Talk:Who Made Huckabee?

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Who Made Huckabee? article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Who Made Huckabee? has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 30, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
July 7, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
July 20, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
September 14, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
March 11, 2013	Articles for deletion	Kept
January 19, 2024	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Television / Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Notability

Hilarious as the feud was, I don't think it's in any way notable enough to warrant an article all of its own. I'm a fan of all three comedians and I thought the feud was incredibly funny, but ultimately all it really amounts to is a clever way of filling in time on three writerless shows. It got some play in some blogs, a few TV critics chimed in to voice their amusement, but mostly all the hype is from the fans. Most of the information in this article regarding the feud itself (as opposed to the background information on the strike and character!Stephen) comes directly from primary sources, ie. the shows themselves. Per the general notability guideline, I feel that this article should be deleted. --Shoemoney2night (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, this couldn't have come at a better time, since, as you have already expressed, you are a fan of all three comedians, too, and I was really just about to call on you to help me with the development of this article. What I thought was particularly interesting about this feud is that it publicly, if not somewhat ironically, reveals that these three are actually pretty good friends—they're supposed to be competing for viewers and ratings, and, although they indeed are, they actually decide to help each other out by dragging an admittedly silly idea to absurd, hysterical lengths.

But, then again, maybe it's just because I'm a fan of these guys... :)

With that said, however, could you at least give me time to really finish the article. As I pointed out in one of my edit summaries, I wasn't through expanding the articles as of yet, and still intend to add information concerning public reception of the feud and its immediate aftermath (which should, I hope, help establish its notability). Perhaps you could help out in that regard?

Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my favourite part of the feud, just getting to watch these three guys who are obviously having so much fun messing around together just helping each other out in such a silly, hilarious way. (Have you seen the outtakes clip? It's adorkable.)

But I do appreciate all the work you've obviously been putting into this article... I guess my concern is more that in itself the feud is not notable enough to warrant an article here, and I'd hate to see you put in so much effort for nothing.

--Shoemoney2night (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the outtakes reel[1], and I've always wished there were some way I could embed that video on my userpage; it is very funny, indeed—especially at the beginning when O'Brien realises that he could have seriously hurt Stewart with that real beer bottle! :)

Concerning the notability of the "feud" itself: I'm pretty much done transferring the information concerning the "meat" of the fight, and will now focus on the media's reaction to the feud, as well as the ratings increase and public reception that resulted of it. I sincerely hope that will establish the notability of the article's subject, but then again...

Oh, well! I'm not going to have time to do that tonight, anyway. The shows are about to come on where I live, so I apologize for not being able to flesh the article out any further at the moment, but I've run out of time for the day's session. :)

Thank you for your comments though. I truly appreciate it. d:)

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on lets keep on topic - Given the referencing it's clearly been discussed in reliable third party sources. References 4 and 10 are broken by the way. It isn't an important event but i think it qualifies for notability, especially with regards to the writer's strike - it was a direct result of a lack of material during this period. More should be made of this fact in the article. As should it's role as part of Huckabee's campaign. Certainly it's not a life changing topic but it is verifiable and notable in that context; similarly unimportant topics have made it to FA status. Agree to remove the AFD notice on these terms? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I think I'll take your suggestions directly into account and try to update the article to meet said suggestions. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 18:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of all 3 as well, but this is not even close to meeting notability guidelines. Brianski (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion's obviously long-dead, but I thought I'd just respond to this last point. According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." All three criteria have more than adequately been met and therefore this article is more than notable enough to stand on its own. (And, I think that the fact that it has been deemed a "good article" pretty much seals this point.) --Hnsampat (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smack down from Hnsampat! I agree whole-heartedly with the above stated, in those days, with the writers strike in the United States, there was little to cover by media when it came to "entertainment news" Outback the koala (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is not notable. This information should be merged into other articles. Not sure which. --Havermayer (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Who Made Huckabee?" change

