Talk:Phil Gingrey

Cleanup

I've rephrased the bit about Abu Ghraib. To put it bluntly, it read too biased. Most of that information was better off in the articles on Guantanamo Bay, Janet Karpinski, and others. In addition, it's simply wrong to say that his opinion was "contradicted". He may well feel that Iraqi prisons should be more like Gitmo--his holding of that opinion is a fact, which cannot be contradicted. We're supposed to follow Wikipedia:NPOV, a neutral-point-of-view policy. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC).

Does a NPOV require moral cowardice? We have to be very careful that what is being called NPOV isn't an exercise in ideological apologetics. To describe Gingrey without his policy defense of Guantanamo is like describing Nixon without reference to Watergate or Clinton without reference to Monica Lewinsky. Gingrey is defined as a political figure by his defense of what is being done in Guantanamo. He chose that path.

Gingrey's email newsletter went out yesterday. I'd like to see some documentation that this is Gingrey's version of a Watergate. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Scandal is scandal. Watergate is unlike Monica Lewinsky, which are both unlike Bush's lies about the WMD. All are scandals. Gingrey, a physician, goes to Guantanamo and pronounces it good. The ICRC has criticised the use of confidential health records to interrogate prisoners at Guantanamo. The torture at Abu Ghraib are procedures first used at Guantanamo according to Karpinsky.

You use the phrase "alleged abuse" to describe torture? Didn't you see the photos? How alleged did it look to you?

You're right, that was poor phrasing. In my defense, I'm a reporter's kid, so "alleged" just comes as a matter of course. I'll change that now. P.S. Nothing's stopping you from changing the article--I'd welcome suggestions on how to improve the writing while still maintaining NPOV. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meelar, thank you. Lets keep working on this together. __________________________

How do we know that it was, "a case of truly unfortunate timnig"? Perhaps it was intentional. Logically we cannot know what is happening in the minds of Gingrey or his staff. Given the gravity of these issues what we need to do is avoid making excuses for wrong doing.

Actually, it had to be unfortunate timing. That letter was written days earlier; we can tell because it was released on the day of Karpinski's revelations. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well...no..it doesn't have to be "truly unfortunate". Perhaps it is fortunate because it reveals something important. In any event we neeed to avoid the langauge of apology. Also, how do you know it was written days earlier? Unless you have some direct role in writing the e-mail newsletter, that is a supposition on your part.

No, it's common sense. If a Congressional newsletter goes in the mail on Day X, it was completed at least one day earlier, probably several. Think: it takes time to get them to the printers, to mark them all with postage, and to put them into the mail, as well as to write them--there's no way that an ordinary newsletter would be written and mailed on the same day. I've worked on numerous campaigns and Washington offices, trust me on this one. The notion that it "reveals something important" is anti-Gingrey POV. Frankly, I've got my qualms about having the incident in the article at all, as it doesn't seem to be the defining moment of his time in office--Rick Crawford's website doesn't even mention it. Also, that stuff about his ethical obligations is unsubstantiated POV. If his critics are saying that, then name them, and provide his defense as well; if his critics aren't saying it, then we don't really have any right to. I've edited accordingly. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your "common sense" is nothing more than ideological apology. Gingery has chosen to define himself in this way.

It's "ideological apology" to point out that things aren't written on the same day they're mailed out? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unless you are Gingrey or one of his staff, you cannot know their intent. A more reasonable conclusion is that Gingrey intended his newsletter to defuse public outrage about the torture of detainees.

But when that letter was written and mailed, nobody knew there was prisoner abuse at Guantanamo. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How do you claim to know that as fact? Unless you are Gingrey or a member of his staff. If so your efforts here look like self-promotion.

I'm not Gingrey, nor in any way affiliated with him; in fact, I hadn't even heard of him until I saw this article. Let's look at the possibilities.

1. Gingrey put out the newsletter in response to the Karpinski allegations. This would require him to make up a multiple page mailing, professionally written and designed, and mail it out, in one day, all so that he could defend abuse of prisoners. We're also asked to believe that neither the media (I did a Lexis-Nexis search) nor his opponent have picked this up and attacked him for it.
2. Gingrey wrote the newsletter accidentally, it was a minor incident that certainly hasn't defined his candidacy, and has slipped into oblivion.

