This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This should go in somewhere.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/what-gingrich-didnt-learn-in-congo.html Op-Ed Contributor What Gingrich Didn’t Learn in Congo By ADAM HOCHSCHILD Published: December 4, 2011 Gingrich's 1971 Tulane doctoral dissertation: “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo 1945-1960.”
--Nbauman (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is Newt characterized as a historian? This thesis sounds more like an education thesis, not history. Is he, like Glenn Beck, a self-taught historian? Perhaps something should be added to the article to clarify the fact that he does not have a doctorate in history. FrancisDane (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a little slide show here of Gingrich's notorious notes from 1993. These appear to be his personal to-do list, full of quotidian items like appearing on C-SPAN, making speeches, appointing a house whip, and writing books. However, there are some rather unusual items on the list, including defining civilization, "recivilizing America", and "leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces".[1] Kauffner (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
He grew up in a career military family and grew up moving frequently. He grew up in many different places, near or on a series of military bases. This lifestyle is very common for children of career military families.64.134.159.23 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would suggest including a link for Mr. Gingrich's reviews on Amazon.com.
Here is the link:
Cpvisa (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I think it would provide insight into Mr. Gingrich's thought process and would also reveal something about his intellect. (If he were not a presidential candidate, I would not be making this suggestion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpvisa (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Joe DeSantis and I am communications director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. In the past I've made suggestions here, and I hope I'm welcome to do so here again. I appreciate the effort that went into cleaning up the lead section earlier this month, but it seems to have stalled, and I'd like to help restart that discussion. The issues I see:
If these issues are resolved, then I think the warning on the article could be removed. Looking forward to others' input, and I hope we can find agreement. I can help provide additional information if necessary. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The image in the Infobox was changed to a more encyclopedic, uncropped image from the same photographer. Since it was changed back without discussion, I was wondering what other editors thought about this. The current image is fuzzy do to the enlarging of the cropped portion.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I read in some serious newspaper or news magazine that Gingrich is a creationist/that he believes in creationism. Nothing about that in the article?! Thanks to complete/to comment. 84.227.56.214 (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is something he said back in May: "I believe that creation as an act of faith is true and I believe that science as a mechanical process is true. Both can be true. I don’t think there is necessarily a conflict between the two."[3] This would be "theistic evolutionism", not creationism. He was speaking to a creationist audience. So if he was a creationist, there wouldn't have been any reason for him to be coy about it. Kauffner (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to make another suggestion for making the article more balanced, and encyclopedic:
In the "Post-speakership" section of the article, there is a subsection titled "For-profit companies" focusing on companies founded by Newt Gingrich, or that he has invested in. By giving each organization its own subsection and including minutiae such as the number of employees for each, the section is unnecessarily detailed. In addition, the section seems to place a disproportionate emphasis on Newt's earnings, from the title, "For-profit companies", to the inclusion of information regarding the cost of membership to the Center for Health Transformation. I would like to suggest that this section be consolidated under one single heading, without the subsections for each company, and summarized to provide the key details about the companies. I also would suggest that the subsection be renamed "Business", which fits well with "Policy" and "Political activities" in the same section.
As participants on this page know, I wish to avoid COI issues, so I hope other editors will provide input on the suggested changes and find consensus. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
After reading this section I'm at a complete loss as to what on earth he was actually sanctioned for. It's a fringe detail I know, but maybe we should spend a bit of time covering it anyway... causa sui (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"dissertation is entitled" should be dissertation is titled
98.178.150.28 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm restoring the quote about his ex-wife, Jacqueline Battley, "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer." This quote was originally in a story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. I'm giving a secondary source, the Los Angeles Times, because this link is verifiable free on the Internet and the WSJ story is not (or at least I can't find it). If somebody can find a working link to the WSJ story, it would improve the story to put it in.
This quote belongs in the story for several reasons.
1. The WSJ is indisputibly a WP:RS. So is the LAT. This quote has been widely repeated in WP:RS.
2. It meets the standards of WP:BLP because it's been widely reported. It met the editorial standards of the WSJ, and was presumably vetted by the WSJ's libel lawyers.
3. I don't know if the quote is true or not, but for WP purposes, that doesn't matter. It meets the standard of WP:VERIFIABILITY. We can never know what the truth is for a quote like this; we can only know what's verifiable by WP:RS.
4. This quote is indisputably significant for someone who is running for president. There are conservative voters who say that they want a president who shares their commitment to the institution of marriage, and this could reasonably affect their vote.
5. Gingrich has made many statements about the importance of values and morality, and criticized his opponents for not meeting up to those standards. There are voters who dislike hypocrisy, and thuis could reasonably affect their vote.
6. It's reasonable that any voters, whatever their politics, might be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who abandoned his wife for these reasons, including cancer.
There are many stories about Gingrich's handling of the divorce which reflect unfavorably on him. I'm ignoring most of them. Out of respect for WP:WEIGHT, I don't think we should have them all, but this is one of the best-documented and most striking.
