Talk:Newt Gingrich/Archive 1

Non-Partisan?
A think tank advocating the "revitalization of American's values" (easily a closeted term for conservative cultural ideals) and a "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay less" platform hardly strikes me as non-partisan. Just look at this list on their own website: http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=f0259511-97ac-41e1-a64c-55a6077b7723

Can you please remove the non-partisan label from the article? Or at least come up with a source outside of the organizations on FAQ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.141.97 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

vandalism
i took the liberty of undoing the article saying newt's real name was franco something and was a nazi general... hope no one opposes. Axe1216 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversies
I believe that this page needs a Controversies section. I'm sure theres a lot of things he's said/done that warrents this. (At the very least, he's spoken about re-examining free speech to take terrorism into account, and I' m sure thats generated a ton of controversy)208.248.33.30 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is my belief that the personal life section is a HUGE controversy. All the claims about oral sex and whatnot are ridiculous! Without citations, that kind of slander could get wikipedia sued! Someone needs to address this immediatly!

I mean, all of those claims about oral sex were published in a 1995 Vanity Fair article. It's pretty easy to find online, if we haven't sourced it yet.

This page has some news-like style reporting present and future lecture dates 0 - is this intended?

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

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)

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)

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.

Gingrich Family Life According to The New York Times
The New York Times is a Liberal paper and Newt Gingrich is a Conservative. What do you expect?

71.208.200.101 02:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times article below entitled, "Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals," refutes much of the slander written by the Gingrich haters in this Wikipedia Gingrich bio. Many of the personal attacks on Gingrich were launched by his enemies. One described in the NYT article is:

In 1992, his Democratic opponent, Tony Center, ran a television advertisement against Mr. Gingrich that said -- erroneously -- that Mr. Gingrich "delivered divorce papers to his wife the day after her cancer operation." It went on to say that Mr. Gingrich had "left his wife and child penniless" while using a Lincoln Continental limousine and driver as one of the perks of his position as minority whip. The commercial prompted Mr. Gingrich's younger daughter, Jackie Gingrich Zyla, who is 28 (in1994), to volunteer to make an advertisement defending her father. "My dad has always stood behind and supported me and my sister in everything we have done," she said. "We care about our father, and he cares about us."

These are the two nastiest falsehoods Gingrich is accused of, he divorced his wife while she was in cancer surgery and he refused to pay child support. Both are false exaggerations concocted by his enemies as indicated by the NYT quote. He merely discussed the divorce while he was visiting his wife, Jackie Gingrich, after she had cancer surgery. They had been separated for two years at that time. Gingrich was merely late with a few child support payments but there is no evidence in the article he did not pay them.

Another quote from the NYT article explains another nasty false accusation against Gingrich.

Mr. Carter said he and other friends had been worried that the marriage was falling apart. Mr. Gingrich told him why he wanted a divorce. "He said: 'She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer.' It sounds harsh and hokey, but anyone who knows him knows it's perfectly consistent with the kinds of things he says." Mr. Gingrich has adamantly denied saying any such thing. His supporters dismiss Mr. Carter as a disgruntled former aide who  was miffed at not being asked to accompany Mr. Gingrich when he moved to Washington.

The entire NYT article is below.

Gingrich's Life: The Complications and Ideals

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE Special to The New York Times [NYTimes 11/24/94]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 -- It was September 1942 when 16-year-old Kathleen Daugherty married Newton C. McPherson Jr., a 19-year-old mechanic in a small town in Pennsylvania. In three days, the marriage fell apart; nine months later, she gave birth to a baby boy, whom she named Newton Leroy.

When Kathleen remarried three years later, her new husband, Robert B. Gingrich, an Army artillery officer, adopted her son.

Today, the boy, Newt Gingrich, is on the verge of becoming the Speaker of the House and next in the line of succession for the Presidency after the Vice President.

He says he wants to do nothing less than to save American civilization with a renewal of family values.

But while he often refers to an idealized American family life with Ozzie-and-Harriet mores, Mr. Gingrich has made it clear he did not have such an upbringing himself. As he told The New York Times in the spring: "I'm not sitting here as someone who is unfamiliar with the late 20th century."

He was born fatherless to a teenage mother. He married against his adoptive father's wishes and later underwent a bitter divorce. While promoting family values, he remains close to a daughter who vocally supports abortion rights and a half-sister who is gay. As he has said, "I know life can be complicated."

Kathleen Gingrich, now 68, said that when she was 16, her father was killed in a car accident. He had been the stabilizing influence in her family, she said, and when he was gone, she turned to Mr. McPherson, whom she had known only briefly. "I never should have  gotten  married  to start," she said in a telephone interview from her home in Dauphin, a small town near Harrisburg, Pa.

Her new husband stayed out late at the pool hall one night, she said, and when she tried to wake him in the morning to go to work, "he got mad and he hauled off and hit me. It was the only time, believe me.

"We were married on a Saturday, and I left him on a Tuesday," she said. "I got Newtie in those three days."

She was not working at the time and could not support herself, so she moved in with her mother, a school teacher.

Newt grew up under the tutelage of his maternal grandmother, with whom he shared a bedroom and who stayed with them after Kathleen remarried. His grandmother taught him to read, which he does voraciously to this day. (For his part, said his mother, he put snakes in jars on the night stand between their beds and scared his grandmother 'out of her wits.')

After the war, his biological father, who had been in the Navy, eventually remarried and had two other children. Young Newt retained some relationship with him and was with him when he died at age 48 of lung cancer.

Complex Bonds Of Father and Son

His mother went on to have three daughters with Bob Gingrich. Kathleen Gingrich summed up the relationship between her son and husband by saying, "Newtie is a talker; Bob is not." She said her husband preferred doing crossword puzzles.

One of Mr. Gingrich's closest friends, former Representative Vin Weber, said the father-son relationship was complex. "On one hand, there is a side of Newt that is brash, disrespectful of authority and certainly willing to challenge authority, but on the other hand, he really does value father relationships if they can begin to develop," he said.

"I found his relationship with Michel was more complicated than people thought," Mr. Weber added, referring to Representative Bob Michel, the House Republican leader who is retiring this year and whose calm, courtly style differed in every way from the confrontational style of the younger Mr. Gingrich, the minority whip. "Newt challenged him and made life tough for him, but I felt he wanted Michel to like him, at times more than I thought was appropriate. Newt was bending over backwards to try to get his approval. I think that is related somehow to something that was missing before."

Mr. Gingrich, who declined to be interviewed for this article, once told a reporter that he could not finish Pat Conroy's novel "The Great Santini," which was about a boy's struggle to prove himself to his father, who was an overbearing military officer. "His father seemed like a cold, austere kind of person," a former political associate, L. H. (Kip) Carter, said of Mr. Gingrich's view of his adoptive father. "He's felt abandoned his whole life."

Kathleen Gingrich said that of the myriad photographs that have appeared lately of her son, the only one her husband wants to frame is the Nov. 7 cover of Time. It shows a snarling Newt with his mouth agape and the cover line: "Mad As Hell."

At the same time, the young Mr. Gingrich developed an [sic] deep attachment to animals. His grandmother once gave him a leather jacket that he painted with white stripes so he could look like a zebra, said his half-sister, Roberta. When he was 11, he was flying alone from Fort Riley in Kansas to Harrisburg and was late getting home. It turned out he got off the plane in Chicago and took a taxi to the zoo. Another time, he told his mother he was going to the library in Harrisburg and went instead to the Mayor's office to plead for a zoo.

To this day, his office in the Capitol is adorned with models of prehistoric creatures. In 1990, he sent nearly half of his $67,000 in honorariums from speeches to the Atlanta Zoo. Last year, he sent $15,000 to the Atlanta Zoo to buy a pair of rare Komodo dragons.

Proud of Being An Army Brat

The Speaker-to-be is also consumed with things military, and he often closes his speeches with bursts of patriotism and a reference to his stepfather's military career. He practically boasts of growing up as an Army brat, a rootless existence that started near Harrisburg and included stints in France, Germany and Fort Benning, Ga. Today he counts two generals -- Dwight D. Eisenhower and George Marshall -- among his top three heroes (Franklin D. Roosevelt is the third).

He often points to a visit in 1958, when he was 15, with his adoptive father to Verdun, the bloodiest battlefield of World War I, and its warehouse collection of bones, as the seminal moment in his political coming of age.