Since I've been unable to find any mention of this newsletter whatsoever, I must conclude that, even if it does exist (which I don't know), it was so minor as to not merit mention in the article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The e-mail newsletter was sent to Gingrey's constituents. I am one. You should contact his office and ask for a copy. His willingness to endorse what is happening at Guantanamo as a Member of Congress and a Physician makes it relevant to his identity just as the bombing of Cambodia and Watergate were crucial to the identity of Richard Nixon. Who is the "we" that you refer to? I read only your words here. Don't attempt to speak for everyone else. That is a cheap demogogic trick. Lets stick to the facts rather than engage in any more of what you think is "common sense". By your own admission you haven't even seen the newsletter.

We was referring to you and I. And no, I haven't seen the newsletter. Neither, apparently, has Rick Crawford. Nor has the Georgia media. Given the extremely low level of attention being paid to it, I'd say this has no place in the article.

Look, I don't like Gingrey any more than you do. I'm rooting for Rick Crawford. But since nobody else seems to be paying attention to this, we can't include it in the article. There's no way it's akin to Cambodia or Watergate, because nobody has mentioned it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, I just remembered, but there is a policy that nobody is allowed to revert more than three times in a 24 hour period. So instead of edit warring, we should try to work out text that's acceptable to both of us. I've created /proposed version with the current text, so we can try to come to some conclusions there. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Our personal opinions about either Gingrey and Crawford are not relevant here. Let me encourage you to go back and look at the history of "secret bombing" of Cambodia. You'll find that it took a while to enter the collective consciousness. My last edits were not a reversion, they include new material: BBC 4.

Well, until the newsletter enters the common consciousness in the same way as Cambodia, there's no justification to put it in the article. Also, can I move the "top contributors" link to the ext. links section? I agree, it's useful--I haven't been removing it, just putting it with the external links. Yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Waiting for something to enter the common consciousness is a rather silly Decision Rule for inclusion of information in articles. If we used it to decide what to inlcude in Wikipedia, there would very few articles and very information in those very few articles. The "collective memory" does not hold a great deal. That is why reference sources like this are created. For example, although the "secret bombing" of Cambodia is historical fact, it is no longer a part of what most people know about U.S. involvement in Indochina. If we follow your Decision Rule then references to the secret bombing of Cambodia would have to be deleted from articles about Cambodia, the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon etc., and that is the kind of Orwellian outcome that Wikipedia exists to prevent.

I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I simply have no proof that the letter is the great scandal you claim it is (and I don't believe that it is). So we can't include it in the article. And if it's not a great scandal or an important part of his congressional career, it doesn't belong in the article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My suggestions for text

If we're going to include a mention of the newsletter, it needs to be proved that somebody said something about it. I would support inclusion of text in the following format, for instance: "Gingrey has been criticized by (group or individual) fo supporting the practices at Guantanamo Bay, who say that "(quote about Gingrey being a bad physician and/or congressman)". "

Could you find a citation for such text? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. I don't agree with the suggested approach. The facts are not changed by the existence of public statement by some group. We don't need the Rick Crawford campaign to have commented to make the facts true.

Well, no, the facts aren't changed, but their importance is. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your assessment of their importance is entirely subjective.

No, it's based on the utter and complete lack of mentions of this so-called scandal. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Noncontroversial changes

I'm going to make some changes that you shouldn't mind--for instance, move all the external links to the external link section. Please don't revert. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Current version

The article currently states that "Gingrey's critics charge that his actions in Guantanamo violated medical ethics." I've been unable to find any evidence of this. Please do not reinsert it until evidence can be produced. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I did not write that line. Challenge whoever wrote it if you want to. You appear intent on making the issue of medical ethics go away. Thats rather suspicious. Borderline creepy actually. You should stop. You should let people read the entire article so they can make up their own minds.

