Talk:Newt Gingrich/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ph.D. thesis

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)

I didn't check the sources but the article states, "Gingrich received a B.A. in history from Emory University in Atlanta in 1965, an M.A. in 1968, and a Ph.D. in modern European history from Tulane University in New Orleans in 1971.[15] In 1970, Gingrich joined the history department at West Georgia College as an assistant professor." - If you can prove these are not valid, please do so.Richrakh (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Definer of civilization?

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 Wasn't Raised Near Harrisburg PA (at all)

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)

Edit request from , 20 November 2011

I would suggest including a link for Mr. Gingrich's reviews on Amazon.com.

Here is the link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A27WFYW9ZJ5DN1/ref=cm_cr_tr_tbl_1469_sar?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

Cpvisa (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see a point. He isn't a famous book reviewer. CTJF83 15:55, 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)

I do not believe it is Wikipedia's role to "provide insight" or "reveal things" not already well-known and/or reported on. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.Nstrauss (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. While he is an author, his book reviews on Amazon are not note worthy as anyone can review a book there.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolving POV in lead section

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:

• I agree with Nstrauss when he writes: "The fact that he worked with Clinton at times and opposed him at times, not worth mentioning; all opposite-party speakers are the same..." I suggest the paragraph be edited slightly to remove "sometimes opposed" and also "closely", which may be a more contestable detail.

• I would also suggest that rather than saying "limit public welfare" this be changed to "pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act". While I would ultimately be happier to see "pass welfare reform" perhaps a third way is more realistic here.

• I agree with Nstrauss and others that "highly paid" is unnecessary in this section. Many public figures who go into the private sector are highly paid, and the inclusion of this modifier seems POVish to me. I would like to encourage its removal.

• Lastly, I question whether the beginning of his relationship with Callista Gingrich is necessary here. I understand that it belongs somewhere in the article, but as written it doesn't say they are now married (have been for more than a decade), and its current inclusion is awkward: the only reason it was a public issue was due to the Lewinsky affair, but that was a major event in Bill Clinton's career, not really Newt Gingrich's. He did not resign because of this, although the current wording makes it seem that way, and so I think it is given undue weight here. I would like to hear what others think about this.

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)

I agree with most of this. Almost every source used the term welfare reform for that act, and NPOV requires us to follow the sources, so I see nothing wrong with welfare reform. The bit about his affair was superfluous, as is "highly paid". Thanks for being candid about your position here. —Designate (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Joe, I'd suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. Terence7 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Designate, I'm glad you agreed and thanks for taking care of it. Terence7, I am familiar with the guideline. In fact, my aim in suggesting changes here was to follow advice from "How to avoid COI edits", which encourages questions like this. Thanks again. --Joedesantis (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Terence7, nothing in our policies should discourage interested parties from commenting on articles. In fact, their professional input should be welcomed. —Designate (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I just read about this discussion on Politico. I'm not a Gingrich supporter at all, but I have to say that there should be no issue with Joe offering suggestions on the talk page. His points and arguments should be considered objectively on their merits without regard to who is presenting them, just like we should be doing for all commentary. The way Joe has handled this is exactly as suggested at WP:COIC. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, I got blogged about on Politico! Thanks for sharing the link. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

All of the objections appear to be addressed; I've removed the dispute notice accordingly[2]. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I can't believe the national communications director of Newt's campaign would have the audacity to flag Newt's profile as questionable until changes he felt important were made. Did you clear this with your candidate? That's pretty risky behavior my friend! Darren717 (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

He flagged it? I don't see that. Diffs please. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

He said he did anyway: "If these issues are resolved, then I think the warning on the article could be removed." I think someone else removed it after making the changes. Darren717 (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tag was placed by User:Nstrauss. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good accusation. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected and apologize. Darren717 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm indeed the original tagger. I agree, the POV-Section tag is no longer needed. I did just a tad more clean-up. Thanks for the collective work, everyone. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cropped image is not encyclopedic

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)

Creationist?

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)

Reliable source? "Some serious newspaper or news magazine" doesn't quite qualify. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:32, 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)

Thanks for your comments. I do now remember: I heard it on TV (the news at 7:30PM)(in Switzerland, the news are very serious). But OK, one source is not enough, even Kauffner's. These candidates do know how important such a topic can be for such an election: you have to be on both sides acceptable. Let's go on with searches. 89.217.206.108 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

About "For-profit companies"

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)

Seems reasonable to call it "Business" or "Business activities" instead of "For-profit companies."

As for the rest of your suggestions, I don't see the objective rationale for removing all of the details. Why is it "unnecessary" information? Terence7 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading to "Businesses", and combined two smaller companies into a single section, "Other".

As for disproportionate emphasis, Gingrich spent the majority of his time, for more than a decade, running these companies or doing work for them. If anything, I think this section is too short; there should be more details, not less about how Gingrich became a fairly rich guy from owning and/or working for these businesses. And leaving the existing information more or less as is, but eliminating the subsection headings, would make for a section that is just too long. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethics sanctions

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)

Edit request on 28 December 2011

"dissertation is entitled" should be dissertation is titled

98.178.150.28 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: It means it was given a title, nothing wrong there. — Bility (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Jackie quote

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)

I did a search on the WSJ website (I have a subscription) and could not find anything about a quote like this. However, the online archives only go back two years. Does anyone have a date for the WSJ article? 72Dino (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I searched the WSJ website and I couldn't find it either, even in the WSJ archives. It has to be earlier than 1994, because that's when the LAT article appeared. I think I have it in a database, although it's on another computer. Any major library should have the entire WSJ database, in full text, which goes back at least to the 1980s if not issue 1 number 1. I'll find it eventually, and add it, because as I recall Carter gave the quote to the WSJ, but for WP:RS and WP:BLP purposes the LAT would be perfectly satisfactory. For WP:VERIFIABILITY the LAT is better.

