Talk:Mike Huckabee

The article should elaborate more on the Wayne Dumond case

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

"Huckapedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Unbalanced public image section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese identification

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

Jewish group reactions

This might be of use. FortunateSons (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

"Mike+huckabee" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mike+huckabee has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 6 § Mike+huckabee until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)