Talk:Newt Gingrich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Template:Bewt Gingriches Military Brat Childhood

[edit] Biography"

This biography glosses over Gingriches Military Childhood-- And misses something very important in the process.

This article glosses over and therefore misses a richley different aspect of Gingriches upbringing. Like about 10 million Americans, Newt was a military brat (child of a career military family)-- this was a very different way of growing up with unique challenges and benefits. The article implies that somehow Newt is from Pennsilvania which reveals the common tendency to misunderstand a military childhood-- in fact, Gingrich grew up on a series of military bases in a number of places. Military brats face unique challenges-- moving constantly throughout ones childhood, constantly having to say goodbye to friends, the strictness of life on military bases and in nearby military dominated towns--

But also military brats tend to have unique skills, which this article also needs to expand upon-- a knack for quickly developing relationships with people-- a resulting social intelligence or aptitude and-- broad and often culturally flexible world view; and also a military aptitude for strategy, leadership and even 'Generalship'.

A more accurate study of Newt's life would reveal that such an upbringing may have much to do with the original foundations of his genius for political strategy as one of the masterminds and 'Generals' of the Republican revolution of the early ninties.

Expanding on the military dimension of Gingriches childhood-- and what it means to be an American military child, is needed in order to make this a truely representative article.

Sincerely,

Sean7phil 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much objectivety one can claim after having used the word genious. I'm sorry but I think your'e a fanboi of Newts. Clearly not wikipedia material, regarding this article. 213.141.89.20 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are revealing your own biases more than mine. Acknowledging his genius for political strategy is a seperate issue from whether oone agrees with his politics. He is widely acknowledged by both the Right and Left wings of the media as having masterminded the 'Republican Revolution' of the early ninties-- (where the Republican party seized Congress for the first time in 40 some years). That was no small political feat and is widely credited to Gingriches political acumen for strategy and his ability to train dozens of challenging Republican Congressman in the art of political campaigning. He is widely credited for helping the Republican Party seize control of Congress at that time (and for the first time in forty years).

Yes he certainly is a brilliant poltical tactitian regardless of whether you like his politics or not (and if you don't like him, it is foolish to ignore his prowess-- never underestimate the skills of the 'other camp').

72.16.201.2

Newt Gingrich is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.

[edit] POV of "Post-speakership career"

Well, it just seems to me that the end of the bio was pretty much irrelevent. While it certainly describes recent events in the post political life of Gingrich, I believe we need to keep Bios in perspective and not add every thing that a person does (in this case it seems the motives are to disparage GWB, with the majority of the ending comments being decidedly critical.) There certainly seem to be many actions of Gingrich left out at this point, and I see no relevence to including these select actions. Please let me know if you mind my editing of this section. -bro 05:13, 19 January 2004 (UTC)

————

Kind of a tough call. It's nice to have some indication he hasn't dropped off the face of the earth, and it's interesting that Gingrich and Bush don't see eye to eye. Whether this will be historically important, who knows. I certainly agree that we don't need to track every time he flushes a toilet, but maybe the answer is to make sure the POV stays reasonably neutral and flesh out the rest of the biography rather than to discard it wholesale. Just my 2 cents. Of course, you're free to do whatever you think will improve the entry. -Dave Farquhar 19:50, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

————

don't know what people think about the "views on Iraq" part of the article- it was in there when I first started reading this article, but I don't really think it's especially relevant to his bio. I also think it was meant to suggest Gingrich is a critic of the Bush Administration, which, while technically true, in context should be represented as "a critic of the Bush Administration who strongly preferred it to the alternatives." If anyone wants to weigh in on this, I'd appreciate a different viewpoint.

Kaisershatner 16:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

————

His views on Iraq seem pretty tangential to his biography. However, it's just 2 sentences, and may be notable because he was the most prominent Republican to break ranks early with the party over Iraq. Wolfman 17:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes source?

Umm....call me picky, but shouldn't we have maybe a source or two for the quotes? I recognize a few certainly as being legitimately from Gingrich, but I'd like to see the sources for the ones I haven't heard. Can the people who worked on this article provide this? If not, they should be deleted. --Xinoph 04:09, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Silly quotes source

I removed the sentence about his serving his 1st wife divorce papers because the source was a satirical newspaper, captionned, "Tomorrow's News Today." It also said he declared his candidacy for the Presidnet in 2007, had married Calista Flockhart ("Allie McBeal"), divorced her, and married "Perky McBoobs."

I'm not sure I oppose reporting the event, even though it was mere gossip; it was widely believed at the time and the spreading of that rumor effected his life story. I am quite sure, however, Wikipedia doesn't want to link to a spoof as being a source. So if anyone has a credible source, even noting that it's a rumor, go ahead and post it.