The quote is also in the New York Times, with a denial from Gingrich. Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals, By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, New York Times, November 24, 1994 I'll add that too. If the NYT and WSJ think it's important enough to mention in major news stories, that should satisfy WP:WEIGHT too. -- Nbauman (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Found the WSJ article and added the ref. 72Dino (talk) 18:59, 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)

PR tactic 1994: circulating a list of hurtful words

"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)

Yes, it's biased but it appears to be mostly true. See . --Nstrauss (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Hurtful" words? Does someone think that American politics was all nice-nice until Newt came along and spoiled everything? Kauffner (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The language used in the Salon article was biased, no question, including the word "hurtful." That said, the list of words does seem worthy of mention. See my addition at the end of the "In Congress" subsection. --Nstrauss (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Add Anti-Gay Stance

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)

Got a source for that? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:13, 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

Government shutdown

{{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.

• The second paragraph of the section goes into detail about the specific amendments to the budget proposed by both sides. Two problems with it. First, it clearly takes President Clinton's side, and imputes a perspective on the matter to Wikipedia, so I think it is a NPOV issue. Second, more importantly, it does not add anything to the understanding of Newt's role in the shutdown and its resolution, and is better covered in the main article on this subject (and is). For these reasons, I suggest its removal would improve the overall section.

• The sentence: "Gingrich agreed to a revised version of a plan proposed by Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, to spend $300 billion more than Republicans had proposed through 2002." presents the impression that the shutdown was ended by Newt agreeing to Daschle's plan, whereas the source for this statement states that Clinton's agreement to a CBO-approved plan led to the end of the shutdown. I would recommend replacing it with the following: "The shutdown was ended when Clinton agreed to submit a CBO-approved balanced budget plan." (Cited to the same source.)

• The following sentence has been changed from its original wording and I think it should be restored to its original version. I've bolded here the part of the sentence in question:

Gingrich later realized his comments were his "single most avoidable mistake" as Speaker.

The wording I'd suggest it be returned to is:

Gingrich later called his comments the "single most avoidable mistake" as Speaker.

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)

I've made the second requested change (more or less, using "said" rather than the suggested "called"). The word "realized" is unverifiable, as is what Gingrich's "most avoidable mistake" actually was.

I'll leave the more difficult question of looking at the summary of the budget agreement to an editor more interested in reading the original sources than I am. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I've just added an edit request template to try to get a response to the other questions. Joedesantis (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page or put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk page and someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for IN CONGRESS section to reduce bias.

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 ([email protected]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchboucher (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ironic as it may seem, Wikipedia articles themselves are not considered reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles, so the source for the $9,000 OD would probably be

• Clymer, Adam (August 23, 1992). "House Revolutionary". The New York Times. Retrieved December 16, 2011.

And I'm not sure if there's an actual prohibition, but I'm pretty sure posting your email address is discouraged (and considered a bad idea for security and spam-prevention reasons, also).

Oh, and Welcome... Fat&Happy (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Source 63 in ethics sanctions section

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)

 Done. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:07, 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)

"Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Chzz  ►  03:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Resignation section

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)

• How is it confusing? The verb, "was" is singular, meaning that it is specific to the attempt made by Gingrich and the Republican Party. --219.124.98.5 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yes, it was confusing even if not grammatically wrong. I fixed it. Tvoz/talk 02:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Crunchy Con movement resource

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. Green conservatism is a term used to refer to conservatives who have incorporated green concerns into their ideology.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is likely outdated Political positions of Newt Gingrich, as evidenced by "Newt Gingrich says he regrets his public service announcement with Nancy Pelosi." regarding Alliance for Climate Protection#WE Campaign from Modernizing Attack Ads by Using Old Videos by Jeremy W. Peters published New York Times December 26, 2011, excerpt ... "They look into the camera, then at each other, and declare that they are really not all that different when it comes to caring about global warming." from Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012.

99.190.86.184 (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2012

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)

 Done Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Year in reference 149 still wrong

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)

 Done. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Marianne needs reference, and correction

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

Done by User:Tvoz. Thanks Texashoosier. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge Discussion: Callista Gingrich into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge and keep articles separate. —Eustress ^talk 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

---

<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)

Callista Gingrich has received specific coverage in numerous independent sources, by ABC News and the Washington Post and The Daily Beast for her role in the campaign. She was also recently the subject of an in-depth profile in The New Yorker this month. I believe her notability is well-established. Joedesantis (talk) 23:36, 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)

Good point. I found enough for an article on Marianne Ginther and added it.--Nowa (talk) 17:48, 23 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)

• Oppose merge, she's notable enough. Seems like consensus is already roughly arrived at here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now. Besides sources providing material about her in her own right, she's not the spouse of a minor politician at this point in time.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2012 (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.

Parents

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)

I added the years for now, but the source you provided is not considered a reliable source. If you have something better, please provide it here so the info can be verified. thank you. Tvoz/talk 03:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2012

It says that Gingrich won SC primary in January, 2011 but it was January 2012.