"It is the driving force which pushed me into history and politics, and molded my life," he wrote in his 1984 political manifesto, "Window of Opportunity."

The next day, he supposedly told his family he would run for Congress because politicians could prevent such madness.

The sense that he might save civilization seems to drive him still. "People like me," he said last year, "are what stand between us and Auschwitz."

Despite his interest in the military, Mr. Gingrich opted out of the service himself, taking student and marriage deferments during the Vietnam War. Although he opposed the war, he was not vocal about it.

Early Years As a Liberal

But he was something of a liberal. As a graduate student in history at Tulane University, he led a protest against the school administration for trying to censor pictures of nudes from the student newspaper. He also helped to coordinate Nelson A. Rockefeller's 1968 Presidential campaign in Louisiana.

As a young history teacher with a Ph.D at West Georgia College in Carrollton, Ga., he started a program in environmental studies and taught a course about the future.

But after he lost two races for the House in 1974 and 1976, he determined that he could get elected only by moving further right. Many who knew him in that period attribute his adoption of a conservative agenda and his exploitation of "family values" to his political ambition, not to a belief, at least at that time, in core conservative values.

"When I first knew him in the 70's, when I was on the Atlanta Constitution's liberal editorial board, and we were looking for a liberal to get behind, we chose to endorse Newt Gingrich because we thought he was progressive and thought he was, to use the terrible L word, liberal," said Bill Shipp, who now writes a newsletter on Georgia politics.

"Why did he switch?" Mr. Shipp said. "Public opinion polls, what do you think? Liberal went out, conservative came in.

Richard Dangle, who was dean of arts and sciences at West Georgia when Mr. Gingrich taught there, said that as a "middle-of-the-road Democrat," he supported Mr. Gingrich because he was "bright, young, reasonable and rational." Then, Mr. Gingrich moved to the right. "He said he had grown," Mr. Dangle said. "I think his motivation was ambition and the need for power."

James T. Gay, who still teaches history at the college, said: "I'm not certain whether he has principles. He reads polls a lot and adjusts to them."

His former minister, Rev. Brantley Harwell, said: "He saw that swinging to the right as Reagan did was the way to get to the goal he wanted, which was Speaker. He sees what will help him; whether he believes it or not, he uses it."

Like his mother, Mr. Gingrich was raised Lutheran (his stepfather was Pennsylvania Dutch), but as he laid the groundwork for his political career in Georgia, he became a Southern Baptist.

"People who know him know there's a difference between what he projects and who he is," said Kip Carter, the former friend, "though it's hard to know who he is anymore. He's a moderate when that's helpful, he's right wing when that's helpful, he's bipartisan when that's helpful. Whatever it takes for power, that's what he'll do."

But Mr. Weber said: "Everyone goes through a political metamorphosis. You can portray him as opportunistic or as flexible, depending on if you want to be complimentary. But it's a combination, and that's true for all politicians.'

When Mr. Gingrich finally won an open Congressional seat in 1978, he ran a brutal campaign against his Democratic opponent, State Senator Virginia Shepard, who he said did not have "family values." If elected, Mrs. Shepard intended to commute between Washington and Georgia and leave her children in the care of a nanny. Mr. Gingrich ran a television commercial accusing her of breaking up her family while Mr. Gingrich would keep his family together.

Mr. Gingrich won, but it was his family that broke up.

Bitter History Of a Divorce

His divorce from his first wife, Jackie, has become part of the Gingrich lore and has been routinely resurrected by political opponents.

His first wife, Jackie Battley, was his high school geometry teacher and seven years his senior. After high school, as a freshman at Emory University in Atlanta, he pursued her, despite what his mother describes as her husband's disapproval because of the age difference. They married in June 1962 when he was 19, with his family boycotting the ceremony. Kathleen Gingrich said that since her husband would not attend, she and her daughters would not either.

Jackie Gingrich followed her husband to Tulane and, back in Georgia, worked doggedly on his campaigns. After his election in 1978, they moved to Washington, but separated shortly thereafter. By the end of his first term, he had filed for divorce.

His wife, who had started treatments for uterine cancer in 1978, underwent surgery in 1980. A day after the operation, Mr. Gingrich came to the hospital. Since they had already separated, he called her room to see if he could come up. Once there, according to friends who knew them both, he began talking about the terms of the divorce. She has said that she threw him out of the room. In a few months they were divorced, and in 1981 he married his current wife, Marianne. The [sic] Jackie Gingrich, who still teaches high school math, declined to be interviewed for this article. a [sic]

A few weeks before Mr. Gingrich filed for divorce, he called his political aide and friend Mr. Carter to talk about his marriage. Mr. Carter said he and other friends had been worried that the marriage was falling apart. Mr. Gingrich told him why he wanted a divorce. "He said: 'She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer.' It sounds harsh and hokey, but anyone who knows him knows it's perfectly consistent with the kinds of things he says."

Mr. Gingrich has adamantly denied saying any such thing. His supporters dismiss Mr. Carter as a disgruntled former  aide who  was miffed at not being asked to accompany Mr. Gingrich when he moved to Washington.

Mr. Gingrich was supposed to pay $150 a month for each of his daughters and $400 in alimony to his ex-wife, the same amount he had allotted himself for "food/dry cleaning, etc." But a few months later, Jackie Gingrich filed court papers saying he had not provided reasonable support for her living expenses and that some of her accounts were "two or three months past due." Some of her friends took up an informal collection on her behalf. The court raised the child support to $200 a month a daughter and $1,000 in alimony.

Political Points And Private Life

1n an 1984 article in Mother Jones, which detailed Mr. Gingrich's private life, he was asked whether his private life had been consistent with what he said in public.

"No," Mr. Gingrich was quoted as telling the magazine. "In fact I think they were sufficiently inconsistent that at one point in 1979 and 1980, began to quit saying them in public. One of the reasons I ended up getting a divorce was that if I was disintegrating enough as a person that I could not say those things, then I needed to get my life straight, not quit saying them.

"And I think that literally was the crisis I came to. I guess I look back on it a little bit like somebody who's in Alcoholics Anonymous. It was a very, very bad period of my life, and it had been getting steadily worse. "I ultimately wound up at a point where probably suicide or going insane or divorce were the last three options."

In 1992, his Democratic opponent, Tony Center, ran a television advertisement against Mr. Gingrich that said -- erroneously -- that Mr. Gingrich "delivered divorce papers to his wife the day after her cancer operation." It went on to say that Mr. Gingrich had "left his wife and child penniless" while using a Lincoln Continental limousine and driver as one of the perks of his position as minority whip.

The commercial prompted Mr. Gingrich's younger daughter, Jackie Gingrich Zyla, who is 28, to volunteer to make an advertisement defending her father.

"My dad has always stood behind and supported me and my sister in everything we have done," she said. "We care about our father, and he cares about us."

In an interview in 1992 with The New York Times, Mr. Gingrich, who has proved to be one of the most ferocious competitors in politics, said he was so disgusted with Mr. Center's attack on his family life that he considered quitting the race.

"This filth is so sickening," he said. "If survival in public life means this level of degradation, I don't want to be part of it."

Last year, Jackie Gingrich was back in court saying that her former husband had failed to keep up payments on a $100,000 life-insurance policy. He subsequently increased his alimony payments to $1,300 a month, in accordance with his increase in salary, in exchange for a promise that she would not take him to court again.

Mr. Gingrich's supporters say he continues to have a strong and close relationship with his daughters. Both declined to be interviewed for this article. His older daughter, Kathy, made news in 1992 when she came to Washington to participate in a news conference staged by the National Republican Coalition for Choice. She said the Republicans would never attract young people unless it could "throw off the stranglehold that the anti-choice movement has on the apparatus of the party." Both she and her father, who opposes abortion, said their family was strong enough to have their differences and remain close.

The same is true with his siblings. His youngest half-sister, Candy, 28, is gay. He has made numerous pronouncements about homosexuality, including comparing it to alcoholism. But as he told The New York Times earlier this year, "Our position should be toleration. It should not be promotion, and it should not be condemnation."

Last year, he said he had ''no strong position" against President Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on gays in the military. Nonetheless, when it became a polarizing public issue, Mr. Gingrich said he had talked with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and decided to support the ban. "Unlike the commander in chief, who has changed his position somewhat," Mr. Gingrich said of Mr. Clinton, "I am sticking with my military advisers."