[edit] family life

What's the family life of this guy? Is he married, divorced? How many kids does he have? 68.23.224.34 21:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

————

Didn't he get his wife to sign the divorce papers while she was coming out of the anesthetic after cancer surgery? DS 21:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

————

You don't know about his family life?? It's one of the funniest things about him. He won his original election by smearing his opponent as a women who would leave her family to go to Washington if she won, then he won and tried to divorce his wife laying in the hospital for cancer before he went to Washington. The guy is so hypocritical it is truly entertaining. He repeatedly and viciously attacked Bill Clinton for having sex with an intern, while it was open knowledge about the Republican leaders that Gingrich had long been having sex with a much younger staffer. Way back on college, Gingrich had one girl only give him blowjobs so he could say "I never slept with that woman" -- sound familiar :) :) Gingrich is so hypocritical he is a monumental entertainer. He attacked a Democrat for getting too much money for a book deal, after he himself had gotten even more.

--John smith2 20:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The comments right above mine about are unsubstantiated and should be removed. Anybody can say (or believe) anything about anyone else and that by itself does not make it true.

This guy (above) makes claims but provides no supporting evidence.

He signs his name 'John Smith' perhaps his name is John Smith, or perhaps he is a coward who tries to smear others while hiding his true identity.

-Phil Murray

71.218.98.132 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Phillie You mean unsubstatiated comments like *He signs his name 'John Smith' perhaps his name is John Smith, or perhaps he is a coward who tries to smear others while hiding his true identity.* Thoose kind of unsubstantiated comments? Suck on theese sources jerk.

"Newt Plays House With New Squeeze," by Timothy Burger and Owen Moritz, NY Daily News, August 12, 1999

"Newt's Fooling Around With His Girl On the Hill," by Andy Soltis, New York Post, August 12, 1999

"The Big One That Got Away," by David Corn, Salon Website, August 12, 1998

adulterous choir practice: "Personals", by Leah Garchik, San Francisco Chronicle, August 17, 1999 pE12

"Gingrich Won't Answer Woman's Adultery Story," Missoula (Montana) Missoulian, August 16, 1995page 1

"Tales About Gingrich make field level", Idaho Spokesman Review, August 16, 1995 pB6

"Gingrich Aided Export Firm That Employed His Wife", NY Times News Service, San Francisco Chronicle, February 7, 1995 pA7

"Gingrich, Critic of 'Business as Usual,' Helps Out Special Interests Like 'Any Member of Congress'", Phil Kuntz, Wall Street Journal, April 3, 1995 pA16

"Gingrich's political education", Jeff Gerth and Stephen Labaton (NY Times News Service), San Francisco Examiner, February 12, 1995 pA6

"IRS clears Gingrich donation that led to his House censure", Capitol Hill Blue Website, February 4, 1999

Ethics Committee Drops Last of 84 Charges Against Gingrich ,By Curt Anderson (Associated Press), Washington Post, October 11, 1998, Page A13

"Use of Tax-Exempt Groups Integral to Political Strategy", by Charles R. Babcock, Washington Post, January 7, 1997, Page A01

"Jump-Start: How Speaker Gingrich Grabbed Power and Attention So Quickly", Wall Street Journal, January 19, 1995 pA1

"The Inner Quest of Newt Gingrich", Gail Sheehy, Vanity Fair, September 1995 p147 "Gingrich, Murdoch reveal lobbyist's role at meeting", Katharine Seelye (NY Times News Service), San Francisco Examiner, pA1 "Murdoch, Gingrich Admit They Talked", San Francisco Chronicle, January 13, 1995

"The Mysterious Mrs. Newt", Martin Fletcher (London Times News Service), SF Examiner, January 15, 1995 pA4 "Newt's Near Misses", Ron Curran, The Bay Guardian, January 11, 1995 p10

"Newt, Inc.", Dennis Bernstein, Bay Guardian, February 1, 1995 p19

213.141.89.20 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

On the "serving his wife divorce papers in the hospital" issue - they separated before she was diagnosed. While she was in the hospital recovering from an operation, he tried to discuss the terms of a possible divorce with her. The record is unanimous that he never "gave" or "served" any legal process on her while she was hospitalized. There is an October 22, 1992 story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about this, which quotes a 1985 WaPo article. I don't think there are any free links available to these stories, but I will try to find them when I get the time. Ellsworth 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article says that Candace Gingrich is his sister; the article on Candace says that she is is half-sister. I don't have the answer. Anyone? --Redheaded dude 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported paragraph

This paragraph is not supported: "Gingrich became an icon in the Republican Party and was respected, if not beloved, by elements of U.S. conservatism. However, his opponents, even some within the Republican Party, characterized him as mean-spirited." Who exactly called him mean-spirited? Which elements loved him? Who respected him? I think this should be removed unless someone wants to provide specifics; as written it seems editorial, not factual.