Thechad90000 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  thanks for spotting this Tvoz/talk 04:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich involvement in Clinton impeachment

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

This article already links to another article dedicated to the matter of Clinton's impeachment. Interested readers can accordingly go there for more. It is not really Wikipedia's responsibility to point out a politician's hypocrisy. This sort of editorializing is something that is best left to readers. In terms of what gets debated here on the Talk pages of politicians, it is generally what facts to include or exclude, not so much what to say about those facts. If there is a notable omitted fact or there is a fact that is getting excessive attention here, feel free to point that out, and suggest reliable sources that Wikipedia could use.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenure denied

Denied tenure, he left the college in 1978.[15]

Invaild reference. Hearsay.

110.174.23.139 (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Time is a reliable source. What's yours? Fat&Happy (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Newt Gingrich is currently a tenured professor at GWC? -- 98.108.198.118 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I found a better source and put it in there instead. Arzel (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check

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)

Tvoz reverted my balancing edits since you wrote this, Smallbones, but, we're not quite done here, yet. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Someone reverted Tvoz. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

For your punishment, Tvoz, I sentence you to writing a nice paragraph about all the books Newt has written (or co-written, or edited)—it seems to be missing from this article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:28, 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)

Thanks for that information, 75.59... It looks like we have a disagreement between Curt Anderson of the Associated Press/WaPo and Adam Clymer of the NYT about who brought the charges. Clymer seems to be counting as "charges" questions raised by the investigating panel during their investigation. I'm not sure these questions should be counted as "charges"; a question asked during an investigation, to my mind, is not a "charge", which is more serious and more formal. Can you link us to a list of all 84 charges and who brought them? --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I object to the characterization (in Rjanag's edit summary) of my reversion of your edit, Kenatipo, as vandalism - my assessment of these edits is that they read as less than neutral - not "balancing edits" - so reverting them is fair game and certainly not vandalism. Maybe you didn't mean them to be POV - I haven't looked into it enough to know for sure - so apologies if I misinterpreted your intent (but your comments here do suggest that I might not have been wrong about motivation). But I think Smallbones' concern above was that the section minimized the seriousness of the charges - in other words, is POV - and I agree, hence my edit (done before I saw any of this talk page section including Smallbones' comment). I have to look again at where it is at the moment, as this is a fast-changing article, but my take was similar to IP75's regarding the Democrats, and "reprimanded and fined" is a lot clearer that "penalized" which is vague. This ethics matter is central to Gingrich's biography, and we should be careful not to descend into euphemisms. With some research I would expect we'd find a wealth of available sources on this topic. And Kenatipo - thanks, I'll pass on writing that paragraph, although Newt's passion for alternate history strikes me as, well, ironic. Tvoz/talk 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• NB the "rvv" edit summary question is cleared up - I apparently inadvertently typed in some errant characters - "qqqqq" (I have no idea how) which is what Rjanag saw and reverted as vandalism. 'Twas a mistake. Sorry for the mixup, but the rest of my comments regarding my seeing the edits as POV stand. Tvoz/talk 21:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • ...ignoring the fact that the extra qs hat been deleted with an edit summary of "rm accidental keystrokes" six hours before the so-called "vandalism" reversion. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Good point F&H. Maybe he didn't see that? I give up. Tvoz/talk 04:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tvoz. I came to this article because I didn't know much about Gingrich's ethics violation, and, the $300K figure keeps coming up in the campaign. (We stipulate, your Honor, that our boy Newt has sharp elbows, politically speaking.) But, like user "causa sui" says above, when you read the section about the violation, you don't get a very clear idea of what the violation was. As it stands, the whole section needs a re-write. Regarding balance: if we say that Gingrich faced 84 ethics charges while speaker but we don't also say that 83 of them were dropped, aren't we telling a half-truth? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no half-truth there - the edit clearly says that all of the charges except one were dropped. There were negotiations, apparently, which brought the matter to the full House for a vote on the reprimand and $300,000 fine, rather than having the full House hold public hearings with more publicity and probably the same (or worse?) result for the Speaker. The votes in committee and on the floor were non-partisan and overwhelmingly against Gingrich, no matter how he tries to spin it now. And by the way - I know of no restrictions regarding starting a sentence with "however". However, I'll leave it as is. Tvoz/talk 04:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The article NOW clearly says that all of the charges except one were dropped because my edits added that information—the edits you criticized as POV! --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your original edit to this section overall seemed POV to me the way it was written - I reverted it hoping to do a rewrite, and when I was back on retained the fact you reinstated about the dropped charges but reworked it to be tighter and - to my ear - more neutral. The text already had that reinstated reference to the dropped charges when you made the above comment about half-truth, which is why I responded that way. Tvoz/talk 07:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I got the "However, " idea from Strunk & White but I can't find my copy to check it out. It is probably not a wikirule. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

{{edit semi-protected}}

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)

As every education has side efect - it changing perception. Thought before booking and after differ. The uneducated guest pund ging of rich. Only after learning we see whole pixa. Generally this is to support preceding notion howewer with substantial resrvation. More talk may be needed to clarity the article subject if urgued as somenthing important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.123.229 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.123.229 (talk)

note: comment that was here was removed. see history. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to translate, F&H: Every piece of information has a side effect -- it changes your perceptions. Your thoughts before you inform yourself are different than those after you are informed. The uninformed just pound Gingrich.(?) Only after learning all the important details do we see the whole picture. Generally, I support the edit request, but with substantial reservations. More discussion is needed to clarify the section's topic, if the topic is worth mentioning at all.(?) 24.15.123.229 (attempted translation by --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