I don't have the WSJ story at hand, but I'm sure that it included a denial by Gingrich, and as I recall Gingrich has denied this quote several times. If someone could add Gingrich's denial, that would improve this article. --Nbauman (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this quote is true or not is irrelevant, the real issue here is that the neutrality of this article is jeopardized by needless, negative statements. This quote could only be described as needless and negative. It is irrelevant to Newt Gingrich the man and to his political career if one no name journalist at the WSJ called his wife unatractive and was blatantly rude about her illness. The fact that the WSJ has mentioned that in major news stories is a result of their attempt to credit themselves with following the man through his career, while they in reality did nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.245.217 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
To address the prior "comment" and I quote : "It is irrelevant to Newt Gingrich the man and to his political career if one no name journalist at the WSJ called his wife unatractive [sic] and was blatantly rude about her illness." The journalist didn't call Newt's first wife anything. The journalist was quoting Newt. And, his well known mistreatment of his first wife (his high school teacher)is very relevant to voters' assessment of "Newt the man." FrancisDane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC).
That same publication includes an article with a denial. If you include this quote it clearly shows a bias to promote a minor statement (with ambiguous references and questionable truth) in a persons history to a high level of significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchboucher (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
"Back in 1994, Gingrich and Frank Luntz circulated a list of hurtful words conservatives should always call liberals. “Traitors” was at the top, also some that sound particularly ironic today: “waste,” “corruption,” “self-serving,” “greed,” “cynicism,” “cheat,” “steal” and “patronage.”" Why smart conservatives suddenly hate Newt-Right-wing intellectuals have turned on Gingrich. They've also realized he'd be terrible in a general election, salon.com, Dec 8, 2011.91.39.91.41 (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
this is a highly biased article on a highly biased site and has no place in an already Neutrality disputed article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.245.217 (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I find it odd that the article does not contain any of Gingrich's anti-gay statements etc., despite the fact that he's known already to have been viciously anti-gay during the 1980s AIDS crisis. There should be an entire section detailing how this has been a continuous strand in Gingrich's politics and public statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.104.33 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I can't trace his being anti-gay until earlier than 1989, but here is what I could find doing a quick online search, and I think that justifies a section on this topic in the entry:
Gray, Jerry. "Gingrich Criticized for Opposing Job Protection for Homosexuals." NYT. March 8, 1995. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/08/us/gingrich-criticized-for-opposing-job-protection-for-homosexuals.html?scp=3&sq=%22newt+gingrich%22+gay&st=nyt
Gingrich against gays & lesbians in the military: Schmitt, Eric. "Speaker Perplexes Many With Remark on Gay Ban." NYT. April 4, 1995. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/04/us/speaker-perplexes-many-with-remark-on-gay-ban.html?scp=5&sq=%22newt+gingrich%22+gay&st=nyt
Gingrich against AIDS-related school counseling programs: Rich, Frank. Journal; "A Bigger Splash" NYT. March 12, 1995
Gingrich thinks homosexuality needs to be dealt with like alcoholism: just tolerated; families can only be heterosexual. Seelye, Katharine Q. "Speaker's Sister Now Speaking Out." NYT. March 6, 1995
Gingrich against lifting the ban on gays in the military: Clymer, Adam. "LAWMAKERS REVOLT ON LIFTING GAY BAN IN MILITARY SERVICE." NYT. January 27, 1993
Sink, Justin. "Gingrich signs anti-gay marriage pledge, says homosexuality a choice." The Hill. December 15, 2011. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/199785-gingrich-signs-anti-gay-marriage-pledge-says-homosexuality-a-choice
Gingrich against gay marriage and glitter-bombing: Vinciguerra, Thomas. "Glittering Rage." NYT. August 27, 2011
Gingrich did not vote to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act (he did not vote, but did not vote "no"): http://www.votesmart.org/bill/2831/8589/26821/ryan-white-care-reauthorization-act-of-1995
Gingrich for maintaining ban on gays in the military: Cooper, Kenneth J.; Daly, Christopher B. "That Was Then ..." The Washington Post. Feb 9, 1993.
Gingrich referred to as someone who endorses discrimination against gays and lesbians in published statements. Merida, Kevin; Cooper, Kenneth J. "Foley Denounces Gay Bias Remarks, Sort Of." The Washington Post. Oct 22, 1993.
However, Gingrich tries to curry favor of voting gays & lesbians by saying he things Republicans should tolerate gays & lesbians: "Gingrich Favors 'Toleration' Of Gays by Republican Party; 'I Don't Want to See Police in the Men's Room,' He Says" The Washington Post. Nov 24, 1994.
Gingrich's office source of "smear campaign" against Tom Foley: Kurtz, Howard. "Spin Cycles; A guide to media behavior in the Age of Newt." The Washington Post. Feb 26, 1995
Also on Tom Foley smear campaign: Beers, David. "Newt Gingrich: Master of Disaster." Mother Jones. Aug. 31, 1989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.99.49 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
On Bill O'Reilly, Gingrich says he things there's gay and secular fascism in the US: "Gingrich: '[T]here is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us'." mediamatters.org. November 17, 2008. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200811170014
Gingrich wants to slow down progress on gay rights: "Presidential Hopeful Newt Gingrich Vows to Slow Gay Rights Progress." www.shewired.com. March 28, 2011. http://www.shewired.com/g-spot/presidential-hopeful-newt-gingrich-vows-slow-gay-rights-progress-video
Gingrich against adoption by gay or lesbian couples: Waller, Douglas. "10 Questions for Newt Gingrich." Time Magazine. April 15, 2002. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002225,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.99.49 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow. With a bibliography like that, I'd say there's a good case for noting Gingrich for his homophobic remarks. 70.126.98.155 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC) -Wm. Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL
((edit request))
If I may, I would like to offer some further suggestions to improve the clarity and neutrality of this article. In particular, there are some improvements that I think can be made to the "Government shutdown" section.