-- 67.180.24.204 01:33, 30 July 2004 (UTC)

————

I wrote that paragraph. Who loved or at least respected him is easy. Most of the people who signed the "Contract With America" at least respected him. Conservative newspapers like the Washington Times held him right up there with Ronald Reagan. Rush Limbaugh certainly thought very highly of him. I don't listen to G. Gordon Liddy and never did, so I can't tell you what he thought of him, but it would be uncharacteristic of him not to hold Gingrich in high esteem.

The more moderate elements were less enamored with him. Now did David Gergen or John McCain specifically call Gingrich mean-spirited? Good question. I don't have either of their complete works on CD-ROM to search. Did some Republicans feel that way? Certainly they did. I know because I am a Republican and I was one during Gingrich's heyday. You better believe I remember conversations with non-card-carrying Republicans--dunno what you'd call them, they consistently vote Republican but they don't put bumper stickers on their car and may not bother to vote in the primaries. These people almost universally didn't like him. "I don't like Newt," they'd say. "Why not?" I'd ask. They'd think about it for a minute. "I dunno. He's mean, I guess."

It's safe to say the conservative elements at least respected him because of his accomplishments, even if they didn't like him as a person. To others on the right-hand fringes of the party, he was a hero. Moderate Republicans and most Democrats characterized him as mean spirited. I'm sure Hillary Clinton had some choice words about him after Connie Chung interviewed his mother. (Is that incident in the story?)

If you want to rework it, that's fine, but I think the article loses an awful lot if we don't mention the way he polarized U.S. politics and even, to a degree, his own party. Would you print a George W. Bush biography without mentioning the controversy around him? Without the controversy, I really don't see why Gingrich warrants an entry. --Dave Farquhar 05:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Impeachment

Hi- nice article, but I think it's clear your POV is not that of a Republican supporter ;) Of course, the article shouldn't have that POV either, so I hope some of my changes are more neutral. There were objective actions of the Gingrich Congress that were not mentioned and I added these (they are facts) and this para, "For the next four years, the Congress under Gingrich's leadership took aim at the embattled president, investigating various scandals and calling for impeachment." is a subjective summary of what the Congress did. While investigation by the OIC and Starr did occur then, it's clearly prejudicial to have that statement be the only discussion of the Gingrich Congress' activities. User: Kaisershatner

————

Kaiershatner, you are right that paragraph alone is not a reasonable summary of Gingrich's tenure. However, you have corrected that by filling in the details of the Contract, etc. But, you cut the paragraph about the investigations and calls for impeachment. That is also an important part of the story. It should be written NPOV. But merely saying that impeachment was a notable event that happened during Gingrich's story omits the important and relevant fact that Gingrich was a driving force behind the impeachment So, for the moment I am going to restore that one paragraph. If you feel that the phrasing is POV, I have no objection to edits. However, it should not imply that impeachment was just a notable event during Gingrich's tenure because that omits his fundamental role in the whole chain of events.Wolfman 15:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

————

Wolfman, I agree with your comments, thanks for your input. User: Kaisershatner

————

I agree that Gingrich's role, as viciously condemnatory of Clinton for getting sexual favors from staff, is notable, especially as Gingrich was well-known to be getting sexual favors from staff (in fact, he later dumped his wife to marry a young staffer whom he said he had been screwing while he was condemning Clinton). I think this is not only entertaining, but pivotal in judging his character.

--John smith2 21:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

————

John smith2 - former Gingrich staffers (e.g. Blankley, KCRW's 'Left Right and Center' 2006-07-21) maintain that Gingrich was aware of the potential for hypocrisy and was as such careful to only rail against the obstruction of justice charges and never the sexual morality issues. This claim could easily be falsified with some choice quotes, of course, and if found should probably be added to the article to illustrate the alleged hypocrisy, should it be found to exist. BillMcGonigle 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More details on political career?

Can someone provide more precise details of his political career? What state was he a representative for? Which district?

Jonathan Cano: Fri Aug 13 18:58:08 UTC 2004

————

Added it.User: Kaisershatner

————

Thanks! It is not clear what seat he was running for in the two elections he lost. I assume it was the seat he eventually won but it would be nice to clarify this point explicitly

Funkyj 19:32, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

————

Clarified! Kaisershatner 16:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

————

Done for his GA 6th fails in '74 and '76.

-Don 14:10, 29 January 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Govt shutdown?