OK. Here's the thing. Simply saying that "Gingrey's actions in Guantanamo violated medical ethics" is POV. I will not accept it in the article, unless it is a notable criticism of his tenure in Congress. So far as I can tell, it is not, given that it hasn't been mentioned by his opponent or the media. If it has been mentioned by significant critics, then by all means cite them. However, if this can't be proved, it must stay out of the article. I am not trying to make any issue go away--I'm trying to get you to prove it was there. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll probably get it from both sides, but any "medical ethics" stuff is irrelevant to this guy. Medical ethics refers to rules governing the behavior of a physician acting as a physician in his/her relationships (primarily) with his/her patients and (secondarily) with other physicians, and other parts of the "health care system." He was not investigating anything as a physician employed by the Defense Department, and the prisoners are not in any sense his patients. He is a former physician and probably ought to be embarrassed as hell, but political ethics and good old human ethics apply here, not medical ethics. If anyone is violating medical ethics, it would be any physicians employed at G to facilitate rather than ameliorate mistreatment. In my opinion our whole country should be ashamed of this for a hundred reasons, but "medical ethics" is the least of them. Alteripse 02:11, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The important thing is to grasp the nature of the issue.

First, your concern about whether popular news media or other politicians have chosen to treat the contradiction between Gingrey's medical ethical obligations and his political behavior as a big controversy does it make it any less real. Facts do not become facts or stop being facts depending on their treatment by popular news media and politicians. To insist that they do is have a distorted view of reality.

Second, I have no obligation to "prove" anything about the behavior of popular news media or other politicians. Your demand that I do so seems both arrogant and puerile; trying to impose work on other is immature. You are free to undertake any investigations that you would want into the Gingrey medical ethics issue and then include that information in the article. Please do so, but stop insisting that I do your work for you.

Third, the facts remain the facts. They need only be placed side by side to reveal the logical contradiction between Gingrey's medicial ethical obligations and his political behavior. This is a problem that he has brought upon himself, and attempting to suppress information about it through repeated reverts to "information bare" versions of the article will not make his problem go away.

Fourth--and this is a value statement from an individual speaking as an individual--our colective commitment in Wikipedia ought to be to the free flow of information about any and all subjects. The nature of the world is that it sometimes tells us things we don't want to know. I have suspect that some of the folks responsible for the repeated reverts are uncomfortable, perhaps disheartened, with the relevation that Gingrey has this terrible ethical problem.

The facts are "the thing." The facts placed next to one another signal the issue--medical ethics. Physicians takes oaths that

• Your edit is abruptly terminated here-- not sure whether you lost the computer connection or what. You are arguing two issues which I think should be disentangled. First, whether Gingrey's unfortunately timed response will seem important enough in a few months to be included in an article about him, and second whether the fact that he is a physician aggravates the faults of his defense of the prisoner treatment. Are we in agreement so far?
• I think any congressman who supported the war against Iraq and the administration's war against human rights should be embarrassed. I'm not sure that he played an important enough part in implementing those policies to give his position more space. He certainly deserves to have his support of the policies mentioned, but his views are unfortunately all too common, or we wouldn't be watching this mess with such abhorrence. The article already places his views so squarely in alignment with the administration that an interested reader can deduce his opinions on prisoner treatment even without an explicit mention.
• As for the second issue, physicians should perhaps be flattered that you hold them to higher ethical standards in all aspects of their lives than ordinary mortals, but as I explained above, medical ethics apply primarily to the physician-patient relationship. Gingry didn't owe a physician's duty to the prisoners because he was not a physician to them. I'm not defending his defense, only that his ethical handicap seems to offend universal human ethics, and not medical ethics.
• As a matter of Wikiquette, please respond to substantive arguments rather than ignore them and impute imagined motivations to other editors. Thanks. Alteripse 16:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To whoever keeps insisting this is a medical ethics issue, without sense, without the courtesy to respond, and without the facts on his side, please do some reading about medical ethics BEFORE you stick this back in. It makes the whole article and the whole encyclopedia look stupid when you persist on including an erroneous charge. You do a disservice to the very point you are trying to make about him when you make an argument based on your ignorance and misunderstanding. It isn't clever or ironic, it simply undercuts your credibility. Read my earlier notes on this. It actually makes me wonder if you really are a Gingrey supporter trying to put patently erroneous criticisms in the article to debase its credibility? Alteripse 01:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________