Those close to him say that if Mr. Gingrich's public pronouncements about family values are not mirrored precisely in his private life, it does not matter.

"He believes in family values, said his half-sister, Roberta. "And that's a goal. I don't think it takes away from him that he's not there.

"I'm surprised some of the press is demanding of him that he _be_ his vision," she added. "I don't think anyone is. I think it's to his credit that he aspires to be better than he is.

Mr. Weber, one of his closest friends, said Mr. Gingrich did not try to square family values with his own life. "I haven't heard him try to make any rationalization," Mr. Weber said. "I think he has a deep intellectual commitment to the notion that values matter and that the country faces almost a crisis because the decay of the family structure." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gkalbasov (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

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)

OH My God John Smith....Its like you just cut and paste directly from the so called "independant and non-partisan" political website. If you don't think so....check out this link and look at the sources. http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm#draft So your telling us that your sources come from one website. Nice...way to be unbiased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.83.227 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (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)

An AP story yesterday carried the fact that Newt told a religious aidience that he was having an affair during the time he was trying to impeach Clinton! It ran this morning on Yahoo by APDan


 * I feel like this whole section has an absurd bias to it. I suspected it was newly minted by an opponent but it's been there a while.  If no one objects, in a few days I'll attempt a rewrite to make it sound reasonable.

OH My God John Smith....Its like you just cut and paste directly from the so called "independant and non-partisan" political website. If you don't think so....check out this link and look at the sources. http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm#draft So your telling us that your sources come from one website. Nice...way to be unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.64.182 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Impeachment
I don't know what I need to do to become a member! This section is troubling the way it is written. One would believe that Clinton WAS impeached, when in fact, he was never impeached! Nor has any other president been impeached. The Articles of Impeachment brought before the Senate from the House, where Clinton was tried and found not guilty of any of the articles and thus never impeached. If he were, he would have never stayed in the White House! {dan}

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)

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)

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

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

It's mentioned, but inaccurate. The republicans in fact attached the controversial legislation to a bill coming out of the House Ways and Means Committee... where money comes from to fund the government. When the dems refused to let it pass, even on this vital spending bill, the gov was effectively shut down.

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.

&mdash; DLJessup 04:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Parts of this article, truthfully, seem substantially biased against Gingrich to me. --Mikiro 10:12 Central Time, 11 March 2007

Proper referencing
Per 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)

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)

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 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?  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)

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)

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:


 * 1) Early life and education
 * 2) United States representative
 * 3) Post-speakership
 * 4) Books
 * 5) Media strategy creation
 * 6) Trivia
 * 7) References
 * 8) 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)

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)

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)

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 .  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)


 * It is patenly ovious that nutrality could not be present as this is an article written by nitwits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.249.25.169 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2007 (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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

"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 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete bc Does not refer to his divorces and personal life
I came to this article after hearing that Newt had controversy surrounding how he left his wife when she was sick. I came here to Wikipedia to see if it was true or not. I found no mention. To me, it seems like someone is trying to cover up for him. Please add this information.GreatDay 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur...how can a bio not include anything about the subject's personal life? Good day 05:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself.

Making a Request
I came here because I heard that Newt GIngrich said something about why women couldn't go into the milatary, but I didn't see anything in the article. Could someone who knows aobut it add it in, if its important?--Mullon 04:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Gingrich?
The "-ich" bit is the usual component part of Yugoslav Slavic surnames. Is this the case? --PaxEquilibrium 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess no one knows... --PaxEquilibrium 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewer on Amazon.com
Should this article mention that Gingrich is a pretty significant reviewer on Amazon.com, perhaps as a bit of trivia? He's currently listed as number 909. --Impaciente 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems noteworthy and interesting --Dehbach 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Esp as he gave 4 stars to Bill O'Reilly's seminal, turgid, magnum opus - Those Who Trespass  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.249.55 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Lose a City" comment
"We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate."

He made this statement in 2006, ignoring the fact that the Bush administration already lost a city ("literally") in 2005, New Orleans, to a storm they knew about days in advance. I know he was referring to a terrorist attack, but let's face facts: we're never going to get as much forewarning about a terrorist attack as we are a storm system we're capable of tracking. I think this was a HUGE omission on his part, because it illustrates how his whole 'get ahead of the curve' thing is just political speak. Get ahead of the curve, but let's forget about the federal response to Katrina, which was the true test of our readiness for an emergency. He didn't mention the disatrous federal response to Katrina because the facts didn't fit in with his point. He says he's afraid it 'could literally' happen, when it already 'did' happen. Literally.
 * What exactly does this have to do with the article? --Impaciente 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * because at the end of the article there is a short section on this speech, primarily focusing on the point that Gingrich is suggesting imposing limits on Freedom of Speech in wartime (wartime being, apparrently, all the time now that we're in a bogus 'war on terror.')


 * If I were to add a line such as: "Gingrich failed to mention New Orleans in his speech, even though it was lost to Hurricane Katrina in 2005" it would be considered too POV, but it is a fact that New Olreans was destroyed and it reveals Gingrich's hypocrisy, he wants to talk about protecting our country, but only wants to talk about it in his terms, he doesn't want to have to admit the collossal failure of the Bush administration's response to Katrina, which illustrates how little we've done to prevent disaster in America. (Just as hypocritical was his extramartial affair with his current wife; Gingrich is a man who constantly evokes God and religion and moraity, when he's just as bad as Clinton in terms of morals. He left his first wife when she was recovering from cancer in the Hospital, then cheated on his second wife for at least 3 full years with a woman 20 years younger than him before divorcing her and marrying the woman he was having an affair with. And he wants to lecture us about morality?)


 * I very much dislike Newt and what he's said. But I believe your taking that quote out of context. He was refering to Terrorism and how he belives freedom of speech should be changed to reguard it.208.248.33.30 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Limiting free speech in wartime is nothing new. Lincoln suspended free speech and the right of habeas corpus. The real argument here is the degree. Lincoln was fighting for the very survival of Union as a whole. With regard to Katrina and New Orleans, I think you forgetting amendment 10 of the bill of rights. The federal government is the last line of help. The problem are two fold. First, I remember seeing a documentary on one of the discovery channels talking about hurricanes before Katrina. Even a medium hurricane level 3 if it hit a major city would be devastating. New Orleans was really in recent memory about 50 years, the first major city hit by a hurricane, which then caused massive problems. Second, New Orleans has never been known as a city of efficiency or honest politics. On AE's City Confidential, the report for New Orleans before the hurricane was very poor from high murder rates, corrupt cops, and corrupt politicians. I think it's easy and foolish to just lay blame all on the Bush Administration, which holds some blame, but it's the local government, followed by state and then federal and not the other way around. --Kolrobie 20:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is already precedent to limit free speech with Schenk vs. US. And I apologize for any shady situations earlier... I'm new at this and was exploring and tinkering. x_x --Mikiro 10:08 Central Time, March 11 2007

Gingrich does criticize the administration for mishandling Katrina, often in fact. His views on that issue may be worth mentioning, but not in response to this speech he gave regarding terrorism, it's a political argument and definately too POV.128.200.13.61 02:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life?
Why no info on the divorces? I think the article needs a Personal Life section or something to that effect. The only thing mentioned in the body is his first marriage in 1962. Tomhormby 00:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because vandals (Newt, is that you?) keep removing it. I restored a sourced sentence about him divorcing his wife on her deathbed, which was deleted by a vandal back in October, and it was summarily deleted within 48 hours. I'm restoring it again. If anybody has a problem with its inclusion, please discuss on the talk page.--Francisx 05:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Francisx, he didn't divorce her on her deathbed (a) she didn't die from uterine cancer, and (b) according to the source, she says "he appeared at her bedside with a yellow legal pad outlining the details for their divorce." Not precisely the same thing.  The sentence you restored, however, doesn't state what you state here, and does follow the sourced article pretty closely.  However, I don't think it belongs in the introduction at all.  If you read Bill Clinton, the intro manages to avoid mention of not just his infidelity, but also his impeachment(!); Gary Hart, mostly notable for his extramarital affair, also gets a pass.  John F. Kennedy - much more important stuff in the intro than his famous philandering.  Now I don't necessarily think all of those articles should include all of that information in the introduction, and while I think it  probably is appropriate to mention Gingrich has been married three times, the precise details of those relationships probably don't merit such an intense focus in the introduction.  Kaisershatner 15:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * maybe not in the introduction, but the facts need to be on this page. Clinton and Kennedy's philandering isn't in the introductions, but neither of those men married thier mistresses (as Gingrich's current wife is his former mistress) and neither of them lectured the country about morality half as much as Gingrich did. It shows his shallowness and hypocrisy and makes me look at everything he says differently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.167.106.88 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi, anon. Although I disagree a bit with your characterizations, I do agree with you that the facts need to be here, as I said above.  Kaisershatner 14:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Weren't they already separated when he did the "by the death bed" thing? And I apologize for any shady situations earlier... I'm new at this and was exploring and tinkering. x_x --Mikiro 10:06 Central Time, 11 March 2007