--what about the govt shutdown? huge event... not mentioned

-Ryan 03:40, 6 March 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resignation

Although Newt Gingrich announced his resignation on November 6, 1998, he did serve out the 105th Congress. Please witness the following excerpt from page H2 of the Congressional Record for the 106th Congress:

WASHINGTON, DC, December 17, 1998.

Hon. ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk of the House, the Capitol, Washington, D.C.

DEAR ROBIN: As you are no doubt aware, I have decided that I will not seek re-election in the 106th Congress as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. In conjunction with that decision, I have notified the Governor of Georgia that I have withdrawn pursuant to Section 21-2-503 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated and will not take the seat of congressman for the Sixth District of Georgia for the 106th Congress.

I will, however, complete my term as congressman for the Sixth District of Georgia for the entirety of the 105th Congress. I will also continue to serve as Speaker until the completion of the 105th Congress.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Newt Gingrich,

Speaker.

Therefore, neither Newt Gingrich's terms as speaker or as representative ended until noon on January 3, 1999.

— DLJessup 04:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Gingrich bias

This article is too biased towards newt Gingrich don't you think, I mean what about all the bad things that newt Gingrich did like using NAFTA to outsource american jobs and forcing nintendo to censor Pokemon. -- anon. guest 15:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I heard on the news a few years ago that Newt left his 2nd or 3rd wife for a much younger woman - one of his staff. And, that his relationship with this woman was ongoing during the impeachment proceedings against Presidnet Clinton. (Either his wife didn't know or was an extremely loyal conservative ideologue.) Anyway, if this timeline is true, Newt wins the "Blue Ribbon" for the best example of a hypocritical politician. I know you strive for an unbiased POV. But the contrasts of his less than monogamous personnel life against the impeachment of the president for much the same thing is striking. So much so that I think something about it should be added to his bio. — 4.36.244.4 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Many would see NAFTA is good thing not a bad, and wiki is not in the business of printing rumors such as "Newt left his 2nd or 3rd wife for a much younger woman". Please provide some facts and cut out your POV. --ViperDaimao64.154.26.251 16:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a novice I-net user - I don't know how to cut and past web links. Anyway about Gingrich's numerous affairs, etc. You can simply go to Yahoo, type in Gringrich Affair, and several links will appear to media sources about Newt's sexual hypocracy. Some of these are links: Robert Sheer - LA Times, Vanity Fair, and Salon.com They all confirm that Newt divorced his 2nd wife for a women 23 years younger than himself. And, it widely assumed that he was F***** this woman during the Impeachment Proceedings against President Clinton. I agree that Wikepedia needs strive for balance, but when someone like Newt aligns himself with the Christain Coalition and tries to take down the President for having an affair, while Newt himself is doing much the same thing - I don't think that's irrelevant.

I haven't read the Wikepedia entry for Bill Clinton (I'll do that next), but I seriously doubt Wikipedia glosses over his affair and the Republican "justification" for trying to impeach him. — 24.24.227.102 00:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Those aren't rumors--they are facts. He left his first wife, Jackie, for the second wife, Marianne, and years later he left Marianne, who hated Washington and was rarely there, for wife number three. Why does the author of the article leave out the fact he was married three times and has two grown daughters?--Susan Nunes 04:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article tends to have a pro-Gingrich bias, although not for the same reasons as the above writer. Gingrich was a somewhat controversial figure in American politics in the late nineties from what I can remember, and this article seems to present him as a flawless statesman. Aside from being POV and potentially inaccurate, this kind of presentation makes the article confusing. Gingrich was investigated on several ethics charges, according to the article. What were they? Why were they brought about? If they were all found to be baseless, why on earth did he have to step down as speaker?

I only had time to verify the adultery allegations during the Lewinksy scandal, but it looks like this article should be cleaned up a bit. Most importantly, it leaves out the reasons for his retirement from the center stage of American politics, which a bit of Google searching seems to indicate was his extramarital affair. Czyl 05:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A bit of Google searching seems to also indicate that the Catholic Church and Proctor and Gamble are run by Satan. I'd say the rumours about Gingrich's affairs are true, but I'd like to see a somewhat better source for them.12.150.117.30 00:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article is accurate when it states that the poor showing of the Republicans in the 1998 midterm elections were the proximate cause of his departure. It might be more accurate to say that this was the straw that broke the camel's back. As you will note from the article, there was an attempted coup in early 1998, and I think this actually occurred before the Lewinski scandal broke. The Clinton White House had successfully demonized Gingrich and were tying him to every Republican candidate in attempts to defeat them. A number of election ads in 1996 featured Dole and Gingrich, as if Gingrich were Dole's running mate. It was felt that Gingrich had become an albatross about the Republican's necks, and slowly they were turning against him.