As I have mentioned in previous requests, I wish to avoid COI editing, so would ask that other editors provide feedback to reach consensus on these suggestions, or make the changes if there is agreement now. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This role in the House banking scandal should be more clearly highlighted or it shows bias. Old text:
Gingrich and others in the House, including the newly minted Gang of Seven, railed against what they saw as ethical lapses under Democratic control for almost 40 years. The House banking scandal and Congressional Post Office scandal were emblems of the exposed corruption. Gingrich himself was among the 450 members of the House who had engaged in check kiting; he had overdrafts on twenty-two checks, including a $9,463 check to the Internal Revenue Service in 1990.[30]
for more clarity from the house banking scandal WIKI page, suggested new text:
Gingrich and others in the House, including the newly minted Gang of Seven, railed against what they saw as ethical lapses under Democratic control for almost 40 years. The House banking scandal and Congressional Post Office scandal were emblems of the exposed corruption. Gingrich lead the effort to expose the abuse of the House bank, even though Gingrich himself was among the 450 members of the House who had overdrafts; he had overdrafts on twenty-two checks, including a $9,463 check to the Internal Revenue Service in 1990.[30]. While most of the 450 members, including Gingrich, did not break any laws, 22 other members (18 Democrat) were brought up on ethics charges for over 11,000 bounced checks in 39 months.
The reference is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_banking_scandal
by Mitch Boucher (mitchb@lakeshoreinternet.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchboucher (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Source 63 does not seem like a credible source of information. It certainly isn't seem neutral at all--the top of the page declares that Gingrich "is running for president in 2012 on a Platform of Lies." A quick Google search of the phrase cited ("In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee") doesn't bring up anything that was written before the quote was added on November 26, in the heat of the campaign. I found a USA Today article that was written after it was added, but I think it's likely that the quote was sourced from Wikipedia itself and as such should not be considered a valid source. Also, the wording in the paragraph (and the quote) makes the intent of the phrase ambiguous. Who gave the "inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements"? How did these statements affect the investigation?
Given that Wikipedia is the primary source of information for many people, that voting is underway for the Republican nomination, and that many candidates are targeting Gingrich for his ethics violations, I believe something should be done to alert readers about the questionable veracity of the quote. I suggest, in order of reasonability given the context, either A) a more credible source be found, B) the quote and source be removed from the article, or C) the source be removed and a big "citation needed" tag be added to the quote. 146.115.21.211 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected)) A contemporaneous source of the well-known quote, with context, in the New York Times, December 22, 1996: A House ethics subcommittee found today that Speaker Newt Gingrich had brought discredit to the House by using tax-exempt money for political purposes, and by providing the committee with inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable information about the role of a political action committee in a college course he taught. The full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct must still meet to decide whether to recommend disciplinary action. It is likely to call for censure or reprimand, but not for a penalty so severe as to preclude his re-election as Speaker, such as expulsion. A recommendation could come before the New Year. Mr. Gingrich admitted the charges and apologized, saying, I brought down on the people's house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their Government....Earlier this week, Mr. Gingrich and his allies appeared to be attributing those erroneous statements to Jan Baran, his lawyer for most of the case. Today he said, I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the Committee on my behalf. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to Committee, but I did not intend to mislead the Committee, he said. 75.59.225.248 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This sentence is monumentally confusing:
Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office was deeply unpopular among voters.
So what exactly is being said here? Was Gingrich unpopular, and the impeachment of Clinton was unpopular as well? Or is it attributing Clinton's impeachment to both Gingrich and the Republican Party? In either case it needs to be reworded for clarity. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Done Yes, it was confusing even if not grammatically wrong. I fixed it. Tvoz/talk 02:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
One of the first uses of the term green conservatism was by former United States Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in a debate on environmental issues with John Kerry.[2][3] Green conservatism is a term used to refer to conservatives who have incorporated green concerns into their ideology.[4]
97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Jan 3,2011 to Jan 3, 2012, change Jan 10, 2011 to Jan 10, 2012 WRT the IA caucus and NH primary results
PhilipLove (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The statement made by newt's 2nd wife was made January 19, 2012 not 2011. This is incorrect in reference 149. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.235.63 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The comment under "Marriages and Children" that states "This allegation was immediately disputed by Gingrich two days later during the South Carolina primary debate, saying that to bring up the question was "despicable"." needs a reference, like the following:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/politics/gop-debate/index.html
Additionally, it was not two days later, it was the same day as the report was released.
