Talk:Roman Hruska

Defender of the strong
The "google hits test" is one of the most damaging and LEAST scholarly methods one finds used by some editors of wikipedia. it makes wikipedia shallow and is the cause of many inappropriate inclusions and exclusions in wikipedia texts and this article and the deletion of the "defender of the strong" for Hruska is a perfect example.

this is the term used in CQ (an authoritative biography source for members of Congress) from the late 1960's.

One can also find it on google news citing The New Republic: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%2BHruska+%2BStrong+%2Bdefender&scoring=t&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1968&as_hdate=1968&lnav=dt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.36.119 (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Google book search and Amazon A9 book search both turn up ZERO hits. The idea that he is "widely known" as a "Defender of the Strong" (capitalized!) when the only source one can turn up is a generalized allusion in one minor column in a 1968 New Republic is faintly ridiculous - particularly when a main point of the article is that he is best known for precisely the opposite (that is, defender of mediocrity). zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the monicker makes little sense, or is a backhand insult: since when do "the Strong" particularly need defending? Patzer42 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead Puppies reference
I know the reference, but I've no idea what the point of it is. An explanation would be useful. - Denimadept (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Ogden Edsl just liked the sound of a name that was harder to spell than his own? Asat (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)