The Re-Write
This page needs a lot done to it. Looks like a job for me. --SirAndrew1 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Add this in when you're done. --evrik (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! --SirAndrew1 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also add that Gingrich admits to having an affair while spearheading the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Here's a reference: . - Throw 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction should provide an overview of the whole article (WP:LEAD) and for an article of this length should be three or four paras. I don't think Dobson needs to be in the intro, but some mention of Gingrich's recent adultery admission might make sense there. Kaisershatner 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Language, Bilingualism ('language of the ghetto')
On 3/30/07, Gingrich said these quotes:

"We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,

Gingrich also said bilingualism poses "long-term dangers to the fabric of our nation" and that "allowing bilingualism to continue to grow is very dangerous."


 * I think these quotes could be included in the main article, they are pretty indicative of his views. I think it reflects a very bigoted world view, which people should be aware of. He considers Spanish to be 'the language of the ghetto,' I think he's wrong to say that. If he thinks he's going to win the Presidency by being an immigrant basher, he's got another thing coming.


 * Here is a link for these quotes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033100992.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.167.106.33 (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I believe we cannot say that we cannot say whether he was wrong in saying that or not, due to neutrality, though he has himself apologized for the statement. I believe part of the quotation and the fact that he apolgized, given the recent prominent in the news, is relevant and belongs in the article. mitcho/芳貴 23:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He didn't apologize. He said the comments weren't made to offend the Latino community. --SirAndrew1 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You guys definitely need to hear what he said before you try to spin it. Don't take sound bytes from the media. Listen to something for yourselves. He never called Spanish the "language of the ghetto," he said that people who speak other languages in this country and do not learn any English are separating themselves from American society, placing themselves in a "ghetto" (a place where people of ethnicity are separated from society). In that context, he went on to use the phrase language of the ghetto. If you feel like including it in the article, that's great, but make sure it's in context.Jrborchik 12:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?
I noted that the article is flagged as being of disputed neutrality. Is it still under dispute, or can the tag be removed? If it's still disputed, can someone either state the reasons on the talk page (some reasons are already on the talk page, but some of them go back to 2004 and the article has been edited quite a bit since then) or flag specific sections or sentences (using ) as being POV? - Walkiped (T 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * there's no indication that the neutrality is still in dispute. I'm removing the tag. --Elliskev 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the family life section was poorly written and biased. I'll look over it in a few days (I want to see if anyone responds here)Alexa411 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a neutral inquiry - What parts of the family life (I think you mean "Personal Life") section are bothersome? I have no problem with supported facts being kept and couched in reasonable language (but if someone cheated on their wife, they cheated on their wife). FWIW, I think that every political figure's entry could be flagged with the "Neutrality disputed" template (rightly or wrongly). In this case, I prefer the ongoing editing and cleanup of problem sections over the universal flag of dispute. -Quartermaster 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave a shot at a rewrite of the family life section. Feel free to fix or revert if I'm deluded.  The sourced article at Salon feels like it has a real agenda to me.  The old version line "Jackie raised their two daughters and worked while Newt attended graduate school" comes straight from the article but it never clarifies why he didn't help.  Was Newt away at school?  The NYT artice above says (Jackie Gingrich followed her husband to Tulane). It feels like sloppy speech unless substantiated.  I left that part out.  Newt’s bio on his site (newt.org) conveniently dodges any mention of his many marital mishaps.


 * I don’t know that the Ann Manning affair deserves to be 20% of his personal life section. It seems like modern stuff is more what folks are here looking for.  I don’t know that it’s irrelevant though… I put it in but more as a note.  What I did was gave a summary apragraph and then a "controversy" paragraph.  I think most people interested in the family life are doing so because of the controversy surrounding it, so it seems like a good place to mention it.


 * Thoughts anyone? Alexa411 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Noemuller" / Niemöller paraphrase
From the External Links section: Gingrich wants to restrict freedom of speech? ...Pastor Martin Noemuller, "First they came for the Fourth Amendment, then they came for habeas corpus, then came for free speech, and there was no one allowed to speak up." -- Moving bolded text here, as superfluous to the link, but more importantly, misleading, as this is a paraphrase rather than an actual quote of Martin Niemöller's famous remarks. -- 201.19.77.39 04:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

References out of date
There is at least one reference with a stale external link (#11). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.127.131 (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

66.208.14.122
Hi WP. Just so everyone knows, this IP is for a shared office space in downtown Washington, DC. A shared office space in which the former speaker has offices. After looking at the user contributions, I thought ya'll might want to know. --66.208.14.122 (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus God. This is the most biased article I've seen in my life
Discuss. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * which sections do you mean? And biased in which direction? Quark1005 (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
Is there a point in having a trivia section. This is very irrelivent to, It also has alot of biased in that section. So someone needs to delete it.

Zonerocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonerocks (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote about Connecticut "Insurgency"
I've removed the quote about the Connecticut insurgency. I don't care about the politics, I just have three problems: -poor spelling and grammar ("legitimite", "beginning of extraordinary important period"). -misquoting (these were not the exact words he used). -Paraphrasing for maximum anti-Gingrich effect. Wikipedia said that Newt said that if the Connecticut insurgency wins, then "it will be the beginning of extraordinary [sic] important period in American politics, and in American history." Newt actually said that "if Lamont wins", which might seem similar, but the repetition of the damning word, insurgency, is important. There's no reason to paraphrase there; Wikipedia's version was actually longer.

Add the section again if you want, but get the spelling right and the bias less egregious. Personally I don't think it's noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia though. You can get the exact quote here: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/06/newt-ct/ -- Michael Keenan 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Toffler
I read somewhere that Gingrich was a collaborator of Alvin Toffler at some University. He also promoted the ideas of Toffler on its day. Can we say that he is (very/slightly) influenced by Toffler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.


 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or [mailto:nicholasmoreau@gmail.com e-mail me].

Thanks, Nick

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanimum  (talk • contribs)  19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
I edited out many inappropriate sexual pictures unrelated to the subject matter and replaced them with test.png as I'm not clear on the rules for photos, but thought it appropriate to get rid of the stupid pictures. Robotempire (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Later today, I am going to completely re-write the article. --SirAndrew1 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a strong liberal slant on this page, with lots of back-and-forth editing. 69.228.100.144 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Progress?Alexa411 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear people, The use of "Fall" in "Fall from speakership, resignation from the House" section carries negative undertones. I suggest that we re-title it "Resignation of the speakership and seat in the House" -A concerned student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.71.96.20 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize that I'm responding to an old comment here, but it's worth noting that it's not a Wikipedian's job to whitewash anything, only to report on what is documented in reliable sources. If there are reliable sources for "Fall from speakership", and inclusion of such material is not in violation of WP:BLP, then there is no reason why it should be changed to something more "pro-Newt". The bottom line is that WP:NPOV is not license to remove properly referenced points of view from an article such as this; it just requires that we report on points of view from a neutral stance.— Mike : tlk  19:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Recently, he founded the 527 group American Solutions for Winning the Future,[1] and has been a critic of Barack Obama's presidency."