The affairs did hurt, but only insofar as they reinforced Gingrich's unsavory image. The airplane "snub" and the budget standoff probably hurt Gingrich more.

— DLJessup (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up - it sounds like you're right. My bigger concerns with the article are that while people seem to consider Gingrich a controversial figure, it's really not clear from reading the article why this is the case, which suggests that something has been left out or rendered in a pro-Gingrich POV. From what I know right now by reading the article, he wrote the Contract for America, led Congressional attacks against Clinton, was investigated on many ethics charges that were ultimately dropped, and had an affair while in office. But that could read as a standard description of any politician in the 90s. The article doesn't really tell me why he's considered controversial or that he was a divisive and polarizing figure in American politics.

You cite the budget standoff and an airplane "snub" as reasons for Gingrich having an unsavory image. I don't know enough about these events to add them myself, but is there a good reason they aren't in this article? Czyl

Seems like there's enough discussion from what was written on the talk page (and never corrected in the article) to indicate a non-NPOV point of view, but I would appreciate a second opinion by someone knowledgable on the guy who's never read the page. Czyl

I think one of major contributions was the broad use of slime and lies, and his articles on how to subvert language in order to defame opponents. He surely didn't invent the tactic, but he nearly perfected it, and achieved the entertaining notoriety of being famous for accusing others of misdeeds at the same time that he was committing the same misdeeds himself. This is kind of the ground-breaking for the Karl Rove hate and defamation politics which has proved so successful.

--John smith2 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Referring to 'outsourcing' as a 'bad thing' is purely subjective

I believe, for one, that this article has a anti-Gingrich feel. I have edited it anonymously recently and have noticed glaring structural errors that makes one feel as if this article isn't 'loved' by anyone. This shouldn't be a matter of tearing the man down or political character assasination via encyclopedia. Gingrich, I know for one, is not the pariah he is made out to be. He is still very well respected by certain segments (most) of the Republican Party. The reason he even has a chance at being POTUS is the fact that he is one of the smartest and most capable political minds of the last quarter century, and he will be remembered by the history books as bringing about a sea change in American politics. He deserves more than pithy comments about his personal life and ethical misgivings, even if by all accounts he appears to be a hypocrite.

And, BTW, a broad concensus in the U.S. has gathered around free-trade and NAFTA.

--AsianOats 08:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Change it to 'bad thing for the american working class' and it becomes a fact. Subjective items can still be facts.

213.141.89.20 18:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed my above comment seemed a little pithy itself without references, so for all the non-believers in NAFTA and free trade: David Ricardo, comparative advantage, Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, and, an article from Paul Krugman of MIT and the NY Times: RICARDO'S DIFFICULT IDEA [1]

--AsianOats 08:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proper referencing

Per Wikipedia:Cite sources, we should have a separate references section, not cram our sources in with external links. Johnleemk | Talk 11:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Newt2008.jpg

I am removing this recently inserted image from the text. There are two possibilities:

the image is of a logo that is genuinely associated with some organization to draft Gingrich for the presidential election of 2008
the image is the creation of OEight

In the latter case, it clearly violates Wikipedia policy against original research. In the former case, we need to know which organization that the logo is associated with, and OEight needs to change the copyright notice on the image from a license grant to fair use.

— DLJessup (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's most glaring shortcoming

--This page vividly points up Wikipedia's most glaring shortcoming--the way political bios are used as weapons in ongoing ideological battles. Surely there is a better solution than the status quo.

Perhaps two separate bio entries, clearly marked "pro" and "con"?

-ChulaOne 15:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

--This page vividly points up Wikipedia's most glaring shortcoming: the way political bios are used as weapons by partisans in ongoing ideological battles.

Surely there is a better solution than a status quo which parades slander and innuendo as fact in a carnival of misinformation. HELLO ... anyone awake at the controls?

-- ChulaOne edit of first post, 01:08, 2 December 2005

I'm sorely tempted to write, "Nope, nobody here but us chickens," and sign off, because I have a really bad sense of humor.

Let me give you my theory about why your original post didn't get any response. First of all, your original post offers only one actionable item: "Perhaps two separate bio entries, clearly marked 'pro' and 'con'?" Unfortunately, this is an idea that is (a) bad and (b) way out of the Wikipedia mainstream; I suspect that most editors didn't think it even needed to be shot down. As for the rest of your original post, I suspect most people nodded, said "Yep, that's true," and went on to their next item of business. There wasn't really anything we could respond to.

Now then, you're making a somewhat general point about political bios. This is probably not the best forum for that. Instead, maybe you should try Wikipedia:Village pump. If nothing else, it will give you a wider audience, and perhaps it will enable you to contact somebody who knows how to help you attack this problem.

