Talk:David Huckabee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 What's the purpose 2 Notability 3 Links 4 Torture / Hanging Death / Slit throat 5 Sole married son 6 Deleted American Criminal category

[edit] What's the purpose

What, exactly, is the purpose, and indeed VALUE, of this article? First off, David Huckabee is the only Huckabee child with a Wikipedia entry. Why do not their two other children have entries, is it because they've done nothing potentially embarassing to the Huckabee name and camp? I have no investment, political or personal, in either David or Mike Huckabee, even if I did my support would be virtually useless, being Canadian (and if it weren't, I'd probably go Thompson or McCain), however, it seems to me that the only purpose of this article is to tarnish the Huckabee name and reputation.

There's no value, it's a ridiculous piece of anti-Huckabee propaganda. Paisan30 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So why is the result of "no consensus" determination result, in effect, a win for the "keep" forces? Due to lack of Wiki articles for the other Huckabee children, clearly this entry was started as a method of embarrassing the only notable figure related to this person. Whatever your politics--right, left or center--it does nothing to put a shine on Wikipedia to use it as a smear tool ... which is clearly the reason for this entry. --Mactographer (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"No consensus" is just that, "no consensus," people don't need to come to a consensus to keep a cited factual article. They must however come to a consensus to remove a cited factual article. You see this article violates no established policy and is fully inline with the spirit of wikipedia. And, the link from Mike Hucakabee, is weighed properly... It is my opinion your rant has no basis. This is the same policy mirrored from our own (USA) justice system: innocent until proven guilty, until guilt is successfully ascribed by consensus of wikipedian jurors the article remains. EvanCarroll (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So I'm ranting and you're the voice of reason, I assume. You can use your "logic" for any half truth or innuendo. Trouble is, even if a half truth or innuendo is later "proven" guilty, once it's out in the public domain, you can't take it back. You can't UNring a bell. So your argument doesn't fly. Just because something is published, doesn't mean it's worthy of being published. --Mactographer (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

This article contains no biographical data and is esentially a story about David Huckabee's dismissal as a Boy Scout counselor and his arrest. The story is already covered on the Mike_Huckabee_presidential_campaign,_2008 page, and does not deserve its own article. Even if it were to blow up into a huge story, it should not be a biography. Paisan30 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Despite you stating it as a fact, I disagree: (a) being a party to an alleged major wrongful termination, (b) the son of a powerful politician, (c) having had problems with animal rights, (d) having been arrested for carrying a gun on a plane, surely on the whole establishes notability enough to be included. He has a ton of secondary sources that cover these two acts, and other then the acts themselves, there is the internet sensation they have caused in the blogs and the affect this kid will have on dads career. And to top it off the obligatory reference to WP:PAPER. EvanCarroll (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also, "Dog slaughter"? I don't see that word used in any of the articles. Paisan30 (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the word controversy used anywhere in the article either... In English, slaughter is the term used when you kill an animal in a brutal of violent manor; while Dog is the kind of animal he slaughtered. EvanCarroll (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I question the significance of the figure. I lean towards deletion, but could change my mind if David Huckabee makes more news or more things come out. Jmegill (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More news...as in the loaded glock incident at the Little Rock airport? I'm leaning against deletion. 75.47.129.148 (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the notability of this article at all. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that it wasn't deleted. It just goes to show how bad decisions can be made in the Wikipedia process. I suspect unless the subject develops some true notability (a real posibility considering his father) this article will be nominated again and be deleted. Mamalujo (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

• http://www.herald.astate.edu/herald/archive/opinionsF01/111901vov.html original rant from newspaper
• http://comm.astate.edu/herald/archive/opinionsF01/120601huckletter.html Huckabees repsonse
• http://comm.astate.edu/herald/archive/onlinefeaturesF01/113001page1.pdf (deal with companies and ASU)
• http://comm.astate.edu/herald/archive/onlinefeaturesF01/113001page4.pdf

EvanCarroll (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torture / Hanging Death / Slit throat

How come the article's been toned down so far as to be useless? The incident at the Boy Scouts, was not for putting the dog down -- my understanding is the dog was supposed to be put down, it is for the vicious fashion that he chose. Which we can properly attribute. EvanCarroll (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Useless in what way? It presents the facts. If you want it to be "useful" in attacking someone, then Wikipedia is not the place for it. The Newsweek story does not say that there was "torture", and admits that the details of the event are unclear. Paisan30 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong here. The reputable sources did not use the term torture and I shouldn't have either. With that said, the allegation isn't that he killed the dog, the allegation is he was cruel when he did so, and that it was a hanging death. An important piece that was seemingly striped. EvanCarroll (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the only important piece is the connection to Mike Huckabee. There was no evidence that David Huckabee was cruel to this dog, or that he is the one who hanged the dog. Anonymous faxes and statements from other kids' parents do not count. I think we need to be very careful to stick to what can be verified based on the single news story that is cited. Paisan30 (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sole married son

Saying "sole married son" in the opening gives the impression that he is the only son, when in fact there are two. I know it doesn't say he is the only son, but it gives that impression. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got that fixed now. David in DC (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted American Criminal category

It's incredible to me that the facts of this article might lead some misguided soul to think this is what the American Criminal Category is for. There's a lively discussion at the category's talk page about what should be in the category, but even the most expansive reading of the category doesn't countenance this. A misdemeanor? Come on. David in DC (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a misdeamenor not a crime? Your only interest in ythis page is your months long attempt to keep the ex-con and convicted child molester Peter Yarrow out of the category. John celona (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's arguably notable for being the son of Mike Huckabee rather than for having been caught for a minor violation of anti-gun laws. John Nevard (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And as inconvenient as this might be, JC, the category, as it is now written, is solely for criminals by OCCUPATION, whose notability is derived exclusively from their crime. The RfC may change that, but it hasn't yet.David in DC (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No that is NOT true. Provide a link to a Wikipedia policy that says that. About half the people who have been placed in the category over the last several years are by no means "criminals by occupation".John celona (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is true. Please see this page: [1]. American Criminals is a subcategory of American people by occupation. Facts are stubborn things. Then please see this page: [2]. On it you will find this language: "For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime, or else the person must have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed." [Emphasis added]. It's darn inconvenient for your POV, but it's there in black and white. I agree with you that many articles currently in this category do not fit these requirements. I'm trying to fix that. David in DC (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The first part of your argument has some merit. Although, by that definition a famed amateur coin-collector could not be placed in the Numismatist category because it was not his "occupation". An absurd result. Simalrly, other than Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde types, the category would be emptied. Charles Manson for example made his "living" as a guru not a criminal. Serial killers who worked "everyday" jobs would have to be removed. The intent of the category and its use has clearly been to include people who have been convicted of "notable" crimes-regardless of their occupation. I have proposed changing the category to americans convicted of crimes. Regardless, I will support any system that evehandidly treats conservatives, Republicans and religious people the same way as leftist political/cultural figures. This is NOT the case now. If you want to work with me on a way to do this evenhandidly it would be a lot more constructive than these vitrioil which has occured over the last 5 months. Maybe deleting the whole category alltogether. If you come up with something constructive and EVENHANDED I would like to work with it. Sincerely. John celona (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)