Talk:Newt Gingrich/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removal of peer-reviewed research

An entire section was scrubbed from the article.[1] This section cited more than a dozen peer-reviewed academic publications (in addition to non-peer-reviewed expert assessments). This text should be restored. It should also be noted that I stopped adding more publications to that section, because the text in it was so extensively supported by the existing sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

What part of the NPOV policy do you not understand?

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

You really think those academic publications are without bias? Really? Exzachary (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:RS policy. I quote WP:SOURCETYPES, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." If the publications in question give a misleading or skewed view of the academic literature, please point out how. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

For starters: "According to Harvard University political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky, Gingrich's speakership had a profound and lasting impact on American politics and health of American democracy. They argue that Gingrich instilled a "combative" approach in the Republican Party, where hateful language and hyper-partisanship became commonplace, and where democratic norms were abandoned".

Is this argument of theirs based on facts? No. It's based on conjecture. This is clearly speculative. This is partisan analysis. Exzachary (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The statement is attributed to the two experts in question. Their assertion is furthermore supported by numerous other academic sources, which shows that this is not a fringe position. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

From the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Academic_consensus page: "Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material." Your sources are filled with blanket statements, such as blaming hyper-partisanship and hateful language solely on Gingrich. Exzachary (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with sources doing research. Your quote is talking about wikipedia editors taking sources and writing their opinion of the sources. ~ GB fan 15:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) The text at no point blames anything "solely" on Gingrich. (2) There is no original research or synthesis. There are more than a dozen peer-reviewed academic sources that support the text, including peer-reviewed articles and books that specifically seek to account for the phenomena of polarization. And dozens more sources could easily be added that say the exact same thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"They argue that Gingrich instilled" - that's putting the blame solely on one person. Please stop injecting your personal bias into articles. I know that's your agenda. Exzachary (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And that's also supported by numerous other academic sources, and the Wikipedia article even provides a clear example of this when it lists the words that Gingrich instructed his fellow Republicans to use about Democrats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no evidence that some list of words, which may or may not even exist, is the reason why hyper-partisanship is commonplace. That's speculation on their part.Exzachary (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple peer-reviewed studies cited and quoted, which provide all kinds of evidence for how Gingrich contributed to polarization. You scrubbed them all from the article, presumably without having read a single one of them. I have no interest in engaging in WP:NOTFORUM debates with you about American politics. Whether you agree with the contents of the sources is completely irrelevant in terms of deciding whether the content belongs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Speculation along with unfounded blanket statements is not evidence, no matter how bad you want it to be. Exzachary (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This is still speculation and opinion blatantly violating NPOV, and I believe this page is worth reopening discussion on the topic rather than erring on the side of one consistently biased editor.165.225.39.69 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Sock of blocked user Squanchinho

Not on the request of a sock of an indef blocked user Squanchinho. TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Newt.image.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Main image

Should we use a recent photo of Gingrich for the infobox? The photo is outdated and should be replaced with a recent like similar to how Bernie Sanders' infobox is? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Political decorum"

In December 2019, an IP editor slipped in a wording change under the disguise of fixing citations. The editor changed the sentence "Political scientists have credited Gingrich with playing a key role in undermining democratic norms in the United States, and hastening political polarization and partisanship" so that "democratic norms" was changed to "political decorum". However, the sources are explicitly about democratic norms or democratic erosion, not "political decorum" (which the editor hyperlinked to "bipartisanship") which is something entirely different. The text should obviously stick to what the sources actually say. I tried to restore the text to what the sources say but it was immediately reverted by an editor who had obviously not had the time to read the peer-reviewed sources that were cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV

"Political scientists have credited Gingrich with playing a key role in undermining democratic norms in the United States, and hastening political polarization and partisanship."

What is this doing in the lede??? WBcoleman (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

What it's doing is accurately describing the view of professional political scientists on Gingrich's role in American political history. Guy (help!) 16:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Professional political scientists from Harvard? So, leftist hacks. I remember those years as a breath of fresh air where I thought the government might get its tax and spend socialism under control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.60.128.215 (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Leade

Contains sources that violate NPOV remove2600:8805:C980:9400:6CA5:272F:8B6C:F6C6 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Please explain your objections to the sources. Schazjmd (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I have several times. They are by professors who are loyal to the Democratic party and "progressivisim"2600:8805:C980:9400:6CA5:272F:8B6C:F6C6 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

For other editors, the contested content is Political scientists have credited Gingrich with playing a key role in undermining democratic norms in the United States and hastening political polarization and partisanship. The refs, which are cited multiple times in the article, are Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Simply belonging to the Democratic party (assuming you're correct that they all do) doesn't disqualify their professional judgement. From a quick search, they all seem to be respected contributors to the political science field. Please read WP:NPOV; "neutral point of view" means that we summarize reliable sources in a neutral manner, not that every reliable source must be neutral. Schazjmd (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Citation overkill in "Role in political polarization"

Under "Role in political polarization", in the first sentence, we say "A number of scholars have credited Gingrich with playing a key role in undermining democratic norms in the United States, and hastening political polarization and partisan prejudice." followed by twelve sources. This most definitely runs afoul of WP:OVERCITE. If you want to show that a number of scholars have said something, you don't need twelve sources saying that thing, rather you need one or two scholarly sources talking about the number of scholars saying it. You need something like a meta-analysis, not a laundry list of sources that a reader is never going to have time to go to to verify.JMM12345 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Having a large block of text with minimal rewording from a biased source without in text attribution is unacceptable.

Under personal life, as part of the last paragraph, we say:

Following the divorce, Jackie had to raise money from friends in her congregation to help her and the children make ends meet; she later filed a petition in court stating that Gingrich had failed to properly provide for his family. Gingrich submitted a financial statement to the judge, which showed that he had been "providing only $400 a month, plus $40 in allowances for his daughters. He claimed not to be able to afford any more. But in citing his own expenses, Gingrich listed $400 just for 'Food / dry cleaning, etc.'—for one person."

The main problem is that we are essentially reprinting what was said in a biased source in Wikipedia's voice. Per WP:RSP, "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." and based on WP:BIASED, we (at the very least) should attribute these comments as coming from Mother Jones in the text if we include them at all. Now, I would argue that basically including an entire block of text from Mother Jones in this article is WP:UNDUE, and that for an article about such a prominent figure like Newt Gingrich, we should be able to get info from sources that are unbiased, and we should only use such biased sources sparingly and with proper attribution. I would therefore support getting rid of this text entirely, but if we do keep it, some changes definitely need to be made. I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue that this section of text does not have a clear editorial tone that implies a political motivation.

The bottom line is that presenting unattributed nearly verbatim block of text from a biased source as if it it is with Wikipedia's voice should not be permitted.JMM12345 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Mother Jones is a reliable source, but you are right on politics it probably should not be reproduced as block text in most cases. This can be reworked into prose and can draw from an already cited source from the LA Times [2] where it talks about his failure to pay child support and alimony as ordered by the court and how in 1993 his first ex-wife went back to court with a motion that "this court issue an order directing the sheriff of Carroll County, state of Georgia, to arrest and seize the defendant and incarcerate him in the common jail until said individual complies fully and completely with this court's final judgment." That apparently was what it took to get that all settled. EricSerge (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)