Hello. Your assumption that medical ethics consist only of moral duties to a physician's own patients deserves to be reexamined. Indeed, I suspect that is such a narrow conception of a physician's ethical duties that it invites the kind of ethical lapses that codes of ethics are normally devised to prevent. Consider for example the ethical obligations that physicians assume when they make policy recommendations concerning public health measures. Surely they fail in their ethical obligations if they consider only their patients in issues involving preventing the spread of communicable disease. By analogy, we would not argue that an attorney has ethical obligations only to clients and not to the legal system as a whole becasue that would undermine justice. By analogy, we would not argue that an accountant has ethical obligations only to corporate management and no ethical obligations to corporate shareholders. Codes of professional ethics ought to be understood as general moral guidance rather than as a sets of "don't get caught doing this because it looks bad to the public" rules. All ethics are universal if they are anything at all, and merely find their expression in specific circumstances.

Is there something different or remarkable about Congressman Gingrey's public support for whatever is happening (and we still do not know enough) in Guantanamo? He is both a physician and a politician; he has two social roles, one of which comes complete with a code of ethics. While intelligent or sophisticated consumers of news might deduce the inherent contradiction, we cannot and should not assume that most users of Wikipedia are intelligent or sophisticated consumers of news. A pity but realistic.

• The primary purpose of medical ethics is to provide guidelines for the dealings of a physician acting as a physician in his/her relationships with patients, and as a secondary priority to define the duties and obligations of a physician to the society in which he works. A medical ethics "violation" is primarily a breach of those duties to a patient. Your point seems to imply that Gingrey, no longer working as a physician but as a congressman, had the duties and obligations of a physician to the political prisoners in Guantanamo. I disagree with that. Every physician in the US should be appalled that the current administration has endorsed torture, but so should every citizen. Human ethical duties normal override more narrowly defined professional duties, so your point about how, if he were a physician to the prisoners, he would be violating medical ethics, displays not only a misunderstanding of the common usages of medical ethics, but also a much weaker condemnation of his behavior and policies. Obviously I am not going to convince of you of that because you would rather attack things I did not say or argue. I am not going to stoop to your behavior here of undiscussed reversions and anonymous insults, so put anything you want in the article. Alteripse 15:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) 20:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• To our anonymous contributer: You don't win respect here by deleting my arguments or my signature. Why not take a name and at least own your self-righteousness?

_______________________________________________________________________

Nice conspiracy theory. Name-calling helps. 168.9.250.3

---

Hello Alteripse, although you write "I disagree with that," I think we might have achieved a measure of agreement on the nature of medical ethical obligations. However I think I have to disagree with the prioritization of obligations to patients as primary and obligations to society as secondary. Although it it true that the majority of physicians encounter individual patients in their capacities as physicians several times a week and encounter society as a whole in their capacities as physicians rarely, that doesn't mean that on set of obligations has priority over another. Physicians might sometimes do more good working to solve public health problems than working to solve individual health problems. Consider the difference in efficacy between a physician who helps to stop epidemic disease and physician who performs elective cosmetic surgery. Couldn't a reasonable argument be made that Representative Gingrey now belongs in the category of a physician faced with responsibility for an epidemic disease rather than a physician faced with an patient seeking a nosejob? What would we conclude about a physician in the first category who declared that the epidemnic is actually good?