Texashoosier (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)TexasHoosier
<discussion>
Callista Gingrich is notable only in relationship to her husband. All of the material about her production business is from a self-published site with no third-party references and virtually all of the other content comes from articles about her and Newt Gingrich. This can be summarized into a few sentences in the Gingritch article with no loss of notable content. Mattnad (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That the article about his 3d wife lacks detail is the only thing I can see that impinges on the idea of her article being independent. Is she noteable: Yes. She, and the place she occupies in his life are a big issue in the life of a notable politician. She has become her own issue in the campagn for POTUS. The article about Gingrich is fairly large and any chance of being able to understand her is better as an independent article. Clearly as the year progresses this article will grow, and so will the need for it. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose pending tomorrow's race. If Newt wins, Callista's article needs to be expanded, not merged. If he loses, well, we can consider that then.. 76.27.41.184 (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Joedesantis. Yes, if she were not married to Newt Gingrich, she would not be notable. But, how notable would Judith Steinberg Dean (Howard Dean), Ann Davies (Mitt Romney), Tipper Gore (Al Gore), Todd Palin (Sarah Palin), and Cindy McCain (John McCain) really be if they are/were not married to their spouses? Yet, each has their own article. The Callista article is getting over 50k hits a day and is the #1 return on a google search for her name. Keep it separate now and into the forseeable future, irrespective of the outcome of today's election.Erudy (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me there's not much substance on Callista's page. Much of it sounds like an infomercial she might have written herself. Also: Jackie (wife 1) doesn't have her own page. Marianne (wife 2) doesn't have her own page. Why should have a page to herself, just because the Gingriches are blowing her horn? 74.116.44.159 (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose merge. In addition to the reasons above, the simple biographical information is of interest to readers and not appropriate for this article.--Nowa (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, per Joedesantis. Also, other wives and husbands of prominent candidates have their own articles, too. There's no precedent for seeing them as a mere puppet of their masters. They play their own, often significant role in the campaigns and deserve to be covered under their own name. The idea that a person ist only the wife or husband of a more prominent other is so 19th century! Gray62 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
His father Newton Searles McPherson was born February 1923 and died October 1970. Put that in just like you have, without a reference, for his mother — Preceding unsigned comment added by FascismDoctrineRespecter (talk • contribs) 00:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says that Gingrich won SC primary in January, 2011 but it was January 2012.
Thechad90000 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
One of the main associations I have with Newt Gingrich was his involvement in the push for an investigation into Bill Clinton's involvement with Monica Lewinsky. He was Speaker of the House in the lead up to the investigation and trial and is widely recognized as spearheading this whole investigation....I was surprised this wasn't mentioned specifically in the article. I saw there is a WP page on the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal, which on that page states that Gingrich was "one of the people leading the Impeachment proceedings against Clinton." I know he resigned before the trial actually took place, but I feel like he played a huge role in the build-up to this, and this was (and is) something that I feel should be mentioned in the article on Gingrich in more detail--right now the only hint of this is under the "Speaker of the House" section under "Resignation" where it vaguely refers to "an attempt to remove President Clinton from office" and there is a link. Just looking at this from a neutral perspective, an attempt by the Speaker of the House to "remove" a standing president from office warrants a sentence or two of discussion...that's a pretty big deal I feel. This is more controversial, but I think a few sentences could be added in this "resignation" section about this push to impeach Clinton, or I would prefer a reference to this event be made in the section on Gingrich's personal life where it discusses his affairs--it is common knowledge Gingrich admitted to having an affair at the same time he was trying to impeach Bill Clinton for his "indiscretions"... I know there's recently been a media blitz about Gingrich's second wife talking about the "open marriage" thing on national TV, and I definitely am not talking about getting into that so much, but I do feel that it is fair and reasonable to mention how involved Newt Gingrich was in this whole scandal, and how even he himself has admitted to having an affair during this same period. This whole event did have large ramifications on the Clinton presidency and the 1998 elections and despite how people feel about the whole event in retrospect, I feel it was a very widely covered event that did have a large impact on the direction of politics. I think Gingrich can attack critics and media for recently bringing up his affair, BUT it should be acknowledged that he partially led a massive campaign using the media to attack Bill Clinton before, and this is exactly one of the reasons why his "indiscretions" are of such interest to everyone. It almost doesn't make sense to talk about his affairs and three marriages without explaining WHY this would be controversial--a fair number of people in the public eye have had affairs and been married multiple times, but the "shock factor" in his case is how he is (and has been) so vocal about "family values" and "sanctity of marriage", etc...I am new to commenting on Wikipedia, so please let me know if there are issues with this post. Thank you for considering this! Birdseyeview81 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)birdseyeview81
Denied tenure, he left the college in 1978.[15]
Invaild reference. Hearsay.
