Jump to content

Talk:Baron Hill (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edits

[edit]

I took out the claim about redistricting. Bloomington is center/east part of the district. There is no way Cin. suburbs were part of the district because there are at least three districts between the 9th and Cinn. There are no references.

The Attorney General has no suits pending against any liberal organization for phone calls. This stuff is just made up. So I took it out.

sorry for not signing -- comment by ljean (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)ljean[reply]

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.194.123 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Dclegcounsel

[edit]

I've reverted three edits:

  • No source is provided for the statement that "Hill gained few votes and conceded defeat after nearly all counties were recounted." Please provide one before reinserting the language.
  • The sentence "The group based those accusations on votes cast during Hill's tenure in Congress" is unverifiable. It's also unnecessary - the best possible interpretation is that they based the accusations on votes (the worst would be, say, that they deliberately lied; THAT would be newsworthy).
  • The Citizens for Truth website is an unacceptable source, per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. And even if it was, it wouldn't be relevant: And Hill in no way is "smearing" the group, in the wikipedia article, when it says that Hill partly blamed the defeat on billboards purchased late in the campaign. Given the margin of the loss, that statement seems quite factual. "Blame" here is a causal statement, like "Supporters of Proposition X blamed their loss on the lack of funds to do adequate voter outreach."

-- John Broughton 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonsense, John. It was widely reported in articles still available on line that Hill gained less than 20 votes in a quarter million dollar recount and conceded defeat. There is absolutely no supporting documentation for the claim that the recount was limited.
  • Hill claimed the accusations were lies, however, www.citizensfortruth.com contains citations to U.S. Government sources for the supporting votes. How a partisan, self-laudatory campaign site IS appropriate, but a critic's site with documented citations is NOT is indefensible on any logocal basis, especially when the phrase "accused" leaves the reader with the impression that these were unfounded. This is pure POV spin.
-- User:dclegcounsel 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying here rather than doing another edit before further discussion. My problem isn't with the text per se - it's with the lack of sources. That's why I didn't revert the statement that Hill voted for NCLB - because you DID provide a link to the page with the vote. (In the edit summary, which is the wrong place, but it was easy for me to move it to the article itself.)
For the recount, all I'm looking for is a (reputable) source to support the wording change. Otherwise, my problem is that the article has said "X" for a long time (without a source, true), and now someone (you) wants to change it to "not-X", still without a source. Which is right? How can I tell? If you add a source for the text you want, then I (and other editors) can check, confirm you're right, and leave the text the way you want it.
As for the accusations and Hill saying they were lies, there are several issues involved. First, at some point this really gets to be too much detail: Group said X, Hill said they were lies, group points to A, B, C, votes; Hill (possibly replies); etc. A second issue is that we don't really want to have an editor trying to judge whether the votes really prove what the group claims (that's "original research", not acceptable in wikipedia).
Having said that, I think something like this could be acceptable: "Hill blamed ads ...., which he said 'MUST BE QUOTE ABOUT UNTRUE, MADE BY HILL, HERE', WITH SOURCE. The group responded to Hill's statement by pointing to various votes by Hill [link to page by group goes here]." (Please note that I'm guessing, here, what happened; the paragraph in the article must conform to the facts, not to what I just guessed were the facts.)
John Broughton 12:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elections 2006 Section Deletions.

[edit]

I removed the follow portion fron the elections 2006 section because I thought it slanted badly in both directions, and the purpose of wikipedia is to provide information, not slant.

'but voice calls continued. These calls included robo-calls that introduced themselves as being from the Dems that were actually Republican suppress-the-vote calls. The robo-calls were very long, and came at rude times such as 3 a.m. Similar calls against opponent Sodrel had been going on since Sodrel took office in January of 2004. However the investigation by the Indiana Attorney General did not begin until calls against Hill began.'

The following, "These calls included robo-calls that introduced themselves as being from the Dems that were actually Republican suppress-the-vote calls. The robo-calls were very long, and came at rude times such as 3 a.m." was added previously and removed before by someone else. However the line after it provides balance. As it was written with the whole paragraph removed it did provide slant, as in the calls were only against Hill. There was one cited call against Hill and many more against Sodrel. The following, "Similar calls against opponent Sodrel had been going on since Sodrel took office in January of 2004. However the investigation by the Indiana Attorney General did not begin until calls against Hill began." should remain.

Youtube Video

[edit]

The following youtube video has been circulating (over 150K views): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtmgQ2W3lhM

It appears to show Rep. Hill being rude to his constituents. Considering the number of views this video has had and the effect it's likely to have on his campaign, it might be worthy of being added to the article. Justin W Smith (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was there and he was less than pleasant. I think he was more angry than rude. Didn't make much news though. There was a couple local news reports on it, otherwise nothing. I am not sure by that standard it merits inclusion at this point. I would say wait and see if it becomes an election issue. (Which most likly it will) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I didn't see that somebody has already mentioned it in the article! I think what is said already is sufficient. Justin W Smith (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing B-ball with Pres. O in Oct. 2009

[edit]

Is there any reason this should be included in the article. Seems like a rather inconsequential fact. Jwesley78 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProLifeDC

[edit]

Even though User:ProLifeDC has been upfront about his/her affiliation with Americans United for Life, I'm concerned that it's neither productive nor appropriate to have employees of special interest groups editing the Wikipedia articles of candidates who are up for re-election. Additionally, the three identical edits this user made to Baron Hill, Chris Carney and John Boccieri read like press releases that violate WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight to one interest group's attack ad. I'm interested to hear if you all think these are appropriate contributions? Arbor832466 (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. These should all be removed. Reywas92Talk 18:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was my instinct as well, but I wanted to be sure. If no one objects, I'll remove later today. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.

What do you suggest for still including these edits? If I include the fact that Dems for Life of America had given some of these members "Whole Life Champion" Award and put in opposing information or responses from the Congressmen?

Thanks for any feedback ProLifeDC (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI ProLifeDC and I have been discussing this a bit further on my talk page. Still not convinced Americans United for Life's opposition to Baron Hill merits inclusion over myriad other interest groups' support or opposition. Unless there is a reason their ad should be included while all others are omitted, I'm going to remove to restore WP:NPOV. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Baron Hill. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baron Hill (politician). 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) 15:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baron_Hill_(politician)&oldid=1255957105"