— DLJessup (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. User:ChulaOne's comments about political bios are certainly at least partially correct, however, splitting the article in two POV parts is generally frowned upon. There's a Wikipedia Policy link somewhere that addresses it - forking? Wikipedia:Forks? Something like that. And DLJessup is right that there wasn't much to DO in reply to those comments - propose a change other than forking, or find some references that support the facts you think should be included, and I for one would be happy to discuss them! Cheers, Kaisershatner 17:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia_talk:Two_versions Kaisershatner 19:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GOPAC memo

I cut the mention of the "infamous secret memo" from the intro. It deserves mention in this article as an example of Gingrich's philosophy and interests, but it is not what makes him famous or notable. Furthermore, "infamous" is subjective and the POV of the author. "Secret" is questionable, as the memo in question, according to a google search I just did, was written for GOPAC and distributed to Republican candidates for office. Not exactly "secret." Kaisershatner 14:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked over the GOPAC memo page and it all seems rather innocuous except for the title. I am of the opinion that this need not be included in the main page, because I am sure their are more important written works which would be considered at once more damning to his opponents and supportive to his base.

AsianOats 13:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal passages mixed into political life categories

This post was originally attached to an unlabelled topic that was immediately below the "Family life" topic. It has been moved to its own topic.

Slightly off subject here, but I have some problems about two passages in his political life categories that really belong in personal, these being the passage about his donation for the art school scholarship and the passage about his messy breakup with Marianne. I could understand the breakup mention if there was some scandal involved at the time, but (correct me if I'm wrong here) I don't think there was significant blowback from this when it happened in 1980. It may have some effects on his reputation now, but this is classified under "US Representative", and is mentioned below anyways.--Spurgistan 01:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

————

I think you're a bit confused. The article is broken up into sections as follows:

Early life and education
United States representative
Post-speakership
Books
Media strategy creation
Trivia
References
External links

I see nothing in there about personal or political life "categories". The biographical section of this article is really restricted to sections 1 to 3, which are broken up chronologically, and can be translated as: "birth to 1978", "1979 to 1998", and "1999 to present". (The remainder of the article is really appendices, except for "Media strategy creation", which really doesn't fit properly into the structure of the article.) The key point is that "United States representative" is about the time of Gingrich's life in which he was a representative.

I hope that helps.

— DLJessup (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shapard race

"Shapard's support of the Equal Rights Amendment did not go over very well in the conservative 6th," is an interesting point, but needs to be sourced, if it is indeed true that this was a factor in the election. Kaisershatner 16:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yitzhak Rabin's funeral: Air Force One snub

It is a morbidly funny anecdote which I appreciate has a place in a wikipedia article, even as it would not in the mainstream encyclopedic biography, I think it deserves a place in another section. Even if it happened when he was speaker it removes focus from the key points of his speakership, namely the Republican Revolution, the Contract with America, and the Government shutdown. I earlier removed this from government shutdown, and I think it should be removed again to be placed in a different section and to wait to be edited to a higher quality of content (for instance a temporal reference but no date?). --AsianOats 17:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

————

I don't mean to suggest that the ethics charges section is trivial and I hasten to bring this up along side the Air Force One snub, but I don't believe they necessarily belong in the same section, as "1994 Election, Contract with America, and Speakership". The Democrats and the Republicans were at the time fighting a vicious battle and ethics charges were thrown about sometimes wildly. But that is to a large degree irrelevant. My main worry is that it disrupts a story arch. Election of 1994 (though perhaps this section deserves to be longer) > Gov't Shutdown > Fall from Speakership. --AsianOats 17:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

————

AsianOats: It may not be apparent from the article, because right now the snub is given only the barest bones of a description, but the Air Force One snub was actually quite a big deal when it happened. In 1996, President Clinton essentially ran against Newt Gingrich for President. He succeeded in demonizing Gingrich, and part of the reason he was able to do it was because of self-inflicted wounds like the Air Force One snub.

The ethics charges and the AF1 incident should not be seen as disrupting the narrative (which is essentially a tragedy): Gingrich, the protagonist, ascends to power on the basis of the Contract with America, a brilliant political project. He becomes Speaker and during 1995 is quite successful. He reaches the height of his power in late 1995, right before the government shutdown. From then on, his character flaws start to destroy his political career: the AF1 snub and the ethics charges make him more and more unpopular with the public at large. His caucus begins to believe him to be a liability, because Clinton, who introduced the concept of the permanent political campaign to the public discourse, is consistently running against Gingrich who makes an easy target. In early 1998, discontent surfaces as a coup is attempted and fails. Finally, in late 1998, after the Republicans have a stunning defeat in the November elections, he decides to leave the political stage rather than accept demotion to mere Representative.