110.174.23.139 (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The section on "Ethic violations, reprimand, and fine" has been changed several times in the last 24 hours, in ways that I see as minimizing and distorting the importance of the events. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll ask that somebody check it. I have reverted and added material there twice in the last 24 hours and do not want to get into an edit war, so a third party would be appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
1. Not all charges were brought by Democrats, according to the NYT here.
2. The official government report is here.
3. The last entry in EL is out of date, s/b *Newt Gingrich/Archive 2 at Curlie 75.59.225.248 (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ethics charges, reprimand and fine
After three and a half years of investigation, the IRS has cleared Newt Gingrich and his allied nonprofit groups of any violation of the tax laws in the controversy over his television history course "Renewing American Civilization." [70] Source: http://www.mrc.org/bozellcolumns/newscolumn/1999/col19990209.asp "The IRS, concluding a three-year investigation, ruled that the Progress and Freedom Foundation's donations to Gingrich were "consistent with its stated exempt purposes," and Gingrich's course and course book 'were educational in content.'"[71] Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich020499.htm Kelsonus (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Any one know where he stands on such issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.227.95 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[5]
Should be added after "He founded and chaired several policy think tanks including American Solutions for Winning the Future and the Center for Health Transformation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizarDave (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The writer of the bio on Mr. Gingrich claims he balanced the budget in 1998, for the first time since 1969? Excuse me, but whoever wrote that fails to mention some very important history. Those balanced budgets were based on the work of President Bill Clinton. They can be directly attributed to President Clinton refusing to sign the 1995 budget Mr. Gingrich and the House Republicans presented to him, using the threat of the closure of the federal government to try to force him to sign a budget that was unacceptable. When he called their bluff and allowed the closure to happen, they went back to work and presented him with a budget he would sign.
In the later years, when Mr. Gingrich was the Speaker, yes he worked on balanced budgets, but during those years of the Clinton administration, that House knew that no less than a balanced budget would be accepted. Mr. Gingrich and the rest of the House (on both sides of the aisle) knew they had no choice but to present balance budgets! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khuebner (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the Kemp Commission being mentioned in this article as a "see also" (which I had reinstated on my last edit about this matter) as Gingrich and Dole did set it up, but the conclusions that Kemp and his commission came to - the flat tax - were not followed in the 1997 Tax Relief bill, and I don't see how its conclusions accrue to Gingrich. Note that our article on Bob Dole, who in fact chose Kemp to be his running mate in 1996 after the Kemp Commission completed its work, only lists this as a "see also" and our article Kemp Commission also only mentions Dole and Gingrich as those who set it up. So to try now to shoehorn it into this article to demonstrate some kind of history for Gingrich vis a vis flat tax, doesn't work. However, if there are reliable sources that show how the flat tax was Gingrich's position when the 1997 legislation was being created, please provide them, and we can write something that reflects that. Tvoz/talk 20:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This article in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/gingrich-pledges-moon-colony-during-presidency/2012/01/25/gIQAmQxiRQ_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
states that Gringrich has said he wants to establish a colony on the moon and make it America's 51st State
Also what background is the name Gringrich? Croatian? Ukranian? Spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read the rest of the talk page but just note that the article's coverage of Newt's college professor years seems slim. E.g see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203735304577167041714568630.html?mod=googlenews_wsj .--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Jmc9595 (talk)
This article is so badly done that it needs to be rewritten with careful attention to the sourcing, relevancy and excising the internal judgements to be replaced by sourced analysis.
It cannot be easy when dealing with opposing sides, it would appear at times from within the same political party. There should be a revision that meets the critical needs of a biography article. Essential passages need corrections and compacting. Do away with the garbage listings of sources and list sources that are directly german and authoritative. I object to the use of Ask.com as a source. While it's an excellent website, biography is not its mission purpose. As it is, the instance I'm thinking of draws on the basic biography from the House of Representatives biography site. which provides an authorized biography of the former speaker. While I'm no great fan of New Gingrich, it does a fairer and more balanced job than this mishmash.
There is a wealth of material on Gingrich, i.e. his academic life is explored at considerable length, not only as a student and doctoral candidate. There is also considerable material of merit on his seven years of less than good work in academia, i.e. feeling he was cut for greater things he asked to be named president in his first year as an assistant professor and was know for spending little time doing work in the Department of History. That's not a negative in context. I don't have the time to do this nor do I have the wish to deal with the partisan hacks who will shred anything that is reasonable unbiased.
Example:
The entire section of the Contract with America is tainted by inaccuracy, sloppiness and bias. It is at contradiction with the article by that name, i.e. "Contract with America." e.g. the writer states that there were ten issues. Not so. The Contract itself listed ONLY eight issues which were encapsulated in 10 pieces of legislation. The contract only required the legislation be introduced and advanced as possible. The legislative section has been interwoven with items not in the Contract and with a tenuous connection.
The reference to Liberals, progressives and Clinton on the proposals is biased, inaccurate and gratuitously sourced. The Sierra Club statements drawn somewhat at random addresses some of its concerns for the NEXT congress. It is patently ridiculous for base such wide ranging almost random statements from that source, not to mention it's idiotic sourcing in general. An article should neither be devoid of life nor sourced with a list intended to support talking points.
The welfare reform section is clearly influenced with bias. The two welfare reform bills were passed in both houses with strong support. Clinton vetoed both bills as indicated. The construction of the sentencing on "Gingrich negotiated with President Clinton "by offering accurate information about his party's vote counts and by persuading conservative Republicans to vote for it." That is not by any definition a negotiation and the "it" conservatives were persuaded to vote for seems to be a before the fact statement about what was passed in the third effort in which Gingrich was clearly compelled to accept some of the President's goals in return for acceptance of majority support in the house of some of its goals. It might be fair to call this a bipartisan piece of legislation.