The problem with your request, Kelsonus, is that it is not in the proper form. You have to say "Please change existing article text to Kelsonus's preferred text", and you have to be very specific about what you want replaced with what. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Now is more clear how word ging feet the function as fathful newt of the rich lobsters. McPherson do it not so clear but, when Newton McPherson changed to use the other name ? In some spheres people are quite sensitive about family true history (as many steal historical names) . The article about Romney need fix too, since hes real inherited nmae was different and Romney is another familly. Of cource unrelated at historicala scale And in US nobody perhaps care) but .... it is not only US pedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.127.148 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User 24.15.12..., I'm having a hard time understanding your comments. Perhaps you could write them in your first language (off Wiki), translate them into English with one of those free automatic translators available on the Internet, then improve the English translation before you post your comments here? Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(Semi prot request not done for now; unclear; editors are obviously aware of the request, so discussion can continue; for now, I've cancelled out the sper request  Chzz  ►  03:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC))

Belief on OCTA and other Canibis legalization Acts?

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)

Current member of the Council on Foreign Relations

He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

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)

Newt Gingrich takes credit for balancing budgets?

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)

For whatever reason, a balanced budget was somehow never possible when the Democrats ran Congress. Kauffner (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reason, balanced budgets are not seen as the be all and end all by everybody. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, HiLo. A balanced budget could just mean that the over-spending matches the over-taxing. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and wise economists note that there are good times to borrow and good times to spend, and vice versa. To expect everything to totally balance out every twelve months is simpleton economics. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's even harder to balance the budget when there are union bosses who expect a return on their investment. Kauffner (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My observations of politics the world over have shown me that those seeking "a return on their investment" come from all points on the political spectrum. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Kemp Commission

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)

Good point. Also, what's the value of this citation? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1042061 It's just a brief summary of a radio news piece which itself is unavailable. Surely we can find a better source.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Tvoz/talk 21:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for note. i wanted to integrate the see also into the article and copied the intro from the kemp commission article. but people can edit how it's presented here, we can take out the flat tax bit as i can see how this perhaps misrepresents gingrich Tom B (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Moon Colony

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)

Germanic? Per an online encyclopedia of Mennonite names, "Gingerich (Gingrich, Guengerich, Gingery) family: Gingerich is a Mennonite family name of Swiss Bernese origin. ..."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea about the name. but the moon colony proposal is one of those rare events in a US presidential campaign that has put a candidate on the front page of a major Australian newspaper website. It does need mention in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

it is in space exploration section of Political positions of Newt Gingrich--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrt West Geo College yrs

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)

Article is completely inadequate - Call for a reassessment of its merits

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)

Leadership style

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:

• NY Times: Gingrich Stuck to Caustic Path in Ethics Battles
• Don't believe it - Newt loves the media

I'm sure we can come up with more. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Per wp:IPC, go for it, Nstrauss! (Cf.: category:Public image of American politicians.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

the life on extracerestrial moons

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)

Yes, we aspire to be a complete encyclopedia. But not all in one article. This is a biography of one man, and the only reason there is any reference here to life on the Moon is because he made it a part of his campaign. If you want to find out about what will happen if life gets established on the moon, go to an article like Colonization of the Moon. Thanks for your interest. Tvoz/talk 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Deadlink: EPA to ESA

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)

I found the link http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/newt-gingrich-calls-for-abolit.html MichChemGSI (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Source 63 in ethics sanctions section

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)

 Done. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:07, 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)

"Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Chzz  ►  03:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Chzz, please stop the wikilawyering. The first person requested an alternative source: A) a more credible source be found It was provided, in the form of a completely formatted link. Which was then ignored for five days. Your response was insulting, especially as it was followed a few hours later with an auto-archive. The request was both simple and obvious: change 'source 63' to this: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/22/us/panel-concludes-gingrich-violated-rules-on-ethics.html?ref=newtgingrich New York Times, December 22, 1996. Clips were included to show the exact context of the quotes under discussion. Looks crystal clear to me. If you cannot edit this article with a modicum of balance, I suggest you reconsider what you're trying to accomplish here. I notice the other two requests, to provide a link to the official House report, and to correct the last link in EL, have not been done either. 75.60.6.25 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please check

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)

Tvoz reverted my balancing edits since you wrote this, Smallbones, but, we're not quite done here, yet. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Someone reverted Tvoz. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

For your punishment, Tvoz, I sentence you to writing a nice paragraph about all the books Newt has written (or co-written, or edited)—it seems to be missing from this article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:28, 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)