compromise

I have reviewed the opposing edits, and I think there is room for compromise. So long as we all agree on the facts. For one I think we can safely ad a section reviewing his statements regarding gitmo. On the other hand, moralizing about his medical profession (or anything else actually) is unnecessary. Again, I'm ok w mentioning his economic fortune (top 50% of of the house w over a million in assets...) so long as a) its true, and b) its done neutrally. Sam [Spade] 22:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I could agree in theory. In practice, I'd have to see the actual edits. Good luck. On the plus side, this is already better than 90% of our articles on U.S. Congresspeople. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:49, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We need to be careful about our compromises. Some "compromises" are nothing more than minor concessions to the truth. For example, hard core conservative Japanese deny that anything all that terrible happened in Nanjing in December 1937-January 1938. Moderate conservative Japanese will say that what happened was unfortunate and regrettable, something to reflect upon. References to reflection are conservative Japanese code for 'lets forget the past and move on.' The ugly truth is that the Imperial Japanese Army killed a minimum of 30,000 Chinese war captives and another 12,000 Chinese civilians in the Rape of Nanjing. The facts matter. In the case at hand, the facts are that Doctor Phil Gingrey signed off on and endorsed what the second Bush administration is doing at Guantanamo Bay, including the use of confidential medical records to "interrogate" (conservative American code for 'torture') "detainees" (conservative American code for 'war captives'). The truth is just too important to sacrifice in the name of compromise. The truth is too important to sacrifice to Meelar's sqeamishness about telling the truth when it contradicts the official lie from Washington. Free, honorable women and men do not knowingly repeat the official lie of any government.

new evidence concerning Gingrey Torture-gate

the new article in the medical journal Lancet reopens the question about Dr. Gingrey and medically designed torture in U.S. military prisons

new evidence that our anonymous contributor needs to learn some manners and customs

Some of us are really tired of your hit and run reversions and unwillingness to discuss. I probably share your viewpoints on Gingrey and Guantanamo but you show such an offensive inability to conduct a rational discussion and follow the customs here that I can't help but sympathize with Meelar's reversions of your self-righteousness. Try (1) joining this project with an account, (2) signing your posts, (3) actually showing some respect for arguments of fact and the processes of this community, (4) responding to instead of ignoring the disputed issues or engaging in undiscussed reversions. You might even persuade some of us to support some of your views. Until then, Meelar can revert you forever, as far as I'm concerned. Alteripse 16:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with him as well. This no doubt should be a big issue; but AFAICT, it's not. Even his opponent hasn't raised the issue. There's no way it merits mention in an encyclopedia. Convince me I'm wrong, please! I second Alteripse's call for you join in a productive, two-sided discussion. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:57, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

One problem solved, one or two more to go with our formerly anonymous contributor

Welcome to User:GreatLeapForward. Thanks for recognizing the antagonism created by your anonymous reverting and signing in, which implies a willingness to participate in the goals of this community. Next step is to learn what (1) NPOV, and (2) cooperative editing mean. Your political declarations on your new user page, and your descriptions of your edits suggest you have espoused a way of looking at the world with a long tradition of ignoring incovenient aspects of human nature and political reality, dealing with dissent and disagreement by simply silencing opposition, and using words in a way that differs from most of the educated world. While this does not inspire much confidence that NPOV and cooperative editing might be within your present capabilities, let's be optimistic.

1. The best description of NPOV is that facts are presented in the article without accompanying instructions to the reader in how to interpret them, and the facts are what would be considered neutral and unarguable by the majority of the readership. We do not accept that one of the goals of this encyclopedia is to convert the political attitudes of the internet proletariat; if you try to co-opt wikipedia for that purpose your edits will continue to be immediately reverted, and no one will even attempt to salvage the facts from your editorializing. For example, you must choose between inserting the actual fact that Gingrey supports administration policy on prisoners from Afghanistan without instructions to the reader as to whether he should or how appalling that fact is. I happen to agree with you that that administration policy should not be supported and is appalling, but since a large segment of our readers do not agree with those value judgements, they do not belong in the article.