"Lesson's learned the hard way" is a book, not legislation and is placed inappropriately.
Balancing the Federal Budget, inaccurate. Badly so. It was not a part of the contract. The Contract called for a balanced budget amendment. The Amendment legislation was approved in the House and failed to pass the REPUBLICAN senate. Obviously there were Democrats in the Senate, but when it's convenient to call the Senate Democratic, the right wingers do. The reality is that getting passage in the Senate is difficult.
The Contract proposal for a line item veto was passed in both houses, signed by Clinton and ruled unconstitutional shortly afterward.
The Taxpayer Relief Act is oversold as a gain for Gingrich as is the influence of the Kemp Commission, given that Congress ignored most of it. But this was not in the Contract which as a single issue proposed requiring "a three-fifths majority to pass a tax increase." The Kemp commission suggested a two-thirds minimum. Neither went anywhere. But while some taxes were reduced, etc., taxes were still not reduced below the level established in Clinton's first year and last year of GHB Bush.
Action requiring Congress to be subject to their own laws was a part of the Contract. Unmentioned is the audit proposal, the reduction in House Committees and staff, not done; limit in committee chair terms, not done; etc. The Contract made both a proposal for constitutional term limits and also a pledge to honor self-imposed term limits. The amendment did not receive approval in the House or Senate. Those signing the contract have generally not left office before they were forced to by election or public disgrace.
There's more of this and it includes some pandering to what look like junior campaign aides to Gingrich. "In 1961, Gingrich graduated from Baker High School in Columbus, Georgia. He became interested in politics during his teen years while living in Orléans, France, where he visited the site of the Battle of Verdun and learned about the sacrifices made there and the importance of political leadership.[10] Choosing to obtain deferments granted to students and fathers, Gingrich did not enlist and was not drafted during the Vietnam War. He expressed some regret about that decision in 1985, saying, "Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over."
That's sloppy. The Gingrich family lived in both German and France, Stationed near Orleans, the family lived at Beaugency. That is more than 250 miles from Verdun so Orleans or Beaugency is not "where he visited the site of the Battle of Verdun." He has told the story any number of times, more or less completely each time, but he made that trip to Verdun with his family in 1958. His family also lived at Stuttgart which is somewhat closer to Verdun. It is not a casual trip for a teenager who still had a curfew. Gail Sheehy is an excellent source as is PBS. It's written as a chronology and it's not.
Jmc9595 (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm proposing a new section called "Leadership style." Gingrich's style -- his willingness/unwillingness to cooperate with Democrats, attack opponents, criticize the media, cozy up to the media, talk about history, march to the beat of his own drum, etc. etc. has received a lot of attention lately because of the election but it seems noteworthy even apart from the current elections. There have been a lot of comments from politicians, columnists, etc. about Gingrich being long known for his unique and quirky style, and I think a delicately written section on this (mindful of WP:BLP and WP:POV, of course) would enrich the article. Here are a couple of sources to start us off:
I'm sure we can come up with more. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What if independent life get chance to start there. The article lack an answer what to do with them. Do this website aspire to be complete encyclopedia? If so please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.127.148 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the link to the article in the Washington Post about Gingrich's desire to change the EPA to the Environmental Solution Agency. Thanks! MichChemGSI (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Source 63 does not seem like a credible source of information. It certainly isn't seem neutral at all--the top of the page declares that Gingrich "is running for president in 2012 on a Platform of Lies." A quick Google search of the phrase cited ("In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee") doesn't bring up anything that was written before the quote was added on November 26, in the heat of the campaign. I found a USA Today article that was written after it was added, but I think it's likely that the quote was sourced from Wikipedia itself and as such should not be considered a valid source. Also, the wording in the paragraph (and the quote) makes the intent of the phrase ambiguous. Who gave the "inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements"? How did these statements affect the investigation?
Given that Wikipedia is the primary source of information for many people, that voting is underway for the Republican nomination, and that many candidates are targeting Gingrich for his ethics violations, I believe something should be done to alert readers about the questionable veracity of the quote. I suggest, in order of reasonability given the context, either A) a more credible source be found, B) the quote and source be removed from the article, or C) the source be removed and a big "citation needed" tag be added to the quote. 146.115.21.211 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected)) A contemporaneous source of the well-known quote, with context, in the New York Times, December 22, 1996: A House ethics subcommittee found today that Speaker Newt Gingrich had brought discredit to the House by using tax-exempt money for political purposes, and by providing the committee with inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable information about the role of a political action committee in a college course he taught. The full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct must still meet to decide whether to recommend disciplinary action. It is likely to call for censure or reprimand, but not for a penalty so severe as to preclude his re-election as Speaker, such as expulsion. A recommendation could come before the New Year. Mr. Gingrich admitted the charges and apologized, saying, I brought down on the people's house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their Government....Earlier this week, Mr. Gingrich and his allies appeared to be attributing those erroneous statements to Jan Baran, his lawyer for most of the case. Today he said, I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the Committee on my behalf. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to Committee, but I did not intend to mislead the Committee, he said. 75.59.225.248 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The section on "Ethic violations, reprimand, and fine" has been changed several times in the last 24 hours, in ways that I see as minimizing and distorting the importance of the events. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll ask that somebody check it. I have reverted and added material there twice in the last 24 hours and do not want to get into an edit war, so a third party would be appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