Thanks for that information, 75.59... It looks like we have a disagreement between Curt Anderson of the Associated Press/WaPo and Adam Clymer of the NYT about who brought the charges. Clymer seems to be counting as "charges" questions raised by the investigating panel during their investigation. I'm not sure these questions should be counted as "charges"; a question asked during an investigation, to my mind, is not a "charge", which is more serious and more formal. Can you link us to a list of all 84 charges and who brought them? --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I object to the characterization (in Rjanag's edit summary) of my reversion of your edit, Kenatipo, as vandalism - my assessment of these edits is that they read as less than neutral - not "balancing edits" - so reverting them is fair game and certainly not vandalism. Maybe you didn't mean them to be POV - I haven't looked into it enough to know for sure - so apologies if I misinterpreted your intent (but your comments here do suggest that I might not have been wrong about motivation). But I think Smallbones' concern above was that the section minimized the seriousness of the charges - in other words, is POV - and I agree, hence my edit (done before I saw any of this talk page section including Smallbones' comment). I have to look again at where it is at the moment, as this is a fast-changing article, but my take was similar to IP75's regarding the Democrats, and "reprimanded and fined" is a lot clearer that "penalized" which is vague. This ethics matter is central to Gingrich's biography, and we should be careful not to descend into euphemisms. With some research I would expect we'd find a wealth of available sources on this topic. And Kenatipo - thanks, I'll pass on writing that paragraph, although Newt's passion for alternate history strikes me as, well, ironic. Tvoz/talk 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• NB the "rvv" edit summary question is cleared up - I apparently inadvertently typed in some errant characters - "qqqqq" (I have no idea how) which is what Rjanag saw and reverted as vandalism. 'Twas a mistake. Sorry for the mixup, but the rest of my comments regarding my seeing the edits as POV stand. Tvoz/talk 21:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • ...ignoring the fact that the extra qs hat been deleted with an edit summary of "rm accidental keystrokes" six hours before the so-called "vandalism" reversion. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Good point F&H. Maybe he didn't see that? I give up. Tvoz/talk 04:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tvoz. I came to this article because I didn't know much about Gingrich's ethics violation, and, the $300K figure keeps coming up in the campaign. (We stipulate, your Honor, that our boy Newt has sharp elbows, politically speaking.) But, like user "causa sui" says above, when you read the section about the violation, you don't get a very clear idea of what the violation was. As it stands, the whole section needs a re-write. Regarding balance: if we say that Gingrich faced 84 ethics charges while speaker but we don't also say that 83 of them were dropped, aren't we telling a half-truth? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no half-truth there - the edit clearly says that all of the charges except one were dropped. There were negotiations, apparently, which brought the matter to the full House for a vote on the reprimand and $300,000 fine, rather than having the full House hold public hearings with more publicity and probably the same (or worse?) result for the Speaker. The votes in committee and on the floor were non-partisan and overwhelmingly against Gingrich, no matter how he tries to spin it now. And by the way - I know of no restrictions regarding starting a sentence with "however". However, I'll leave it as is. Tvoz/talk 04:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The article NOW clearly says that all of the charges except one were dropped because my edits added that information—the edits you criticized as POV! --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your original edit to this section overall seemed POV to me the way it was written - I reverted it hoping to do a rewrite, and when I was back on retained the fact you reinstated about the dropped charges but reworked it to be tighter and - to my ear - more neutral. The text already had that reinstated reference to the dropped charges when you made the above comment about half-truth, which is why I responded that way. Tvoz/talk 07:22, 24 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)

Hello again, anonymous. I changed the EL to your preferred version, and, I added a reference to the Ethics Committee report. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"83 other charges" in lead section

I'm concerned about a recent edit to the lead section of this article. Last week it said this:

He was reprimanded in January 1997 by the House of Representatives for making inaccurate statements to a House investigation of his alleged misuse of tax-exempt donations.

Someone has changed it so now it says this:

He was reprimanded in January 1997 by the House of Representatives for making inaccurate statements to a four year House investigation of his alleged misuse of tax-exempt donations and 83 other charges, which were dropped.

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)

I will revert it for the reason that it's ambiguous and misleading, as stated by JoeD. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at the January 1997 Committee report (bottom of page 1) shows the Preliminary Inquiry began in December 1995, so I changed "four year" to "fourteen-month" investigation. Another good reason for not mentioning the 84 charges in the lead is that practically all of them (the Washington Post says all of them) were brought by Democrats. In other words, they were politically motivated payback for what happened to Jim Wright and the evenly bi-partisan Ethics Committee dropped them. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo, it is not for you to remove information about the charges were "politically motivated payback" for what you call "Jim Wright and the evenly bi-partisan Ethics Committee". Your partisanship is beyond obvious, and you are basing your content edits on your personal and political beliefs. I reiterate my earlier request for an editor to lock this page and restore improperly deleted material. Black Max (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Black Max

Requests for page protection don't belong here, they belong on WP:RFPP. —Eustress ^talk 00:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yo, Max! Politically motivated ethics charges made to the House Ethics Committee are a "dog bites man" story—they're not news. The details of how many charges there were are still in the body of the article. Being a supporter of Speaker Gingrich doesn't prevent me from editing anywhere. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newt_Gingrich&diff=prev&oldid=65172637 – Max, your comment about "beyond obvious partisanship" could be applied to you as well. WP:Boomerang. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mass reversions and edits

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

Here's why the bullshit went away. I suggest you and everyone esle read the header on this page. If you are not here to discuss how to improve the article, go away. Get off this talk page. That goes for Kenatipo and Joedesantis and anyone else using this talk page as a political forum/blog. THIS IS NOT A BLOG! THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL FORUM! We wikipedians, as you'll be able to call yourself once you've earn the spurs and the hat to claim the title (registering would be a good place to start), have the right and perhaps obligation to remove blogging and other bullshit off talk pages. That's why the junk has been removed. By the way, I'll do it again if I see it. I mean it.