"Recently" is NO LONGER September 27, 2007. Dadofsam (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Canonical questions about his marriage
There was controversy over Gingrich's previous divorces. According to Church law, a Baptist marriage is the same as a Catholic marriage because a Baptist baptism is formally the same as a Catholic baptism. Therefore, Gingrich's current marriage is juridically invalid, since the Church only recognizes his original marriage as if it never ended. ADM (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Without any citations to canon law itself or interpretations of it, this is WP:OR. Even with such citations, however, it is problematic. You would need to have an analysis from a reliable source dealing specifically with Gingrich to include your claims in the article, because citing the kind of sources mentioned above as general analyses of church law and then applying them to Gingrich would also be original research. (I.e., in this instance, linking the general to the specific on your own initiative would be original research.) Lastly, it's unclear why such questions belong in the article in the first place. Res ipsa loquitur, the Church - the best expositor of canon law, one might imagine - clearly concluded that these objections had no merit when it admitted Gingrich into full communion. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can anyone update his views? Today, Newt spoke out very strongly against same-sex marriage and the ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker. Newt believes that the sanctity and holy nature of marriage should not be harmed by homosexual couples. 99.117.132.220 (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Retire
There are rumors that he is getting ready to retire, does anybody else know about this? 204.133.215.130 (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Politicians rarely retire. Usually they are forced out by some measure of unpopularity or obsolescence. More than likely he will test the White House run for viability and if the prospects look grim then he will announce retirement in the coming years. There will never be anything more than speculation because with politicians an 'official' statement would have to be released from his office or by Gingrich publicly. --75.69.161.74 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethics
user:70.148.76.218 added a passage about ethical violations and sanctions. We already have a subsection about ethical violations, and the place that it was added broke up the logical flow between the two paragraphs it was interposed between. I am accordingly moving the added text to the subsection on ethics violations. By doing this rather than deleting the text, I emphasize that I am not expressing a view on whether this material ought to be in this article, but merely moving it to the place where it would belong while other editors mull whether it belongs at all. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption and Name Change
A name change for a man is certainly note worthy. Should we add something about his adoption as a child? 208.115.147.120 (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

An odd sentence in the Islamic Law section
In the report on Gingrich's opinion about Sharia, the quote "The fight against sharia and the maddrassas and mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth. ... ..." seems to have omitted a word or more after "fanaticism". It does not make sense as it stands (The fight ... is the heart of the enemy movement"?) Does somebody have access to the statement as originally made?Svato (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That odd sentence really does need to go. Go ogle it up and the only source you find is Wikipedia! --Pawyilee (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim that NG is the first "major american politician" is verbatim from the referenced source--and not at all an unbiased one. If it must be included--it can be worded in a more neutral way. (NG may very well be the first thrice-married Speaker, but that doesn't really warrant a special mention.) Ehol (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Affairs
In regards to his public prosecution of clinton and others, I think it would be appropriate to make some slight mention of affair of his own that are well publicised and available in public records. The squeeky clean profile is not fair, if compared to other major players in his era like clinton. You can start here... or just google the names and mistresses and you get court record and everything. I am talking specifically about Anne Manning and Calista Bisek, also there are other more extreme rumors around.. which I however think should not be mentioned. http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~farley/humor/sex/gingrich.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The one affair that is supported by reliable sources, that with Bisek, is already included in the article. Unsubstantiated claims by Manning--even if fanned by left-leaning outfits that don't like Gingrich--are not, and it's not clear why they should be (or, given WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, that they can be). As to your link, see WP:SPS. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea it is "included" alright, as a run on in transitional paragraph. Unlike the Bill Clinton article which has large font Sub-topic clearly singling out infidelity.  Clearly this article is biased 146.235.130.52 (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, when I next need a good example of an argument based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, yours will do it. In Clinton's case, his various infidelities - which, by the way, make no sense to me, but maybe I'm the only one who thinks Hillary's cute - raise problems under neither WP:BLP (because those included in the article are well-documented) nor WP:UNDUE (because they're centrally relevant). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

StageRt (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)In the August, 2010 issue of Esquire Magazine, http://www.esquire.com/features/newt-gingrich-0910, quotes from Marianne Gingrich dispute the information listed in this page, i.e."At first, she had no idea that the wife he was divorcing was actually his high school geometry teacher, or that he went to the hospital to present her with divorce terms while she was recovering from uterine cancer and then fought the case so hard, Jackie had to get a court order just to pay her utility bills. Gingrich told her the story a little at a time, trusting her with things that nobody else knew — to this day, for example, the official story is that he started dating Jackie when he was eighteen and she was twenty-five. But he was really just sixteen, she says."

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/newt-gingrich-0910-5#ixzz1M6Oa2XVO

Supports colonialism
It looks as though Newt Gingrich thinks "anti-colonial behavior" is a bad thing (!). See. How strange....and a little bit disturbing. I wonder if he also thinks the U.S. was better off when it was under King George III's colonial rule? ;-P Stonemason89 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no US when George III began his rule. The Province of Georgia was named after George II (not III,) and certainly benefited from colonialism as well as the Yamasee War that effectively cleared the Georgia coast of anti-colonialists. Still, I don't think that has much to do with what Newt thinks about what Dinesh D'Souza thinks about How Obama Thinks, which is about as bizarre as the Newt that uses ribs as weapons. What do you think? --Pawyilee (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that all the liberal talking heads are furious with Gingrich for agreeing with the premise of D'Souza's argument. I am waiting for this page to blow up, and I suspect it will as more and more of them continue to scream for Newt's head.  Arzel (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Political Positions
The phrase "Gingrich stands for his beliefs and does not shy away from positions that could be considered controversial" lacks neutrality, it ascribes a personality trait that does not fall within the realm of objectivity. Sauceyboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

Death penalty for importing 2 ounces of cannabis
I think this notable controversy from 1996 merits some discussion in the article.

This Week in History:
 * http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/sep/22/week_history - excerpt (emphasis added):
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"


 * September 25, 1996: Mere days before Congress adjourns for the year, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) introduces H.R. 4170, the "Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996." Within a few days, the bill attracts a coalition of 26 Republican cosponsors. The legislation demands either a life sentence or the death penalty for anyone caught bringing more than two ounces of marijuana into the United States. The bill ultimately dies a well-deserved death.
 * }

Searches:
 * http://www.google.com/search?&q=HR+4170+Gingrich
 * http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Drug+Importer+Death+Penalty+Act%22+Gingrich

References: --Timeshifter (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h104-4170

Jihad watch
This source is not reliable. The author, Robert Spencer, from "Jihad watch" is an unreliable source. The website human events promotes such radicals as Ann Coulter.

This is definitely not a good source on a BLP.VR talk  04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * VR, I think you are drawing too narrow a circle around Jihad Watch and Human Events. Just providing a platform for Ann Coulter can't be it -- all kinds of publications run opinions from all across the spectrum. Now I don't think I would trust Robert Spencer or Jihad Watch to provide reporting from the Middle East the same way as I would trust the Christian Science Monitor, but that does not mean the site is entirely unfit for use in Wikipedia. Can Robert Spencer be considered a reliable source of opinion for what the conservative movement thinks about Newt Gingrich's stated opposition to sharia law? Definitely. Like him or not, Robert Spencer and his editors at Human Events have a certain reknown in the conservative community, and they have made a point of making this statement about Newt Gingrich. It appears to be a truly held opinion, and significant, so I'm going to replace it now. Stargat (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * After further discussion on the Noticeboard where you opened the question, another editor suggested a CNN story, and that is now the primary source provided in that section. I hope you agree this is better. Stargat (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree using CNN as a source. But you seem to have reverted your addition of CNN. I'm assuming that was accidental and will change it back.VR talk  06:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Help
In Nonfiction boooks To Renew America has a Skype link that is over 500 versions old.75.202.231.200 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked over the article, and didn't see any links to Skype. Either it's been fixed, or I am mistaken. The article is not protected, meaning you can edit it to fix any issues you see. Avic ennasis  @ 20:30, 23 Tevet 5771 / 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * After 25 minutes of waiting, finally got to a verify screen I could decipher; problem was a stealth Skype toolbar that recently updated itself and has now been removed, I.d.'d by the help live desk. Sorry to bother anyone for anything at this end. 75.204.2.197 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Obesity
Removed the comment about him weighing 500 lbs since it was not referenced and seems highly unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.6.246 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Request edit in marriages section
My name is Joe DeSantis and I am the Communications Director for Gingrich Communications. In the past I have occasionally sought to help improve this article, and I would like to continue to do so by making suggestions for uninvolved editors. I have studied Suggestions for COI compliance and will make every effort to follow this advice.

