User talk:Shogun108

Mike Huckabee

Please explain your POV tag. That section is currently under review, and clear details of your ideas regarding its' POV nature are needed. ThuranX 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'd be happy to. The POV tag is there to point out the one sidedness of the section. The information about Huckabee is misleading and what is provided is only one side of the issue.

What I will work on is combining the "Political Positions" part with "controversy" expanding the positive arguments and limiting the rant-like nature of the "controversy" part. Careful review of this article gives the impression that it leans towards one side of the spectrum. Wikipedia should put neutrality first in such sensitive articles.

Again, I will edit the article as much as I can so as to better reflect a neutral article. Shogun108 03:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. You actually haven't given any details. Further, adding such controversies into the Political Positions means most will be lost, because they don't directly correlate to a position, but to his actions, statements, or behaviors. Thus, the removal of most criticism and controversy would result in a pro-huckabee whitewash, which Wikipedia doesn't do. further, your use of POV, ref tags, and discussings of bias and neutrality suggest that you are not a new editor, but some other editor using an alternate account. Please return to your usual account. Please then use that normal account to use the Talk page to clarify exactly which parts of controversy aren't NPOV, and which you'd like to merge and HOW you'd accomplish those merges. Thank you. ThuranX 03:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I am very new to this. Check my IP for all I care! I am unaware of how most of Wikipedia works though I am a quick learner. You want details, but I can only provide you with what is given on the article itself. I think the organization of the post needs to be rethought. I said the "Controversies" need to be limited only to the extent of their worth. The article is an overplay of positions. Regardless I am going to edit his "Political Positions" with more detail. The essence of my concern is that the section in question would best be dealt as an addition to "Political Positions." Also note that inconsistencies do not contribute a controversy which is why I think the article must be fixed. If you will not approve this than I guess I must deal with the problem, by adding sources to rebut bias assertions. I think complete rewrite is necessary to maintain the flow of the article. As it is the article is a "Hit Huckabee" post and is far from informative on a fair and balanced scale. Shogun108 04:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is part of Wikipedia's policy on NPOV

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

Readers simply cannot do this with the current state of the article. I also ask that your own bias does not affect NPOV of an article. Details of how it will be edited will be provided in a few days once I figure out a way to best incorporate both points of view. But please judge this article within a NPOV. It distresses me when bias can leak onto an advertised unbiased site. Shogun108 04:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes. Policy double-speak. YOu're quite good at immediately finding stuff. Now. I asked for specifics, not policy. ThuranX 04:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics eh? Well I have to get to sleep soon so don't discount me in my sleep... Here is a sample of Non-Nutral Rhetoric.

Huckabee claims to have cut taxes while governor, saving Arkansas' citizens close to $380 million.

Look at the word "Claims" What is it doing there? It is discrediting the statement Huckabee made. Use of words in this manner is a promotion of bias. Another:

Huckabee has denied influencing the parole board in any way, but acknowledges some responsibility for signing Dumond's parole.[citation needed] His full disclosure of the incident is described in his book From Hope to Higher Ground.

But his view is never explained in the article at all! It is said that it exists, but it is not given. Illegal immigration This entire section is not a controversy come to think of it the only true controversies he was involved in was the Dunlop Case and His wife's political race and maybe the wedding gifts. Anyway most of the info on his immigration points is old and it concludes without even addressing Huckabee's current beliefs etc. That shows no balance. When you look at the section about his public comments it does not address his response to the outcries.

Let me put this in simple terms. Eveidence is proposed for only one side of the case and rhetoric clearly leans to one side of the argument. Two sections in "Controversies" are not controversies

A contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement.

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Even though some of his positions may not have been agreeable with everyone does that make them controversies? No they do not Disagreement must be universal to be a legitimate controversy. You see the Taxes and Immigration points can be transfered into his "Political Positions" while the others need to be balanced in reference and rhetoric. All in all the article needs work and there are loads more points I could make about it, but I really must be going. I should be available tomorrow at 10:00am est Shogun108 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]