I agree with you that the article should be locked down. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Max, if you want to see who's been editing the article, go to the top of the article page and just to the left of the Search box (in the top right corner), you should see something that says "View History" or a small black down arrow. If you put your cursor on the little black arrow, you should get a drop-down menu that includes "History". Selecting it will show you who has been editing the article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not unbelievable that pro-gringrich editors would take their direction from Joe's postings.......Mattnad (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And there are more insideous methods that render the search for a particular editor's moniker ineffective: Sockpuppets are never easy to spot. I've observed three types: the first type is one editor using many (quasi-anonymous) IP addresses, the second type is one user alternating between various wikipedia monikers and IP addresses, the third type is one or more minions acting as "puppets", i.e. multiple true individuals using either wikipedia monikers or more typically, anonymous IP addresses. In all three cases the intent is to deceive and to overwhelm an article or a talk page, i.e. to multiply one's apparent strength by means of "avatars". If such behavior is caught the offenders can be banned temporarily or permanently, and/or the page can be locked down in various ways. BillWvbailey (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What is unbelievable is that we have editors who've been around since 2006 but still have no conception of what a BLP should look like or how it is even possible for partisans to edit in an NPOV manner. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethics investigation

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:

Following the sanction hearing, the Select Committee ordered a report to the House, by a roll call vote of 7-1, recommending that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and ordered to reimburse the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000.

At least one Washington Post story from the time, a current source in the section, states:

The hefty sanction imposed on Gingrich was described as a "cost assessment" and not a fine, and designed to reimburse the committee for prolonging the investigation.

Rep. Steven Schiff explained at the time it was not a fine because Newt did not personally benefit:

The reason we used the term cost assessment is to emphasize how we came to the conclusion to invoke it. As Mr. Cole [the Special Counsel for the Investigative Subcommittee] said, we thought of a fine as a penalty to deprive somebody of a personal gain. But Mr. Gingrich never gained personally from this effort. I'm sure in fact it cost him in terms of time and effort.

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 committee distinguished the payment as a "cost assessment" rather than a "fine" because Gingrich never gained personally from the effort.

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 believe I have addressed the issues raised. Regards —Eustress ^talk 04:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sheldon Adelson

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)

These contributions by American citizens in support of Gingrich's presidential campaign are appropriately covered in the Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012 article. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong date in main image caption

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)

I think it's the 2011 on the file page that's incorrect, so I changed it in the one place I could. I'll ask Gage just to make sure. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A review of the edit history shows it was the photog himself that changed the caption to 2012. (The year is still incorrect in the comment box of the file history section of the jpg file at Commons. [4] --Kenatipo2 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

CNN article on Joe DeSantis' Wikipedia edits

"Gingrich spokesman defends Wikipedia edits" — goethean ॐ 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the article and probably won't read the article, but, why should Joe D defend anything when he hasn't done anything wrong? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For your further amazement, I will be voting for Speaker Gingrich when the Republican primary is held here in the Old Dominion in about a month (if I can figure out how to do a write-in on an electronic voting machine). --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And, if I'm allowed to vote for "any two candidates", I'll write in Gingrich and Santorum! (lol). --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:29, 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)

Right on, Jimbo! Everything I've seen Joe DeSantis do here has been open, above-board and by the rules. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:57, 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)

Enough, Joe

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)

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Joedesantis&page=Newt_Gingrich&server=enwiki – Joedesantis hasn't made any revisions to the article since 2010. There isn't any point in barring him from something he already voluntarily barred himself from doing years ago. Don't let the media transform this discussion page into the staging grounds for a lynch mob. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:26, 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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Joedesantis&namespace=0 – He has only make 56 revisions to the article namespace, and only four of them were made in 2011. I'm not sure where the "over 60" came from. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that the entire article? No mention of Jimbo Wales citing Joe DeSantis as a model of how to avoid COI charges? Where's the rest of the story, CNN? (and how come I'm not mentioned as one of Joe's aiders and abettors?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it your point then that Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia, but is instead a political football? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.208.1.12 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that CNN's understanding of how Wikipedia works is not very good. Also, the longer article doesn't mention Jimbo Wales's thank you to Joe D on Joe D's talk page, and, that Joe D has not made an edit to an article since June 2011 is not given the prominence it deserves. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I dove into this issue deeply, investigating all the links in the CNN article, the links provided here, the edit history, etc. for a blog post. As a paid editor myself, the CNN article has been forwarded to me a few times already, and I was expecting yet another rendition of the same old dance number. As it turned out, my blog post will be titled "Everything CNN got Wrong about Newt Gingrich's Wikipedia Polishing," and is a blow by blow listing of all the errors, misleading statements and misinterpretations. It seems it was a slow news day at CNN, because they basically made up a story where there was none. The troubling part is someone asked me "what can we do to avoid an incident like this?" and the only truthful answer is to make the same covert, unethical edits that results in a similar media frenzy. The whole thing is just very disappointing. King4057 (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if your blog entry were to contain information about what Joedesantis did wrong, especially about the repeated removal of "third wife": [5], [6], [7]. The CNN article focused on revisions that were mostly harmless for some odd reason. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I also added the clarification you left on my Talk page about the barnstar award. Thanks for your diligence. King4057 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Time Man of the Year

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)

Like it says in the ref, the quote is from the caption under the photo in the top left corner of the NPR article. Is that not acceptable? --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. My mistake. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this discussion, but I just want to let it be known that I have absolutely no memory of making the edits that I apparently made that reverted Buster's comments. I must have clicked on the rollback button by mistake. My apologies. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done that. I know I've caught some; I wonder about ones I did not catch. Not a real problem, but I was a bit confused as to whether I was missing something, since it seemed inconsistent with your edit history. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Can social media predict elections?