I have one request at the moment that has some implication regarding Biographies of living persons. The final sentence of the first paragraph of Marriages contains incomplete information about a much talked about episode regarding Mr. Gingrich's divorce from Ms. Battley. The sentence begins "According to Battley" however the Esquire and New York Times citations make no such attribution. I suggest this be rewritten to reflect what is in the sources. In addition, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, addressed the matter in a recent syndicated column, aiming to correct misconceptions about the incident. I have written a suggested replacement for this, and here it is:


 * News reports have often mentioned that Gingrich visited Battley while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. However, Gingrich has disputed the account as has his daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, who has written that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay (which was for the removal of a benign tumor, not cancer), and that Gingrich’s visit was for the purpose of bringing his children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.

If there are any questions about this proposed change, I am available to help and will try to respond in a timely manner. Thanks for your consideration. --Joedesantis (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made your proposed change in the article, as it is reliably sourced and appears to be consistent with WP:NPOV.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Joedesantis (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. DeSantis,


 * As you are acting in the interests and behest of the subject of this Wikipedia page, who is an imminent living political figure and current presidential candidate, great care must be taken with the treatment of your suggested editions, including the writing style and presentation of each. As the character protection of Mr. Gingrich is undoubtedly of concern to your company, then Wikipedia's editors will expect, and respect, attempts by the Gingrich 2012 campaign to revise Mr. Gingrich's Wikipedia biography, as long as these are done in line with Wikipedia's standards, and allow for revisions of language and tone, then the sources you add to (Refer to the BLP Help Section: Biography of a Living Person


 * As with any edition, Wikipedia requires factual information that cites from a reliable source and conveyed in dispassionate language from a neutral point of view. While I think that the circumstances of Mr. Gingrich's divorce are in fact politically irrelevant, I must object to both the second citation and also the writing style you've chosen for the edition above. You have paraphrased an article written by Gingrich's daughter for Creator Syndicate.


 * Ms. Cushman defends her father and disputes claims made by the media, going on to give her own account of the event in her family's personal life which has received recent media coverage following Gingrich's announcement of his candidacy for president. I'm aware that by now the wording of your suggested edition has been changed, but there are a great number of non-neutral statements on Gingrich's biography. I suggest in the future to use direct quotes, instead of for example the parenthetical phrase (which was for the removal of a benign tumor, not cancer) and your unwelcome use of the word however in an entry of this sort. Gingrich's dispute of the allegations do not negate them, as this sort of language would suggest. As I read Ms. Cushman's article, I was frustrated by the fact that while Ms. Cushman's account is intentionally persuasive and succeeds in that aim, your edit is unintentionally persuasive and fails where the source did not, simply because your language betrays the edit as an argumentative one, rather than placed contextually in the beginning of a presidential campaign where media controversy of a past event has evoked Ms. Cushman's response, given her involvement and support of her father's candidacy.


 * You will have noticed that myself and others have improved the tone of similar political disclaimers on Mr. Gingrich's page, or we have removed these items that do not meet wikipedia standards or qualify as outright Whitewashing. Unfortunately, there are numerous instances remaining of this which have not been addressed. I will neutralize the language of this paragraph at a later time if someone else has not.


 * In the meanwhile, I hope I have helped you in some way to improve your future suggestions or revisions. Thank you for identifying your relationship to Mr. Gingrich, and for your consideration of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines.


 * {| class="wikitable"

Wikipedia Essay: An Article about Yourself is Nothing to be Proud of
 * An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. The Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy will ensure that the good and the bad about you will be told, that whitewashing is not allowed, and that the conflict of interest (COI) policy limits your ability to edit out any negative material from an article about yourself. There are serious consequences of ignoring these policies, and the "Law of Unintended Consequences" works on Wikipedia. If your faults are minor and relatively innocent, then you have nothing to fear, but coveting "your" own article isn't something to seek, because it won't be your "own" at all. Once it's in Wikipedia, it is viewed by the world and cannot be recalled.
 * An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. The Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy will ensure that the good and the bad about you will be told, that whitewashing is not allowed, and that the conflict of interest (COI) policy limits your ability to edit out any negative material from an article about yourself. There are serious consequences of ignoring these policies, and the "Law of Unintended Consequences" works on Wikipedia. If your faults are minor and relatively innocent, then you have nothing to fear, but coveting "your" own article isn't something to seek, because it won't be your "own" at all. Once it's in Wikipedia, it is viewed by the world and cannot be recalled.
 * }
 * --DLockwood (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the tumor was not caused by cancer, then what caused it? Is there a citation that specifically says that this benign tumor was not cancer-related?  138.199.72.17 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be a misunderstanding on my part, but I think cancer = malign tumor. Therefore, benign tumor is not cancer. That´s how we use the terms in swedish, anyway.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

HR 4170 help request
A new section on this page was recently added, called "Death Penalty Act for >2oz marijuana". The material comes from StoptheDrugWar.org, an advocacy site, and moreover it has been copied and pasted directly, so it is a copyright violation. In addition, the bill is available on THOMAS where anyone can see it does not refer to marijuana at all, let alone specific amounts. Therefore, the current claims amount to original research. Finally, this is a relatively insignificant thing to put on his main page. Better suited for drug policy section on the Political Positions page, and done so more accurately. I'd appreciate it if another editor would consider these points in comparison to what has been added and bring this section in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. --Joedesantis (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Already done. I made a similar evaluation (non-RS, copyvio) while reviewing my watch list before seeing your comments. (I did, however, leave the same editor's modification of the section heading from "Legislative accomplishments" to "Legislation"). Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ETA: Please don't over-argue your case by being disingenuous, though. HR 4170 refers to subsection (b)(1) of existing law; subsection (b)(1)(G) includes "a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana". Though, of course, there's no indication that the AG has determined/would determine the usual dosage to be half a gram... Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, F&H. It was not my intent to be disingenuous, I admit I had simply consulted the bill text on THOMAS, but I appreciate the clarification and I'll look into it. Meanwhile, if you don't mind looking at the "Political positions of Newt Gingrich" article again, I have posted a request about trying to balance the information available about Newt Gingrich's comments this week about entitlement reform. Someone has added new information, but I would like for Mr. Gingrich's clarification to be included. --Joedesantis (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination
I'm going to nominate this for good article if there are no objections. —Designate (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Business scams
Sorry, I'm not sure where to put this, but I was watching Rachel Maddow's program and she went pretty indepth about Gingrich's business scams that seem to approach Nigerian prince level. I was wondering why there was no mention on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.221.14 (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a news source. Every story about the figure need not be mentioned in the article simply because it is on TV.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Residence
The table at the top lists Gingrich's residence as Atlanta starting in 2011, but the text still states that he lives in McLean, VA. Which is it? Where are the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.95.187 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As multiple recent media reports state that Gingrich currently resides in McLean, Virginia, I have removed Atlanta from the list of residences in the infobox and added a citation confirming his continued residence in McLean. Stargat (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

College Professor
This title still isn't accurate. It should read: "College professor"  A Professor with a capital P is a specific title that Gingrich has not achieved and misrepresents his credentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmadoher (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

4chan
4chan's word filter filters a word to newt gingrich. thought it might be noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.126.144 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not; unless there's a lot of coverage of the phenomenon, it's not really important to understanding the subject of this article. rewinn (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

in 4chan's /b/ board, newt gingrich has basically replaced the word "newfag" and being used to refer to newcomers and annoying people alike. i agree with Rewinn btw, possibly put it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan under memes though Divinity76 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GOPAC memo
Just found this article: GOPAC memo. Not sure whether it's worth mentioning in this one somewhere. Anyone have any thoughts? Robofish (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Children Information?
Most other wiki pages for major political figures include information about their children (names, years of birth, and gender). This seems absent unless I'm missing it.

This site http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Children.php includes the information:

"Gingrich has two daughters, both from his first marriage to Jackie Battley

Kathleen Gingrich Lubbers (born 1963) is currently the president of Gingrich Communications. Jacqueline Sue Gingrich Cushman (born 1966) is a published author."

