptist, Catholic, etc.) should be irrelevant, not the current views of either (which certainly is relevant). Just my opinion. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we just close this? We're spiraling. We obviously have a consensus. Storm Rider, I've always respected the work you do here. You're not the stereotypical edit warrior. Can we move on? --Elliskev 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Elliskev, I think you are correct and it should be left alone. The danger of this type of refusal is the old adage, when you don't remember the past, you are bound to repeat it. Though we on wikipedia try not to let the majority rule, we regrettably allow them to do so. I chose to bring the topic up on the discussion page because I refused to edit the article with such a volatile comment in an election period. It is anathema to those who are politically motivated and it is equally offensive from a religious perspective. To me it is (forgive the pun) black and white. Let's move on; this topic is too volatile for rational discussion. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX and Alanraywiki to a certain extent. I think it would be ridiculous to start talking about Huckabee's religious organization's past beliefs. Doing so would mean we would have to go through every Democratic politician's article and say that their political party was founded on a pro-slavery platform. Then we would have to go through every Republican politician's article and say that their political party was founded on an anti-slavery platform. This would mean getting way off subject. I still don't understand why Storm Rider doesn't seem to understand that, but I'm glad to see he has gotten past this, so I will go ahead and close the discussion. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Discussion closed.

[edit] Trip to India and Association with K. A. Paul

K.A. Paul with Gov Huckabee, Mrs. Huckabee and members of India's Parliament
K.A. Paul with Gov Huckabee, Mrs. Huckabee and members of India's Parliament
K.A. Paul with Governor and Mrs. Huckabee with Indian orphans from Paul's Charity City
K.A. Paul with Governor and Mrs. Huckabee with Indian orphans from Paul's Charity City

Mike Huckabee is many things, including a good and decent guy. That is where his association with Dr. K.A. Paul comes to play, trying to do what is right and helping the needy. KA Paul is a Christian evangelist who promotes peace and end to poverty, and has "counseled" third world dictators like Charles Taylor, Sadaam Hussein, Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi and others in the category. Huckabee has endorsed Paul and his work[2], They traveled with Paul from February, 26 through March, 4 2002 on KA Paul's 747sp "Global Peace One", and then Gov. Huckabee hosted a State dinner on July, 11 2005 for Paul and his organization. The fact that Huckabee has invested time and trust into Paul is noteworthy for a guy who wants to be our president. Whether or not K.A. Paul's activities are positive in certain circles or not is a matter for public consumption along with Huckabee's time and attention to this individual. I would't put it on the article page at the moment, but want to hear from others on the matter first.- Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any third-party accounts? Did the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette or another newspaper publish anything with KA Paul and Huckabee's name together? Jmegill (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
After a quick Google search, all I see are Blog post on the subject of Huckabee and Paul which strikes me kind of strange. If this is inserted into the Wikipedia biography it certainly needs to have a more credible source than a blog and some pictures. Rtr10 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The Washington Times has a story on July 20, 2005 which mentions both Huckabee and KA Paul. However, the mention of KA Paul causes me to be concerned about KA Paul's judgment. Apparently, KA Paul's group took orphans from India to the US without making necessary and proper arrangements. Jmegill (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


The Houston Press, a Texas Weekly publication that also has an online presence, ran an article on June 8, 2006[3] by Craig Malisow that talks of Huckabee's connection. In it he quotes Huckabee as distancing himself from Paul. There was a press release by GPI [4] and Mother Jones ran a piece that spoke of Huckabee's connection as well [5] and the Washington Times piece "Holyfield pleads case of sick Indian orphan; Girl's caregiver denied visa to come to U.S.", on July 20, 2005 by Sharon Behn [6]. The Hindu Times, an Indian Daily, ran this piece [7] too. Additionally, this was printed on no fewer that 45 blogs, and while we don't take blogs as news, the info came from somewhere. Also, Huckabee himself doesn't deny it, he just distances himself from it. While many mainstream pubs did not feel KA Paul was a story, we cannot assume that it did not happen. KA Paul has suffered from not being taken seriously by media and that perhaps is his cross to bear, but that fact that it isn’t found interesting enough doesn't make it less true. In a letter to the editor to the NY Times, Liberia's Charles Taylor said he stepped down because KA Paul told him to do so, but the Times, which had the letter a day after he resigned and confirmed its authenticity with Taylor via telephone, did not feel it was important enough to include in their coverage. So I don't always place credibility in what Wiki refers to as reputable sources - Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork article