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)

As a perhaps unrelated observation, YouTube videos of spectacular trainwrecks tend to be more viewed than videos of trains chugging steadily toward their destination. That doesn't mean most people want to be in a trainwreck, only that they exercise a perverse sort of fascination. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The Twitter follower (Twit?) count is probably bogus [9]. So the answer to the question is likely "no". Writegeist (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC) And as a guiding principal it's risky to trust any statistics or information that can be manipulated by a propaganda campaign playing for such high stakes. Writegeist (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Misleading information in presidential campaign

{{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:

"He was expected to win some other conservative rich states such as Tennessee, but an upset by Rick Santorum proved to be the case."

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:

"Gingrich had expected to take his native state of Georgia and earlier performed strongly in Tennessee and Oklahoma before losing out to Santorum."

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)

Done. Better reflects the Daily Mail article.Mattnad (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Over-expansion of presidential campaign section?

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)

The "Presidential campaign, 2012" section has become longer than it should be and I agree with the idea of reducing this section's length. I think that to provide an overview of the campaign it would be most helpful to readers if there was a summary of events according to Writegeist's suggestion. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So two of us think this would be an improvement; anyone else have anything to add? Writegeist (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I suggest that if nobody has lodged an objection by this time tomorrow the 22nd, the article's detailed results should be removed and replaced by a summary. Writegeist (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the replacement, ```Buster Seven Talk 01:42, 22 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)

Results for Gingrich in the primaries

For detailed results see main article:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012

States – first place	States – second place	States – third place
2Georgia, South Carolina	4 Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Nevada	6 Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee

Proposed edits about career information

{{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:

• Newt's membership in the Council on Foreign Relations is included in the article's introduction, however many other organizations he is a member of or involved with are not. As this is just one of many organizations that Newt is a member of, I do not believe that it specifically warrants mention in the introduction. I would like to suggest that the sentence be moved into the "Policy" section, where his other affiliations are mentioned. I also wonder if the "Council on Foreign Relations" category at the bottom of the page is necessary.

• In the "Other legislation" section, there is a biased sentence regarding the closure of the Office of Technology Assessment:

Gingrich shut down the highly regarded Office of Technology Assessment, and relied instead on what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists called "self-interested lobbyists and think tanks".

The sentence suggests that Newt made the decision to close the office, however the source states that the office was dismantled by Congress when he was the Speaker. A Washington Post article and an article from the L.A. Times from 1995 explain that there was a House vote to close the office as part of an appropriations bill. What's more, "highly regarded" seems POV and unnecessary.

Also, the quote from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is taken out of context, implying that the bulletin was referring specifically to Newt, however the quote refers to all members of Congress:

“most troubling of all is that absent a neutral arbiter of scientific facts, some members of Congress now surround themselves with their own handpicked ‘experts’ and allow the scientific consensus on vital issues to be defined by self-interested lobbyists and think tanks.”

To remove the bias presented by this sentence, I believe more context is needed or the sentence should be removed.

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)

1)...I am neutral as to where to mention the Council on For. Rel. 2)... Newt, as Speaker, initiated closing the Tech Office, while it was Congress that implemented the closure. As speaker he was too busy to take the time to be directly involved in everything. However, if reconstructed, the sentence should still notify the reader of his initially motivating the closure. I would support adding explanations over removing the sentence. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinvced that Gingrich's PR man is interested in NPOV here. Gingrich's lobbying career is well-documented so the criticism is appropriate. El duderino (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Had Newt been out, we would have beat Romney (in Wisconsin)"/Santorum

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)

Proposed edits to "Personal life"

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.

• In the "Marriages and children" section, the following sentences are included but are unsourced (the L.A. Times article cited only supports Marianne's co-authorship of "Window of Opportunity") and read as editorial comments on Newt's marriage to Marianne. I would like to ask for their removal:

The marriage was a difficult one with several separations. Marianne helped control their finances to get them out of debt.

• In the same section, the age difference between Newt and Marianne is mentioned. This information is gossipy and not a relevant detail for any encyclopedic biography, and I would ask that other editors consider removing it:

In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left his wife after beginning an affair with Marianne Ginther, who was nine years his junior.

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)

These requests are about shaping Newts image rather than issue of accuracy. Note that nowhere does De Santis say the facts as presented are inaccurate. So I'd ask, is the content the first bullet untrue? Did they separate? Did Marianne help control his finances. You're the expert, and I'd like to get you on the record. Is it accurate or not. As for the second bullet, "9 years his junior" is a fact and hardly gossip with given a small spread in age between a man a woman. For the record, is it accurate or not? If these facts are accurate, and do not violate NPOV, there are no grounds for removal. Mattnad (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mattnad, yes my point is that these are NPOV issues. As I wrote above, these seem like editorial comments not suitable for an encyclopedic treatment of Newt's life. There also is no source given to characterize Newt and Marianne's marriage as "difficult" so there is a verifiability problem with at least this passage as well. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich's daughters have described both the marriage and the divorce as "difficult": [10], [11]. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