— DLJessup (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

————

DLJessup: I essentially agree with you. I just hope the article doesn't make the man's career look like a joke, when it is quite apparent that he will be remembered as a monumental figure in Congressional history. I don't wish for his political future to appear hopeless. And I don't believe it is. One only need to look at the POTUS talk and the Gingrich-Clinton healthcare bill, to know he still holds some degree of affection (good or bad), or political weight, on both sides. He, personally, seems alot like some of the better political science teachers I have had, and for that he has gained a degree of my affection, so I will strive to soften some of the more vicious barbs. :) BTW, I think the extra work done by others in the past few days has been tremendous. I am new to editing articles, but I am trying... Thanks for the response.

--AsianOats 03:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Is the neutrality of this article still in dispute? By whom, and for what, please? Kaisershatner 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. While the NPOV of the article has improved since I posted the flag, now it looks like pertinent facts are being omitted completely rather than being presented with any sort of POV. Reviewing previous comments on this talk page -- Dave Farughar's comments above still seem particularly pertinent, re:

"... the article loses an awful lot if we don't mention the way he polarized U.S. politics and even, to a degree, his own party,"

along with Wolfman's, which has become applicable once more:

"you cut the paragraph about the investigations and calls for impeachment...[which]...omits the important and relevant fact that Gingrich was a driving force behind the impeachment."

Also omitted in the current article is the GOPAC memo -- although it was previously presented with POV language, it deserves mention with a neutral presentation. Czyl

Thanks for the reply. Note my comments above about the GOPAC memo - the last time I checked, it was in there, and I do agree it ought to be. Will restore it when I get a moment. Regarding the polarization issue(s), I'm not sure what I think. It's hard to find neutral sources about him, most are either vitriolically negative or lionizing. I'm not sure how to address his alleged polarization from a NPOV. Kaisershatner 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note and reply to my comments on GOPAC memo. AsianOats 01:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be of interest to me the sections which use "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives" as a source. I worry that it might overreach in some areas, but I would love to look at the research on both sides. As I stated above in the GOPAC memo section, I believe the memo to be rather innocuous except for the title which appears to be an attempt to paint him as somehow Orwellian. I would be surprised if that was the title in actuality. The source is suspect. I think it should be removed from the main page, or sandboxed until it is confirmed. --68.97.20.84 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I found a better reference for the GOPAC memo. --68.97.20.84 17:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It however does not say if Gingrich wrote it or some other member of GOPAC did. It would appear that he wrote it if someone is looking at more left leaning blogs. I would love to have information from more neutral source or even a right leaning source. --68.97.20.84 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me add an explanation of why the GOPAC is relevant and offer a suggestion of how someone who's interested can verify the details. First, the GOPAC memo deserves mention not because it vilifies Gingrich -- it does no such thing. It should be mentioned because of the lasting effect it has had on modern political discourse in the United States. I suspect that the reason that the document seems innocuous is that what the document recommends might now be considered natural for modern political debates, but before Gingrich, it wasn't necessarily commonplace. Gingrich's effective use of language was one reason he was so influential in politics ("I wish I could speak like Newt"), but it also changed the nature of political talk in the 1990s into a more combative process that we still experience today. The GOPAC memo illustrates this important aspect of Gingrich's political strategy and political legacy.

As far as the actual authorship goes -- the memo was issued by GOPAC, the political action committee led by Gingrich. In all likelihood, he didn't sit down and author the memo personally; this doesn't detract from its place here, but the language in the article should be unambiguous: "Gingrich's political action committee, GOPAC, issued a memo".

Last, if we'd like to verify any details about the document, someone ought to do a LexisNexis search on the title or on "Gingrich GOPAC memo" and see what comes up from earlier times. Unfortunately, it looks like my subscription just expired, so I can't do it myself :)

Czyl 19:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement. I think the first change should be the disabiguation "Gingrich's political action committee, GOPAC, issued a memo". I'll do that. But as you have explained if this memo has changed the tenor of American politics it needs references, and an explanation and examination. I we can't find any I have to say that it may still not belong on the main page. It seems superfluous without something more substantial to hold it down. I will search Lexis/Nexis or something else and see what I find. I would note however Newt is not the founder of this commitee [2]. It isn't "Newt's PAC", although I do know he has been heavily involved in it's administration. --AsianOats 06:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if I wasn't clear. I am fairly cynical about what actual power the 'Contract with America' had on the 1994 elections. I think much bigger issues were at play, but Newt still deserves the lion's share of credit for the Republican advances. My point is that the GOPAC memo seems frivilous compared to the work Newt did in leading GOPAC through the '80's and '90's. There should instead be a section dedicated to GOPAC's roles in the further development of a state and local conservative platform. The ideas were there. I am sure other politicians had latched onto the idea of a ascribing certain negative words or ideas to certain candidates. All Newt did was package a message for members of Congress. --AsianOats 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox clarification requested