(quoting directly from the site, may need to reword) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericwburns (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See Newt Gingrich, end of first paragraph, though admittedly it seems a bit buried. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 21 November 2011
In his Bio info it says his Mother and Father married in Sept 1992, this doesnt make sense, I think its ment to be 1942. 90.219.152.37 (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Marriage Date of newt Gingrich's parents
The date of marriage is listed as 1992 but Newt Gingrich's date of birth is listed as 1943. Is his parent's marriage date 1942 instead of 1992. I would have changed it but the page is listed as semi-portected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisstacey (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking credit for Library of Congress online?
The following was listed in this article under "Other Legislation," suggesting that Thomas online is due, somehow, to work by Gingrich. The Library of Congress makes no mention of legislation in 1994 that paved the way for bringing legislative resources online in 1995. While it's nice that Gingrich likes the idea, it seems inappropriate to credit him for the work, which properly belongs to the director of the Library of Congress since 1987, James H. Billington who championed the project. So the following is now out of this bio:

Shortly after the Republicans won the House majority, Gingrich promised that the House would be on the Internet by the opening day of the 104th United States Congress. In January 1995, Gingrich and the Library of Congress unveiled THOMAS, an Internet-accessible database of congressional information. THOMAS initially included text versions of bills of the 103rd United States Congress, directory information, and other legislative materials. Commenting on the new system, Gingrich said, "This will change the balance of power in America toward the citizens out of the Beltway. There will be a shift to talking about ideas, not personalities." Skywriter (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 27 November 2011
Under the section on "Government Shutdown" about half way down, the article says that "Thomas Daschle, R-South Dakota". Of course it should say "Thomas Daschle, D-South Dakota.

Buck2000 (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. ✅ Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

External links, CongLinks, please add after the nyt parameter: as the Wall Street Journal now has a topic collection of their articles about him. 75.59.204.236 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * wsj = G/newt-gingrich/6579
 * ✅ Thanks! nprice (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Resignation
The sentence, "Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 midterm elections—the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency." is patently false. A swing of less than a percent is hardly even particularly bad performance, and the 96 elections had a -9 seat swing. 149.101.1.115 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)dbartramr
 * The sentence is referring to midterm elections only. It may need to be rephrased. —Designate (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

South Carolina Polls
Do we have any numbers for how newt is performing in South Carolina? Manofmyth (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There are polls listed here on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#South_Carolina_.2847_Delegates.29 Newt is leading in South Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithandmissy (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Egomania
I have had personal experience with Newt Gingrich and found him to be egomaniacal and megalomaniacal. While I'm sure many politicians are egomaniacs, is the psychological makeup of a politician noteworthy for Wikipedia? I'm sure many people would like to know what he's really like, but are personal recollections in dealing with him admissable, even if annotated? Thanks. 66.122.183.78 (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's reliably cited and relatively mainstream, then yes, it's fair game. Your personal anecdote is probably not. —Designate (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't suspect it as admissible. --Meepdeedoo (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm taking issue here with all three prior posts. 1) I am highly skeptical that you are qualified to what degree, if any, someone you "had a personal experience with" is "egomaniacal and megalomaniacal."  What are your professional qualifications to determine such "psychological makeup?"  An ACTUAL psychologist would NOT presume to make such an examination without an actual examination and would also be gagged by numerous laws preventing the dissemination of such information.


 * 2) "I wouldn't suspect it as admissible" and & 3) "...likely inadmissible..." Really?  Gee, do you think?  Um, how about "Hell no, it isn't admissible."  That would fit better.  We are discussing a bio of a living person.  Talk about liability.  Scotti 69.245.157.223 (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section Cleanup and POV Issues
The lead section has become sloppy in recent weeks and does not conform with Manual of Style/Lead section. It is disorganized with too many paragraphs and sentences not grouped by subject matter. There is also a lot of junk in there that just doesn't merit lead paragraph status.

More importantly, what *is* included appears to have an anti-Gingrich bias in violation of WP:NPV. There is no need to include Gingrich's unsuccessful runs for office. This isn't Sarah Palin, folks; he's not known for losing elections. Then, the fact that he resigned from office on ethics charges is of dubious importance (I agree with Bismarchthegreat's comment above), but regardless, even if it stays in the lead, it should be put below in a separate paragraph. And the fact that Livingston mounted a campaign to depose him? Who cares?

Moving on... The fact that he worked with Clinton at times and opposed him at times, not worth mentioning; all opposite-party speakers are the same... The vote tallies on the ethics charges, not important... Extra emphasis on not serving out his final term, not warranted... "Highly paid" consultant? Yes, it has become a recent issue in the election, but take a step back, please - this smacks of bias.

For all of the reasons above, I'm adding a POV-lead tag.

--Nstrauss (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at rewriting it to fit in with our better articles. The order I like is 1) Very basic overview for fifth-graders, 2) Upbringing and early career, 3) reasonably thorough summary of House career, 4) post-House career. This fits in with FAs like Barack Obama for example. —Designate (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Much better, but I think we're not quite there. First, the details of his early life don't seem important enough to merit inclusion. (Obama's upbringing and education are unique and noteworthy on their own; Gingrich's are not.) Second, "highly paid" consultant is much too strong; should be something like "political consultant." And while I personally agree that Gingrich's a activities amount to de facto lobbying I don't think it's appropriate for the lead when (a) it's not included in the body of the article; (b) it is currently in heavy dispute and the facts are still being revealed; and (c) no neutral news source has come out and explicitly said he was a lobbyist. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Much too strong" according to what source? NPOV generally means avoiding the insertion of a Wikipedia slant between the sources and the article.  The terminology here is appropriately sourced, and on a more general level the level of compensation has been considered notable by several mainstream sources.  There ought to be something brief in the introduction about how, if he has not been a lobbyist, his compensation has been controversial for a "historian" or whatever he really is.  "highly paid" hints subtly that he is perceived by many to be a controversial Washington insider.  This is central to Newt Gingrich's public persona, in fact.  If this hint is to be deleted, I would insist that a neutral reading requires a mention of the common perception that he's been a lobbyist/insider.  You think that would be preferable?  In any case, the article does not not explicitly say he was a lobbyist so I do not understand how you come to the conclusion that the article is inconsistent with "neutral news sources[s]".--Brian Dell (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "'highly paid' hints subtly" ***Wikipedia*** should NOT "hint" at anything. It is not the role of a legitimate encyclopedia to "hint."  Facts are straight forward AND documented.  He is also a "highly paid" public speaker.  Has that merited mention?  He was also a "highly paid" guest commentator.  Has that merited mention?  He is a "highly paid" writer.  Has that merited mention?  No, no and no.  The only reason "highly paid" is there is to suggest at something that is not supported by the facts--that there is something wrong with being a successful consultant.  Perhaps the United States should elect UN-successful consultants (speakers, commentators, writers, etc.) as Presidents.  --Scotti    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.157.223 (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bdell555, you have to take a step back and look at the larger view. We're discussing whether "highly paid" should be in the lead, not whether it should be in the article at all. For a tidbit to be in the lead it has to be an extremely noteworthy tidbit. 10 years from now, will Gingrich be known for how much money he has made as a consultant? No, it's only particularly noteworthy at the moment because he's now running a campaign against Washington insiders. Once his campaign is over he will go back to making lots of money and no one will care. You say that "a neutral reading requires a mention of the common perception that he's been a lobbyist/insider." Regarding the "lobbyist" moniker, see above for my take on that. As for being an "insider," I think using the term "political consultant" (no "highly paid") conveys that message; whether he was highly paid does not make him any more of an insider. (E.g. I'm not aware that Tom Delay, the ultimate Washington insider, made much money.) --Nstrauss (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There ought to be something about his early life, although it doesn't have to be everything I included. The lead's meant to be a summary of the entire article, so it should touch on every top-level section. —Designate (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree on your last statement. Look at the lead for nearly every other PF and you will not see any reference to their early life unless it is somehow related to their fame. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Highly-paid" is not POV, but there are probably less subjective ways to say it. Private sector political consultant might be a more precise way of putting it. As per the original, though, i think his leaving office over ethics charges IS lede-worthy. This is a significant aspect of his political career, as relatively notable to Gingrich as Clinton's impeachment was to Clinton (obviously they're relative, not absolutely, as notable). Clinton's issue appears in his lede, Gingrich's should as well. As per working with Clinton, this is also a significant aspect of his political career, which is consistently noted in the sources. If it was not, you're right, it would be part and parcel of his position, but this is notable, in essence, because it has been noted. That may sound tautological, but it reflects the sources. I am certainly not implying any hidden agenda on behalf of the OP. However, I think we should try to avoid even the appearance of sanitizing this article. 204.65.34.246 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Personality Traits
'' There is a lot of stuff at

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/12/insiders-not-so.php

'' commenting on Newt's personality, coming from anonymously sourced Republican "insiders". The overwhelming refrain from the majority of insiders on both sides focused on Gingrich's temperament and the unpredictable risks it would create in a general election:

"Winning the presidency is all about discipline, focus, and organization," said one Republican insider, "none of which are strong suits for Gingrich."