JDS thank you for noting the absence of a cite for characterizing the marriage as "difficult". I have sourced it to an LAT article that quotes NG daughter Kathy Lubbers using that description. Writegeist (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the edits to the personal life section (the ones that worry JDS) are factual, neutral, and now verified I oppose changing them in any way. I might also add that the on-going discussion regarding paid editing at Wikipedia should be made aware of this request and repair. As Editor Mattnad comments point out, was the request made to remove embarassment or to improve accuracy? Had the proxies not been sleeping on the job, these changes would have been made. Had concerned editors not been watchlisting, the reader would have been deprived of honest, verified, mathematically correct facts. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle you are aligned to. Attempts to whitewash, to PhotoShop, this and ALL future articles pertinent to political candidates (from dog-catcher to President of the US) threaten Wikipedia's standing as an Encyclopedia. Kudos for not falling into step with the party line. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Some folks think the National Enquirer is literature. That side of the aisle is well represented here. They wouldn't know a real encyclopedia article if it jumped up and bit them on their fat, tasteless asses. Amen, amen, I say to you: preserve bacteria—it's the only culture some people have. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not the ideal place for personal reminiscences about the size and taste of National Enquirer readers' bottoms. If you can find reliable sources to substitute for your WP:OR you could try inserting them here. - Writegeist (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd preserve my bacteria! --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't think I underestimate your bacteria's importance to you. Writegeist (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If there isn't consensus to make these changes I've requested, that's fair enough, I'll respect that. I'm afraid this discussion has overshadowed my similar questions about Newt's career in the section above. Would anyone here care to consider those? Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 22:43, 29 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)

We don't point out the marriage earlier in the piece where there was a seven year difference in ages (the other way). I would say to remove that portion of the line. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Are the responses to the requested edits satisfactory to the requester? This edit request should be closed if the responses are satisfactory, or if the requester does not respond after a reasonable period of time. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not stepping on anyone's toes - I've been closing out some completed, but left open, request edits. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Military service?

Resolved

Which branch of the military did Gingrich serve in, and for how long? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see Newt_Gingrich#Early_life.2C_family.2C_and_education. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101104123709/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9vi9Kss8Yw&feature=related to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9vi9Kss8Yw&feature=related
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120205190909/http://www.therepublic.com:80/view/story/religion-politics120811/religion-politics120811 to http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/religion-politics120811/religion-politics120811/

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).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

paid attempts to improve his article

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)

BBC Item

• "Nice attack: Gingrich wants 'Sharia test' for US Muslims". BBC News. 2016-07-16. Retrieved 2016-07-16. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• BBC/Fox News/the video count as RS, but this would be venturing into severe WP:UNDUE territory. While Donald Trump has made his position on immigration a huge part of his campaign, Gingrich has not. This is a flash in the pan of a decades-long career in politics. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Novel "Treason"

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)

Gingrich on science

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)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/south-carolina-primary-newt-gingrich-defeat-mitt-romney/story?id=15411865
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-us-newt-gingrich-2012%2C0%2C624356.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/66441538.html?dids=66441538%3A66441538&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS%3AFT&type=current&date=Apr%2026%2C%201989&author=SARA%20FRITZ&pub=Los%20Angeles%20Times%20%28pre-1997%20Fulltext%29&desc=Made%20Money%20From%20Book%2C%20Gingrich%20Says&pqatl=google
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126154015/http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/H6GA06033 to http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/H6GA06033
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309005029/http://www.aei.org/scholar/20 to http://www.aei.org/scholar/20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090411074732/http://www.hoover.org/bios/gingrich.html to http://www.hoover.org/bios/gingrich.html

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).

• 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) 07:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper graphic

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103100614/http://www3.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/1996/0205taxes_gale/19960205.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/1996/0205taxes_gale/19960205.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/22/newt-gingrich-still-running-for-president-in-2012.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://iowaindependent.com/58359/troubles-aside-gingrich-shows-confidence-in-campaign
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119193342/http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Newt%20Gingrich to http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Newt%20Gingrich

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).

• 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) 00:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701063758/http://www.library.gsu.edu/spcoll/pages/pages.asp?ldID=105&guideID=551&ID=4133 to http://www.library.gsu.edu/spcoll/pages/pages.asp?ldID=105&guideID=551&ID=4133
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/12/16/v-print/2853325/gingrichs-old-habits-die-hard.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231085942/http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/06/starving-obamacare/print to http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/06/starving-obamacare/print
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321135854/http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-no-regret-supporting-medicare-p to http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-no-regret-supporting-medicare-p
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219201542/http://www.salemstate.edu/11616.php to http://www.salemstate.edu/11616.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127085611/http://gingrichproductions.com/aboutus.html to http://www.gingrichproductions.com/aboutus.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LV1JSD6K50YD01-3AAFC4U13OJKS56R4Q4KOVLVDN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122025439/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8900367-gingrich-distances-self-from-freddie-mac to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8900367-gingrich-distances-self-from-freddie-mac
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114125709/http://celebrityleaders.com/AboutUs.shtml to http://celebrityleaders.com/AboutUs.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100421135851/http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/10/newt-in-2012-yeah-but-which-party-dude.html to http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/10/newt-in-2012-yeah-but-which-party-dude.html

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).

• 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) 00:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111115140829/http://booknotes.org/Watch/66038-1/Newt+Gingrich.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/66038-1/Newt+Gingrich.aspx

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).

• 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) 23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What is a strong immigration border policy?

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)