2. Cooperative editing means that we actively try to find common ground with an editor who views this subject matter differently. If several people are telling us that our editing is too POV, we should be willing to rethink it. Edit wars of reversion are to be eschewed. Your behavior so far suggests a little bit of ability to discuss, but very little ability to compromise or cooperate. It suggsts that you put a much higher priority in putting your uncompromised political opinion in public than you do in creating an encyclopedia. If this does not change you will be continually frustrated. Alteripse 16:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

admin attention please

Please look at edit history. Is there a way to prevent constant insertion of POV attacks with dishonest edit tags by 66 and his sock puppets? Can page be protected? Alteripse 18:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's been done now. Everyking 20:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can't edit it, page is protected, but IIRC, convention is that you don't put "M.D." at the end of articles. ugen64 01:27, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

This article was protected from September 25 to October 8, and there was no discussion in that time, but now reverts have resumed? I don't see the sense in keeping the page protected indefinitely. Some action should probably be taken against a user who reverts so much without discussion. Everyking 19:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't argue with you. However, I doubt any community process will move to completion within the next 4 weeks. I find myself in the position of asking to have the article protected from criticisms that range from NPOV to simply wrong from a contributor who can't/won't edit collaboratively, even though I would vote against Gingrey if I lived in Georgia. That said, I am asking again for article protection until community process grinds away. Thanks.Alteripse 19:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, what community process is being undertaken, or will be? Everyking 19:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd be willing to file a request for arbitration; I think skipping mediation is acceptable, given the utter lack of any discussion. Would this be acceptable? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:35, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Earlier he reverted the page with the false edit summary "new link". I haven't been following the dispute for long, but it seems arbitration might be the way to go in such a case. Everyking 16:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

So what is that rule about 3 reversions on the same day? TacoDeposit reverted the page 3 times on October 12th. 66.20

He only reverted twice in a 24 hour period, and besides, the rule only discourages more than 3 reverts; just 3 is acceptable. Everyking 22:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's right. I've still got one left. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 23:23, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Please, Everyking, just protect it again until we actually get this a_____'s attention to the arbitration page. Thanks. Alteripse 23:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

coincidence that this page gets frozen only in its white bread version? GreatLeapForward

• Have we got your attention? Come justify your offensive and antisocial behavior at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. Alteripse 12:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Side Note

GreatLeapForward (or someone sharing his IP) has also vandalised another wiki in exactly the same manner as this page, at Disinfopedia. He sure doesn't like this guy! -- FirstPrinciples 07:15, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

<<<<<<<<<<

Ordinary citizewns have Views. Members of parliament have policy positions. Describing this pol's various policy positions as Views is to permit him to escape responsibility, but then thas the point of the many reversions by Meelar and his minions.

Ordinary users here share the goal of creating relatively neutral articles and refrain from endless anonymous reversions. Go bother some other people. alteripse 06:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

......

Alterp is ordinary. Very.

Just from the look of the progressive punch website, it looks to be very biased. I'm not sure the progressive punch rating should be included on the page.

Explanation of rollback

75.3.4.54 (talk · contribs) removed an external link and some information. As far as I can tell there was no explanation for this, so I have rolled back. If others feel I have erred, please feel free to revert my rollback. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the stuff I took out because Progessive Punch is not a notable organization. Also, not every congressman's page on wikipedia has a link to Planned Parenthood. 75.3.4.54 14:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to me removing the reference the unnotable Progressive Punch? 75.3.4.54 17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

This is Phil Gingrey talking to Rush Limbaugh. Yes, it's Youtube. 74.37.237.64 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of elections section

The section cites absolutely zero sources and thus should be deleted soon if sources are not provided. The claims made here are pretty important and (if false) the section should be flagged for bias. Mspence835 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Phil Gingrey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228191600/http://gingrey.house.gov/Biography/ to http://gingrey.house.gov/Biography/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510220540/http://doctorscaucus.gingrey.house.gov/ to http://doctorscaucus.gingrey.house.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205212759/http://gingrey.house.gov/biography/fastfacts.htm to http://gingrey.house.gov/biography/fastfacts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Elections section

As of today, and at least since last summer, the Elections section is ripe full of "citation needed" marks. Almost all the content is not cited, with the exception of a few random facts about the district. I am going to delete the current text and replace it with election boxes (tables) frequently seen on politicians' pages to reflect Gingrey's electoral history. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid edits

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost joyce for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: Michael Powerhouse (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)