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

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

[edit] Merger_proposal2

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

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

1.1 Fiscal record

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

1.2 Illegal immigration

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

1.3 Gift Registry

Covered on the main page

1.4 Wayne DuMond case

Covered on the main page and in the Wayne DuMond article

1.5 Other Pardons

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

1.6 The Huckabee's Political Runs

This is covered on the main page

1.7 Public comments

This is covered on the main page

1.8 Expunging of data upon leaving governor's office

This is covered on the main page

1.9 David Huckabee and Killing of Dog

This is covered on the David Huckabee page

1.10 Investments

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

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

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

[edit] Bold Text

Whoever added "Nevertheless, like many in the Republican party, Huckabee's position has evolved, particularly after the bruising immigration reform fight in the summer of 2007. On December 6, 2007, he released a nine-point immigration enforcement and border security plan.[4] These were modeled on a ten-point plan proposed in 2005 by Mark Krikorian.[5][6] On January 16, 2008, Huckabee became the first presidential candidate to sign Americans for Better Immigration's No-Amnesty pledge. In response, Roy Beck's organization raised his rating on illegal immigration to EXCELLENT.[7] Huckabee continues to speak for the dignity of legal immigrants. In the January 10 Republican debate he said that all immigrants "ought to live with their heads up.. We ought to have the assumption that everybody here is legal, that nobody here is illegal."[8]" to the article is clearly POV pushing. RobRedactor (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Present tense in the intro line

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

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

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

[edit] Political Positions section

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dumond case/"illegal" meeting

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

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

[edit] Grown children

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

[edit] The fence =

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

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

[edit] Lead

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

[edit] Logo

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

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

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

[edit] Super Tuesday Victories

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia is missing information, please add

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

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

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

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

  • Fixed. If anyone feels I erred, feel free to correct it. Charles Stewart (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need that level of detail? Neither has a wikipage, neither is particularly notable, and it reads more like advertising a minor detail than anything of importance. ThuranX (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A wikipage is not a requirement to list a fact. If we are looking for big facts, why not leave out who his parents were or what small college he went to? The level of detail is fine. I did not ask to include the fact that he was a choir director in 1979 or whatever position that reference noted. Indy501 (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding public comments and questions about campaign strategy

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

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

[edit] Sources

[edit] Removed text

"* In 2007, in the wake of the controversy of his ad attacking Mitt Romney, he explained that the mainstream media might be "filing a bad story" right now, and if the bloggers were relying on the same wireless system at the hotel, they might be "clogging up the lines" and preventing them from filing. "If that’s the case, thank you. You're doing the Lord's work."[9]"

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

[edit] Lead section

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suggested new Leads

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

[edit] Talking to Americans

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

[edit] Photo Question

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

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

[edit] Controversial Statements

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

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

[edit] Policy of Clemency for Conversion

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

[edit] From the Arkansas Leader:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suggested Addition Under Books

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

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

[edit] Correction on Tax Cutting statement

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

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

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

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

[edit] Acting Governor

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

[edit] Huckabee's website countdown

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

[edit] Biased political articles

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

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

[edit] Pardons?

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

[edit] Smoking ban

As the author of the cited newspaper article regarding Huckabee's position on indoor workplace smoking bans, I'd like to suggest a portion of this entry be altered somewhat.

Under the heading, #8.2 Weight loss and health advocacy, the entry reads:

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

This sentence is misleading as it oversimplifies Huckabee's history on this issue and disregards the fact that he changed his public stance on whether the federal government should enact an indoor workplace smoking ban.

This is clear in my original article in The Hill.

First, it is material for the reader to know that Huckabee spearheaded the campaign in his home state of Arkansas to enact a statewide indoor workplace smoking ban. The Wikipedia entry makes no mention of this.

Second, at the August 2007 event described in the entry and my story, Huckabee was unequivocal about the issue:

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

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

(An excerpt of Huckabee's answer can be viewed here and a full transcript of his remarks can be downloaded here.)

Third, Huckabee changed his stated position on this issue when questioned by my newspaper in January 2008. Here is the full statement from his campaign:

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


For the sake of accuracy and brevity, I would recommend the Wikipedia entry be changed to read:

As governor, Huckabee spearheaded a successful effort in 2006 to enact a ban on smoking in most indoor workplaces. At an August 2007 forum on cancer hosted by Lance Armstrong, he said he would support a federal smoking ban. In January 2008, however, Huckabee shifted his stance, saying he though he would sign such legislation were he president, he believes the issue is best addressed by state and local governments.

Jeffrey Young
The Hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcydc (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) --jcyDC 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References section

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

Resolved.

- Thanks Gadget850 --hydnjo talk 12:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gaget850's comments from the help desk:

This was a good one:

  • When you hover over the ^ that begins the ref, it should popup with the backlink; the number at the end is one less than the ref number (it starts with 0). Look at ref 165— it pops up with 189.
    • Ref 164: the cite template was malformed- it does not end with }}
    • Ref 189, under "Controversial public comments" had a malformed citation template that began with one "{".
  • So- everything between 164 and 189 was being eaten by the template.
  • Also: Looking at 165 inline, it is <ref name="abcaids" />. The problem is that this named ref was defined two paragraphs down. It should have given an error, but I think it was suppressed by the malformed template.
  • You really need to work all of the cites into templates. The reference section looks awful with all of those long URLs cutting across the columns.
  • You should run the article through LinkChecker and weed out any dead links.
— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 09:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NRA Joke

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

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

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