1. Not all charges were brought by Democrats, according to the NYT here.
2. The official government report is here.
3. The last entry in EL is out of date, s/b *Newt Gingrich/Archive 2 at Curlie 75.59.225.248 (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's try this again:
2. The official government report is here.
3. The last entry in EL is out of date, s/b *Newt Gingrich/Archive 2 at Curlie
I don't know why those two points were ignored. The official report exists. Even Gingrich himself told Romney it existed online. I assume Gingrich's campaign manager, active on this Talk page, is also aware off its existence. Is this your response to what Jimmy said on his Talk page about primary sources? The article is protected. I don't care if you put the link to the official report as a footnote or part of EL. What's clear is that it's an important source and should be included somwhere in this article, as Jimmy said. The other request is surely clear, as 2008 was the PREVIOUS campaign. This is 2012. 75.60.6.25 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about a recent edit to the lead section of this article. Last week it said this:
Someone has changed it so now it says this:
Clearly, Newt could not have been reprimanded for charges which were dropped. The full details are discussed later in the article. Is someone willing to restore the earlier version? Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
In recent days, Gingrich operative Joe DeSantis has made massive and widespread changes, both to this page and apparently now to the Talk page as well. The entire section concerning the CNN story about the edits was removed from this page less than an hour ago. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/06/gingrich-spokesman-defends-wikipedia-edits/?hpt=hp_bn3 It is clear that Gingrich supporters such as Kenatipo are aiding in this process. Removing factually based information from anyone's page for political purposes is reprehensible and against everything WP stands for. I request that an editor immediately lock this page and begin combing through the previous versions to locate and restored factually accurate and verified information that was deleted by DeSantis and his cohorts. Black Max (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Black Max
If I may, I'd like to point to an error in this article that has persisted for some time. This is the usage of "fine" in the title and body of the Ethics charges, reprimand and fine section. The $300,000 assessed and paid was not a "fine" but a reimbursement for the cost of the investigation. The Report of the Select Committee states:
At least one Washington Post story from the time, a current source in the section, states:
Rep. Steven Schiff explained at the time it was not a fine because Newt did not personally benefit:
Because of the confusion about these issues, I would like to suggest the section contain wording that reflects the $300,000 was a cost assessment, not a fine, and that Mr. Gingrich did not benefit personally. My suggested wording is:
The section title should be changed to reflect this as well. I'd suggest "Ethics investigation" but "Ethics charges and reprimand" is similar to the current version and factually correct.
Also, thank you to the editors who are willing to review my suggestions with an open mind. As many of you noted, I have been open about my affiliation for years and since May have been posting requests on the Talk page instead of posting direct edits so as to be fully compliant with COI. Our campaign made the decision to adopt this transparent process out of respect for Wikipedia’s rules and spirit and we are determined not to let this temporary bad press change that. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I find strange that neither in any part of his Wikipedia page, nor in this talk page, we could find mention of the $5millions donated by Sheldon Adelson for his candidacy run at the GOP, followed by another $5millions donated by Sheldon Adelson's wife who is Israeli. Are those political donations ethical ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.216.25 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2012 in the caption below the main image is incorrect and should be changed to 2011 (see image file summary). Pixeldawg (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
"Gingrich spokesman defends Wikipedia edits" — goethean ॐ 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joedesantis&diff=474200049&oldid=473252019 – Jimbo complimented Joedesantis. The media simply want to sensationalize Joedesantis' involvement, just as the media sensationalizes everything. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
All the same, it is a media matter. This is an issue reported on many news sources. If there's fallout from it or if his opponents make use of these charges, it should be included. 108.16.194.118 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Joe DeSantis should be barred from making any further additions or edits to this page. He's done enough damage to accuracy and non-bias already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.56.19 (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Ummm, I think not:
21 hours ago Gingrich spokesman defends Wikipedia edits Posted by CNN's Gregory Wallace
(CNN) – As recently as last week, Newt Gingrich's communications director has been criticized by editors on Wikipedia for dozens of edits he has made and requested in defense of his candidate.
While some of the changes were minor, Joe DeSantis has removed or asked to remove factual references to Gingrich's three marriages as well as mentions of ethics charges brought against him while he served as speaker of the House. These efforts continued as recently as Monday.
Wikipedia records show DeSantis has made over 60 adjustments to entries in the online, publicly-edited encyclopedia to the biographical entry on Gingrich, the similar page on his wife, Callista, and a separate page on one of their books, Rediscovering Good in America.
DeSantis has actively lobbied for changes to the articles since mid-December in a discussion forum called "Talk" on the site, and previously from May to June of last year, though his most recent direct edit to the site was in June of 2011.