In the infobox, it says that Gingrich served the Sixth district of Georgia until 1993, in which case the district was "eliminated." Then it says that he was the first person to represent the "sixth district" of Georgia! How can a district be eliminated and created at the same time? Even the U.S. Congressional Delegations from Georgia page doesn't reflect a simultaneous "elimination"/"creation" of a district. I surmise someone goofed. --Micahbrwn 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significant changes

I noted the NPOV flag had been removed, so rather than putting it back in I decided to fix things up myself. The real problem with the old article was not a lack of neutrality in the POV. It was that the article was really rather inert. Newt was (in his own eyes, too!) a revolutionary force in American politics in the 1990s, and a revolutionary in American conservatism. He changed the way Republicans and Democrats alike do business today, stuck to his guns, and pushed significant reforms through Congress. But Newt's story is also a tragedy -- as other writers here have noted, he fell from greatness due to character flaws, a polarizing and combative political strategy, an unsuccessful war with Clinton, and a successful Democratic effort to demonize him. Newt was a controversial figure, even within his own party -- he was widely despised by his opponents and widely loved by the Republicans he led. The old article made the man seem bland to the point of inaccuracy. I like DLJessup's proposed presentation (above) and would like to suggest to whoever else is interested in maintaining this page that we establish it as a goal for the article.

I have made significant rewrites to many of the sections. Things worth mentioning:

I trimmed down the long excerpt from the Scarborough book into a single paragraph the incident requires. It looked like someone was directly paraphrasing his words.
I fixed the Air Force One snub business, which for some reason, the article failed to connect to the budget standoff. Read the reference if you want details on the incident.
Contract with America/rise section needed some cleanup, still needs a source on whether or not Contract with America had an effect on the election
I can't figure out why George Lakoff is cited in this article, so I killed the reference.
Just about every reference in the page is inlined, which is not proper as per Wikipedia policy, and I didn't have time to correct this myself by moving to the refs section. Hopefully we'll get around to this...
I stuck my own references in the "External Links" as a poor compromise, without citing them in the text. There are five or six of them, all in the middle. Once the other refs are fixed I can properly cite specific figures (ie, Horowitz quote for 80k anti-Newt spots, which is in the Salon interview).
The article now at least mentions Gingrich's leadership in the impeachment & investigation, although only in the context of his fall from power. The article should discuss this as a part of his goals / efforts / accomplishments as Speaker. (which could be a section in its own right).
I feel like some concluding comments on his political legacy are necessary and appropriately encyclopedic, although I'm not sure how exactly we can phrase this.

More rewrites and additions probably still need to be made. Go for it. I hope we get this article to Featured Status.

[edit] Watchlisting

Any active editors here consider adding this to your watchlist please. Some vandalism lasted longer than is optimal. Kaisershatner 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Divorce

The par. on Gingrich's first divorce contains unsourced statements attempting to cast doubt on the very nasty story that Gingrich left his wife after she contracted cancer. The article insists that cancer was developed after separation but before divorce was finalized, but with a mere one year period between separation and finalized divorce, I'd like to see sources which give the tick-tock. Otherwise the article should simply state that they divorced after she had contracted cancer (which everyone agrees is true). George Kaplan 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A satirical article is a really poor source for an encyclopedia, especially an extremely biased one (referring to external link nine, which is used to support a claim in the article). -Mance 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downright Slander

This article is filled with not only biased information, but just slander. On Newt's personal life, it appears as if the text has been hijacked so many times and now is just a swamp of lies. Someone needs to clean this article up, in the meantime, there should be a warning at the top of this page.

Sorry to disagree, but from my reading of the content, this article is quite accurate about Gingrich's personal life. Admittedly, I have a strong anti-Gingrich bias, which is why I have largely refrained from adding content to this article, but the information contained in the article is accurate and well-sourced. Another source for confirmation of Gingrich's rather sleazy personal and political life is The Hunting of the President, by Conason and Lyons. If the anonymous author of the above diatribe wishes to pen a more favorable (and thusly sanitized) biography of Gingrich, I suggest that he or she contact one of the many conservative Web publications available. I'm sure some of them are using the Wiki format. As for the personal life section, I'd like to see someone LexisNexus the quote that Gingrich is said to have made to his first wife about her "not being pretty enough to be a President's wife." Several articles cite the quote, but I have not seen a direct source, and wouldn't want it included unless a direct source can be found. -- Black Max 22 July 2006

Again I give you a handful sources that will give you more than enough meat for the slander.