Talk:John H. Hinderaker

Untitled
This article is politically slanted with snide unsupported statements.

Here is an example:

"This revelation has not been publically acknowledged by Hinderaker or Power Line."

Acknowledged by Powerline here:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010093.php#010093

and here:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010105.php#010105

and as referenced in the link above acknowledge by Hinderaker here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/462ibzoo.asp

That is clear, repeated and public by both Powerline and Hinderaker.

This exercise could be repeated on other slanted statements in the article.

What are some of the other slanted statements? I fixed the acknowledgement problem. Note that I am not the original author. Richard L. Peterson 3/16/06

Should this article be merged with Powerline? That is what Hinderaker is notable for. Rich 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes made 18-Sep-2006
Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons states that
 * Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source. (see above).

(Emphasis added.) I have therefore removed lots of information about Hinderaker's personal life and political donations from the article.

I also cleaned up the "External links" section. I removed several links which now appear in the article or were broken and fixed the link to his bio at Faegre and Benson. I also deleted the link to "Is John Hinderaker Nuts?", because it violates WP:EL.

Cheers, CWC (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Accurately portraying subjects record:
CWC keeps adding in "anthropomorphic" to global warming references, as well as the adjective "alarmist". The latter is his POV and therefore contrary to Wikipedia rules (perhaps label Hinderaker's view of the science as "alarmist"?) The former adds personal interpretation to the cited statements, which cannot be acceptable for a number of reasons - especially when adding new content in the middle of a quote. It appears he is trying to soften the subjects viewpoint of record. At the least, his rationale needs to be explained here before doctoring the quotes. Getterstraight 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Views on mainstream media
A very consistent theme in H's blogging is his perceived bias and incompetence in the "mainstream media" - this occurs several times weekly if not daily. I added that as a heading instead of leaving this theme represented by a single, stale 2004 reference. I added a more recent example, and cleaned it up by taking copious detail which did not relate to the subject's work on the issue described. Reads much better and encyclopedic now, don't you think? Getterstraight 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparent target of Democratic Underground
This article is being targeted by Democratic Underground. I would remind editors that organizing on third party sites for the purposes of disruption of Wikipedia (ie., circumvention of WP:3RR) is against the rules, and could get users blocked. - Crockspot 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, that DU thread didn't get much attention and has pretty much been forgotten except for one of two people. I had thought of requesting semi-protection, but the disruption has been minimal. Jinxmchue 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many people were involved. If only one addional user was recruited from DU to circumvent 3RR, that's still organizing off-wiki to disrupt. Crockspot 15:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but my point is that the disruption isn't amounting to much. It's good to be warned about it and I intended to do so myself, but then I saw how feeble the response to the post was and decided not to really worry about it unless it became really troublesome. Jinxmchue 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time members of that far left website have attempted to recruit other posters to disrupt Wiki entries in the name of ideology - with the apparent blessing of the administrators of DU (since such posted threads are never deleted or "locked") - and I doubt it will be the last. It's a recurring theme with their membership. Placing topic on watchlist; will revert expected ongoing vandalism as it occurs and/or is encountered.Carthago delenda est 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF
WP:ABOUTSELF states that "Self-published ... sources [such as blogs] may be used as sources of information about themselves" only as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources." 3/4 of the citations are currently to Hinderaker's blog. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The article does satisfy the first 4 criteria of ABOUTSELF, and articles about blogs and bloggers frequently stretch the fifth rule (because the subject is clearly notable but no newspapers etc have written about it/him/her). So: on the one hand I'm not particularly worried about this.
 * On the other hand, this suggests to me that we should consider merging this BLP into Power Line, along with Scott W. Johnson and Paul Mirengoff. What do other editors think? CWC 12:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the material from his blog rather frequently violates "unduly self-serving" and "does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source". And I see little evidence that "the subject is clearly notable" -- except perhaps to other bloggers. Unless the material from both articles is pruned fairly heavily, I don't see how merging into Power Line will do much good from a WP:ABOUTSELF viewpoint -- as that article is even more heavily sourced to the blog than this is. On the other hand, I see very little point in having four articles, given the heavy overlap between them. Between the four articles, there might be enough WP:SECONDARY sourcing to yield a one-paragraph stub. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hinder-rocker for sure?
Since August 2006, the entry states that the name is pronounced hinder-rocker. English is not my mother language, but I find this strange. Is this a documented fact? Even if factual, isn't this a deliberate attempt to make fun of Hinderaker?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_H._Hinderaker&diff=71684842&oldid=71632625

152.66.44.120 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)