"With Newt, we go to bed every night thinking that tomorrow might be the day he implodes," said another Republican.

"Not good for our confidence - or fundraising." A third Republican stated plainly, "Gingrich is not stable enough emotionally to be the nominee - let alone, the president."

"Newt can't take the scrutiny," agreed a Democrat, "and he has the personality of an angry badger."

"Bigfoot, dressed as a circus clown, would have a better chance of beating President Obama than Newt Gingrich, a similarly farcical character," quipped another Republican.

'' When his party colleagues are willing to talk about the subject, then it transcends chitchat and the very fact that many of his peers hold this perception of him makes it news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.208.101 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is embarrassing that this is even here--OBVIOUSLY it does NOT belong. "Anonymously sourced" has no legitimate place in a legitimate encyclopedia.  Disgusting.  --Scotti  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.157.223 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A long list of sources IS given at the web address cited above, a list you obviously didn't read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.208.101 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you need to cite specific references, not point to a website and tell people to do your work for you. If you have a suggestion for adding content, provide the original source. Just as we can't use a wiki page that has references as a source, we can't use another website that contains references, if we're intended to reference the original source. 204.65.34.246 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011 Newt Gingrich
House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker "The House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing. The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip."

by John E. Yang Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm

Joprocter (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-specific request. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich, John McCloskey and Opus Dei
C. John McCloskey who is a member of the controversial Opus Dei Catholic Group is the priest who converted Newt Gingrich

[...]Fr. C. John McCloskey recently returned home to Washington, D.C. to celebrate the 30th anniversary of his priesthood. A somewhat shy man, McCloskey has been responsible for many conversions to the Catholic Church, including Judge Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, Lawrence Kudlow and Dr. Bernard Nathanson. (Before his conversion, Nathanson had been a NARAL founder and abortionist who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of babies.)[...] http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2011/07/25/father_c_john_fisher_of_men_106289.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.46.73 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Palestine Israel
How about mentioning Gingrichs latest “thesis” that Palestinians are “an invented people. They are somewhat Arabs and nothing else”. This errant saying is part of his “Israel strategy” and caused a lot of irritation in Europe. B.t.w. Palestinians are semites. Not arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.134.136 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Shoudn't we remove this rant against recent controvertial pronouncements as being irrelevant to the discussion of how an impartial Newt Gingrich bio should be structured? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.206.70 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No it is a good point, if the impartial bio is to say that Newt Gingrich is an accomplished historian his statement that the Palestinians are “an invented people" may give evidence as to how "accomplished" he is. He seems to ignore countless references to Palestine thought out the ages. This is not a term or a people or a nation that has just been invented in the Truman era, no matter how much Israel and Newt want us to believe that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.77.222 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Bias in Opening Paragraph?
The following was taken from the opening paragraph- questionable statements bolded

Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich ( /ˈnuːt ˈɡɪŋɡrɪtʃ/; born Newton Leroy McPherson; June 17, 1943) is a U.S. Republican Party politician who served as the House Minority Whip from 1989 to 1995 and then as the 58th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. '''On January 21, 1997, the House of Representatives voted to discipline him for ethical wrongdoing. He was accused of using tax-deductible charitable donations to fund a non-charitable college course that he taught, and of giving false information about this to the House Ethics Committee. In a 395-28 vote, the House ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty as part of a settlement to avoid a full hearing.[3]''' Gingrich had represented Georgia's 6th congressional district from January 3, 1979 until January 3, 1999 when he resigned as speaker and as a member of Congress. Gingrich did not serve the 11th term to which he had been elected in November 1998. An author and historian, Gingrich twice ran unsuccessfully for the House in the 1970s during the eight years he was teaching history in college. On his third try, he won a seat in the election of November 1978 and was re-elected ten times. Gingrich resigned from the House on Nov. 5, 1998, three days after being elected to the 11th term. [4] His resignation came on the heels of an election in which the Republican Party lost five congressional seats and after Rep. Bob Livingston (R-Louisiana) mounted a campaign to depose Gingrich as party leader.[5] Gingrich had "been a lightning rod for controversy ever since he steered his party to the majority in 1994 and took control of the speakers gavel."[6] A co-author and architect of Contract with America, Gingrich was in the forefront of Republican Party success in the 1994 Congressional election. In 1995, Time magazine named him "Man of the Year" for his role in ending 40 years of majority rule by the Democratic Party. During his four years as House speaker, Gingrich sometimes opposed President Bill Clinton but he also worked closely with Clinton, in 1996, to limit public welfare, and, in 1997, to pass a capital gains tax cut and, in 1998, to pass the first balanced budget since 1969. In the 13 years after resigning from the House, Gingrich became a highly paid[7] [8] political consultant. He has written twenty-three books including historical fiction. He is the founder and/or chair of American Solutions for Winning the Future, Center for Health Transformation, Gingrich Productions and Renewing American Leadership. In May 2011, Gingrich announced his intent to seek the Republican nomination to run for the U.S. presidency.

These statements may or may not be true, but have no placement in the opening paragraph. When compared with the introduction to the articles about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain and Mitt Romney, Gingrich's introduction- which is the part that is most read- lists in brief their early life, and career accomplishments. Controversies and in the case of the "lightening rod" quote- a quote that is inherently negative in the introduction to the article. This introduction seems biased against Gingrich, while the various introductions to the other public figures aforementioned do not show the same amount of bias and negativity.. We need to keep this encyclopedia fair to all on it, whether the editor agrees with the positions of the subject of the article or not. I am not saying that these issues need hidden- they should just be addressed in the appropriate areas of the article. Please we need to keep this fair. Bismarckthegreat (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're forgetting how important ethics charges were to his career. Similarly, his resignation just days after winning in Georgia is pretty important. Darren717 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, let's compare one other important public figure with misconduct in their history. President Clinton for instance. See statement below.

Statement on President Clinton's First Paragragh: Later, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a scandal involving a White House intern, but was acquitted by the U.S. Senate and served his complete term of office.

In my view, I support that Newt has been given a negative bias. This short and quick statemtent on IMPEACHMENT do not compare to the statemtents complained about by Bismarkthegreat. In fairness to both of these important public figures, I think the tone should also be similar. The opening paragragh has much more detail than is needed and this information can be moved to other sections of this article. This statement, for instance, He was accused of using tax-deductible charitable donations to fund a non-charitable college course that he taught, and of giving false information about this to the House Ethics Committee. Is much more detail than is needed in a summary. Move it to a section below. This would be much more in line with the Clinton article and both of them have had misconduct in their history. As further example of bias, please note that Gingrich's article mentions Lewinsky by name in the summary, where as it is not mentioned in Clinton's article, just stated as intern. Being that they are both tied to the incident, we should see a level of fairness in the reporting of the information. I support a rewrite of complaints by Bismarkthegreat as well as the Callista and Lewinsky comments. Either remove them or rewrite them with less bias and feel free to put them in other areas of the article. Jvaughters (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The intro should point out that Gingrich was running for reelection in his congressional district when house republicans were planning to toss him as speaker. They succeeded and Newt won re-election. However, he refused to serve his term, leaving in a snit. So, the state of GA had to pay for a new congressional election for his district. I wonder how much that cost the state of GA. Why isn't this emphasized. Also, his PhD thesis from Tulane was on Belgian educational efforts in the Congo. He doesn't have a PhD in history. He is a self taught, amateur historian a la Glenn Beck. His only teaching position as an "historian" was as an instructor at the University of West Georgia (1970-1978), where he also taught geography. I do not believe he was on any sort of history tenure track. The wiki article on this insttution of higher learning says nothing about him being a professor there. I do not believe Newt has ever written anything published by an academic press. I realize there are many authors without history degrees who are rightly regarded as "historians" and recognized as peers by academic historians. Gingrich isn't one of them. I suggest that every reference to him as a "historian" be prefixed with the word "amateur." FrancisDane (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If he was paid for teaching history, "amateur" would be an incorrect characterization. Warren Dew (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The major issues with the header seem to have been resolved. Time to remove the tag? Warren Dew (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)