Link to source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.208.1.12 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The reference used [8] (in two places) does not give any reason for Time Mags choice of Gingrich for its Man of the Year honor. I'm sure he got the honor. I'm just not sure its specifically for the reason displayed, in quotes, in the article. From what I read the quotes in the article do not come from the reference provided. And the Mag itself is "view by subsciption only". Can another, more definitive reference be provided? One that can be verified?```Buster Seven Talk 05:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
According to this article on page B1 of today’s usa Today, Newt Gingrich is the most followed (1.4 million) of the GOP candiadates on Twitter. Newt Gingrich has been viewed 304,466 times in the last 30 days on Wikipedia See: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Newt_Gingrich (please check my facts for mistakes, TIA) 71.231.62.26 (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
((Request edit))
I have a request to make about a recent edit on this page. Earlier today, someone added a new sentence in the "Presidential campaign, 2012" section referring to Super Tuesday. It says:
The source given is a report from the UK Daily Mail that does not describe the race in these terms. Newt Gingrich was not considered frontrunner in Tennessee. The sentence looks like an over-interpretation of this sentence from the Daily Mail:
I would like to ask for someone to remove this sentence or rewrite it with better accuracy. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The section is growing as NG's successive primary results are added. Might we best confine them to his main campaign article? And say something like "For results of the primaries, see the main article"? Or summarize them somehow, along the lines of "Gingrich has won [XYZ state(s)]. He came second in [state(s)], third in [state(s)]..." etc. Writegeist (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I propose a subsection for a very simple table of his placings as follows. Any thoughts? Writegeist (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
For detailed results see main article:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012
States – first place | States – second place | States – third place |
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Nevada |
Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee |
((Request edit)) There are currently two pieces of information in the article that I believe should be moved or rephrased in order to avoid bias or placing undue attention on one single organization:
I would like to ask other editors to review these edits and make changes as necessary. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact that many more Republicans are calling for Gingrich to leave the GOP race is a major consideration for the Gingrich Campaign. Should Gingrich decide to step out, it would be a major shot in the arm for Santorum.```Buster Seven Talk 17:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. See the discussion below for details |
I would like to ask other editors to look at two edits to the "Personal life" section of the article, which I feel may require removal.
These are both relatively recent additions, since early this year and have remained in the article. I feel that their inclusion is not necessary or encyclopedic and would like to ask other editors to consider their removal. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The first suggestion (removing the trivia bit about his wife being nine years his junior) seems reasonable, and I'd be willing to make the change. The second sentence seems fine as-is, now that the citations are included. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Which branch of the military did Gingrich serve in, and for how long? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Newt Gingrich. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I was surprised not to find something at least on this talk page about the documented Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia in 2012 by Joe DeSantis, the communications director for Gingrich's presidential campaign. As of 2016-07-04, this same comment is included in the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia:Paid operatives. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I see lots of advertisements for the novel "Treason" by Newt Gingrich and Pete Earley. It's also listed on Amazon. Shouldn't it be in the list of his Books? --Eliyahu S Talk 16:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This entry doesn't have a lot on the substance of Gingrich's science policies (as opposed to health policy issues).
There is a good article in Science magazine, reprinting their 2012 article on Gingrich, based on interviews with scientists and their assessments. Those who believe in WP:NPOV will appreciate this article. Lots of praise and lots of criticism, sometimes by the same scientists, including Sherwood Boehlert.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/newt-gingrich-major-trump-ally-has-complicated-love-affair-science
Newt Gingrich, a major Trump ally, has a complicated love affair with science
By David Malakoff
Science
Nov. 11, 2016
Just because Gingrich loves science, however, doesn't mean that researchers and science policy wonks necessarily love Gingrich.
Indeed, Gingrich has a long and complicated relationship with the science community marked by equal measures of flattered delight and bewildered anxiety.
Delight because he appears to know and care so much. Who else has carried a microchip and a vacuum tube in his pocket for impromptu lectures on the history of technology, taken time out from a hectic campaign schedule to visit labs at leading research universities, and loudly called for doubling federal spending on science?
Anxiety because his political ambitions have often helped fuel policy positions that many scientists consider anathema. Those stances include championing the 1994 Contract with America that produced Republican plans for deep cuts in federal R&D spending and political flip-flops that have questioned the reliability of climate science and appeared to endorse the teaching of creationism in schools.
--Nbauman (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Newt Gingrich. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I am going to remove a graphic from the New York daily News showing Gingrich as a crying child. It is the only newspaper headline shown in the article, although there are literally thousands of headlines about Mr. Gingrich. It's inclusion seems to violate NPOV. Princetoniac (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Newt Gingrich. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Newt Gingrich. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/12/16/v-print/2853325/gingrichs-old-habits-die-hard.html((dead link))
tag to http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LV1JSD6K50YD01-3AAFC4U13OJKS56R4Q4KOVLVDNWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Newt Gingrich. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
In the politics section, it says "He favors a strong immigration border policy".
I don't know what that means. I'm not trolling and I don't know Gringrich's politics myself; I just can't figure out what noun the word "strong" is modifying and whether "immigration border" is a thing or if its "strong immigration" and if that is pro or anti immigration.
If someone who knows Gingrich's policies could edit this to be more clear, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.130.47 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)