I'm cool with that. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the title because the original title was long and ambiguous. It didn't need to be that long, and the new title is more effective because it is what the participants said during the feud. This is my first page move; I'm glad someone is okay with it. Leonard^(Bloom) 04:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I'm the one who started the article, I think the title change is just fine, too. In regards to longer and more ambiguous original title, I used it as per some other notable feuds, such as the Hatfield-McCoy feud, which was essentially my guide in developing this article. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous title was long, and the slashes made confusion possible, also, as said above, the title I changed it to is what the participants referred to it as when involved. Happy editing, Leonard^(Bloom) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the new title is better, anyway. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

like the name too but we need a sourfdce for that claim. Smith Jones (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Indecision 2008" site dubs the feud "Who Made Huckabee?", too. I think that works as a reliable source. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the source. Smith Jones (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cinemaniac w'eve been overruled. Check the AFD fo r this article to see why. Smith Jones (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Fox News, The Associated Press and The New York Times also referred to the feud as "Who Made Huckabee?", so I think that your title change was actually better. Oh well... Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart's post-game analysis

The next day Stewart said on his show that the three had just put on television "the stupidest fucking thing anyone's ever seen."[2] Just in case anybody wanted to add that. Lampman (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added it. :)—Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Folly Day

You should list this article up on the April Fool's Day Wikipedia project--they'd appreciate an article like this...a lot. =) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Who Made Huckabee?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Beginning section, this sentence ---> "while Chuck Norris was coincidentally sponsoring Huckabee", somehow "sponsoring" doesn't seem to be the right word, how 'bout using "endorsing"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, it would be best if "Stephen Colbert" is linked once, per here. In the Beginning section, why is "November 2007" linked? Also, with that, dates are to be un-linked, per here. Same section, it would be best if to add (WGA) after "Writers Guild of America", I mean I know what it is, but how 'bout the person that reads this article. In The feud ends section, link "Rocky III" once. In the Ironic subtext section, "The Associated Press" is italicized, but in the Aftermath section is not italicized, that needs to be fixed. The article has a red link, if it doesn't have an article, it would be best to un-link it, per here.
Half-check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've fixed most of the things you've noticed, but I'm not quite sure what you mean regarding the dates. You want I should unlink full dates (e.g., February 4, 2008), or just generic ones such as the month and the year? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the new Manual of Style, for the dates, all dates need to be un-linked, including example links "November 2007" and "March 4, 2008", all dates like that need to be un-linked. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done All righty then — problem rectified! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-check. Links like "November 2007" and similar to that need to be un-linked. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

facepalm* OK, I think I got 'em all now. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Cinemaniac for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of non-free images

I'm looking at the non-free images used in this article and none of them feel particularly essential. I don't see any of them providing information that would be reasonably hard to understand with text alone, and they feel like simply providing accompanying visuals rather than being subject of critical commentary.

I understand this was adjudged to be a GA, but I believe NFCC standards have gotten stricter since then. Thoughts? Mosmof (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Who Made Huckabee?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080208101709/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5iF8wKRfboqefXRDnYOmCOhaCdrSAD8UKC8OG1 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iF8wKRfboqefXRDnYOmCOhaCdrSAD8UKC8OG1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Who Made Huckabee?/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Has been assessed as Good Article Tom B (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Who Made Huckabee?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Who Made Huckabee?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Who Made Huckabee?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Who Made Huckabee?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. With a heavy heart, I think this no longer meets GA requirements. Some of the sources are questionable (Sensitivitytothings and maybe Rush Limbaugh's website), the article is not written very well with puffery and cruft here and there, but it might be easy to fix. Spinixster (chat!) 04:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick skim, but I'm not seeing anything particularly criteria-violating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the usage of the Sensitivitytothings source is definitely questionable, right? After all, it doesn't seem to be a reliable blog. Also, some of the sentences are phrased weirdly, like Interestingly, upon returning to air on January 7, 2008, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report had increased ratings. [...] Late Night with Conan O'Brien, however, remained at a normal level, with 2.5 million viewers. ; On February 7, 2008, Huckabee made a trip to New York to make yet another appearance on The Colbert Report, [...] ; etc. Also, is there a need to mention every single detail of the mock feud? A lot of the sources used there are primary. Spinixster (chat!) 01:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote was easy enough to remove. If you feel that the information is excessively detailed, that is fairly easily fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said it was easy to fix, but I am not 100% familiar with this subject so I don't know what information is important. Spinixster (chat!) 00:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.