Talk:Asa Hutchinson

Picture

Unless you like counting pixels, I don't see how the current image is anywhere better than this replacement. Curbon7 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Baffled as to why we're still using a garbage image. Nowhere in the archives is there a discussion where this terrible image was a consensus pick. We should be using the best quality image freely available, unless there is a preexisting consensus which overrides that, which there is not. This is the dictionary definition of WP:Status quo stonewalling. Curbon7 (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree the replacement is better. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Early life

The article doesn't explain what Hutchinson (who loved public service) did about the draft and Vietnam. He would have been in college during the hottest years of the Vietnam War, and it was THE biggest issue of his youth, but the article remains silent on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources have likely not yet covered this detail about his life. Curbon7 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Details, pleASE

"he presented the National School Shield plan during a news conference at the National Press Club." What was the essence of the plan? It is neither explained nor linked. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:E8B4:539A:F2B2:4D82 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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.

---

I propose merging Asa Hutchinson 2024 presidential campaign into Asa Hutchinson and leaving behind a redirect. I think that the content in the campaign can easily be explained within the biographical article for the foreseeable future, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the candidate’s main article. It is not clear whether the campaign will obtain enough note down the road to warrant its own article, but it is not useful to have a stub article at this moment. I am not opposed to a future spinning-off/re-creation of the campaign article if there later becomes sufficiently more to write about the campaign, but for now I believe the stub-article on the campaign serves no use and there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it. I am in the process of making similar requests for some other 2024 campaign articles. SecretName101 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per rationale of SecretName101, with no prejudice against restoring the article should significant coverage of Hutchinson's campaign increase enough to warrant it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, this would follow similar precedents set by Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign with the option of de-merging the article should it become necessary later down the road. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the campaign is an independently notable and well-sourced legal entity, and follows the precedents of numerous articles on similarly notable campaigns. BD2412 T 20:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe it's too early to consider a merge and it's only fair to consider merging once the primary season starts or when the campaign has been suspended. --2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why are the only edits for this IP before or since pretty much opposition to all merger proposals to 2024 campaign articles? Not sure if this was single-use IP puppeting or not. SecretName101 (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Wait until the primaries begin or when he drops out. The article looks good enough to merit its own article in the meantime. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat this might be un-merged in the future. The campaign article is almost entirely a laundry-list of political positions that would easily be merged here. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments raised above Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the campaign is notable, there are large numbers of reliable sources that talk about it and his candidacy is routinely included in virtually every poll taken regarding the primary since he announced his candidacy.XavierGreen (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Reasons to have content on the campaign. However, not a sufficient reason to justify the need for a separate article in order to cover it. SecretName101 (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Don't worry about it. Just embed a few more sly, leftish intimations to the already thick stew of unsavoury bias and it'll be just fine. 2600:1702:6B0:6FF0:14F0:6B1F:DDB2:540 (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - clearly a notable, mainstream presidential campaign. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, as the proposal has clearly failed at this point. BD2412 T 03:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

Proposed merge of Asa Hutchinson 2024 presidential campaign into Asa Hutchinson

Presidential campaign went nowhere. 191 votes and he's out pbp 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The presidential campaign was clearly an independently notable entity in and of itself, receiving substantial media coverage and extending beyond the subject as a mere candidate. I would further note that since the last proposal to merge this article failed, the length of the article has more than doubled, and the number of sources cited has also nearly doubled. BD2412 T 20:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  IDK about the "substantial" part...it's certainly SUBSTANTIALLY less than Trump or Haley or DeSantis or even Vivek. As for "since the last proposal", while the content is longer, he also dropped out. pbp 00:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I would say that it got a sufficient amount of news coverage for it to be notable, and it is certainly big enough to be a separate article. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support He didn't have the slightest chance of winning. His campaign didn't seem serious enough. Sakiv (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Sakiv: Him being extremely unlikely to win does not mean that his campaign isn't notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I actually do believe his campaign should be a separate entity because he garnered significant media attention and participated in one debate. Regardless of the vote total, I think a lot of people knew he was running and simply refused to vote for him MoMoChohan (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Support The criteria for notability should consider the lasting impact of the campaign. I believe the campaign's influence is primarily tied to Hutchinson's overall political profile rather than standing as a defining, separate entity in political history. The campaign's significance can be adequately covered within his main article. In response to the comment re: the size of the article, much of the expanded content (particularly regarding Hutchinson's policy positions) can be effectively and appropriately consolidated into the main Asa Hutchinson article. Some of the policy positions listed underscore his political ideology/career as a whole, not just within the context of the 2024 campaign. Svenskbygderna (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Unsure/lean Oppose Is there any precedent for how well a candidate has to do to warrant their campaign getting it's own page? His campaign definitely has enough media coverage and poll presence (0% is still a presence) for this page to exist, but seeing how badly he did I have doubts. Scu ba (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Support not because he had no chance but because the majority of the article is made of Hutchinson's political positions, which would fit better in his article especially since most sources refer to before his campaign began. The actual "campaign" section feels to small to keep on its own and would fit well into the main article as well. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@DukeOfDelTaco: That is not true. While that may be the largest section, the Campaign section is quite large as well. Besides, while the positions would fit into the main article, they are also useful information for the person's campaign. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a word about cannabis

This is the guy who as the 8th Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration spent untold thousands, perhaps millions, going after people in hospice and people with AIDS and cancer and other illnesses who used free cannabis that was supplied by cooperative farms who made no profit. Not a word mentioned in this article, yet I'm reading all about it many different books. This is a complete and total whitewash of his disastrous record as both a public servant and as an American who repeatedly and willfully violated the individual rights of US citizens for no known reason or benefit to the country other than to perpetuate mass suffering and pain. Just a total whitewash ignoring what he's done to the country. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Record on drug policy as governor

I just read that when he was governor in 2022, his state was ranked

• third biggest drug problem in the US
• second in opioid pain reliever prescriptions per 100 people
• seventh in drug arrests per capita
• 10th in share of adults who couldn’t get treatment for illicit drug use in the past year

Why isn’t any of this discussed in this article? For someone who has spent so many years waging war against drugs as his major pet policy, he has almost nothing to show for it. This indicates that his policies either don’t work or actually make the problem worse. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)