Talk:Gil Gutknecht

message: Jon Yarian said that,
:"We're concerned when anyone looks to Wikipedia for factual information," Yarin said. "This is the same source that called former Assistant Attorney General John Seigenthaler a murderer in his official Wikipedia entry ... I would encourage people to find a more trustworthy place to do their research."
Nice bit of spin, until you consider that it appears that their office was contributing to our project in the first place. Jon, nice try.  - Ta bu shi da yu 09:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is spin.  KNowing that people come to wikipedia for information and also knowing that it can be wrong does not preclude editing WP.  I correct innaccurate information all the time.  In fact, if you look at Siegenthaler commentary from the time, a number of editors questioned why he didn't correct the errors himself.  This is classic catch-22.  --Tbeatty 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yes, I robbed that apartment, but just to show you how prevalent robbery can be in this neighborhood."  That is similar logic to Gutknecht's office: "Yes, we vandalized, which just goes to show you how unreliable is Wikipedia."  Ha!   "Don't spit on my cupcake and tell me it's frosting."  - Judge Constance Harm.  More germane to Gutknecht's vandalization is the question:  does he no longer feel term limits are a wise idea?  The difference between a politician and a civil servant, laid bare.  --DavidShankBone 15:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not a big deal, really. Rich Farmbrough 13:11 22  August 2006 (GMT).
The thing about him saying he wouldn't run after 12 years should be left out. It is very POV.--Zonerocks 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  How, exactly, is it POV?  He made a specific pledge.  It is an issue that many voters believed in.  He broke the pledge and twelve years prior essentially told the voters he is worthy of defeat if he ever did do so.  And he did.  And this is POV?  I'm listening for arguments to be made to back that up...  --DavidShankBone 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added context to the pledge and his votes for term limits.  --Tbeatty 09:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia editing by Gutknecht's office 

message: I removed the following text:
 The pledge was part of the 1994 Contract with America.  In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that term limits were unconstitutional.  Guknecht voted for a Constitutional Amendment to limit Congressional terms to 12 years but it was defeated on a largely party line voteTerm Limits Constitutional Ammendment Clerk of the House of Representatives March 29, 1995
The first sentence is absolutely incorrect, and the second and third sentences are therefore irrelevant.  The USAToday article  lists about a dozen legislators who made separate pledges of different lengths (some were for only six years).  By contrast, the Contract with America "was signed by all but two of the Republican members of the House, and all of the Party's non-incumbent Republican Congressional candidates."  
Please discuss the matter here before reinserting the text into the article.  Thanks! John Broughton 12:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an attempt at Sophistry.  It is clear Gutknecht made a pledge to not serve more than 12 years.  What is not clear is that he pledged to pass a Constitutional Amendment to limit terms if the Supreme Court blocked legislation for term limits.  That wasn't the pledge: he would never serve more than 12 years. He said then: "If I ever break this contract, throw me out."  The contract he made was with the people to not serve more than 12 years.  Not to pass legislation for term limits.  Unacceptable.  --DavidShankBone 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot see why the last sentence was deleted.  A vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to limit terms to 12 years is relevant to his pledge and reinforces it.  Kablammo 13:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are separate issues.  The pledge and the Contract can't be conflated, and the reason why is because of the second sentence the "Supreme Court voted it down" makes it sound like he was prevented from fulfilling his pledge.  The only thing preventing GG from fulfilling his pledge is GG.  The SC decision is irrelevant to the pledge.  So where does the Contract play in?  Because it's an attempt to water it down still.  The argument, and you see it above, goes something like this, "GG made a pledge, but it was part of a package deal that was eventually ruled unconstitutional.  Then when he tried to make it constitutional, the Democrats sunk it."  That's the argument implicit in how it was written.  I'd accept this wording:  "Gutknecht is running for re-election in 2006 despite his 1994 pledge, when he was first elected, that he would never serve more than 12 years. He said then: "If I ever break this contract, throw me out."[1][2]  He also made this pledge when he signed the 1994 Contract with America."   That's acceptable, and not POV.  --DavidShankBone 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only point is that a vote in favor of a consitutional amendment to limit terms is relevant to and reinforces his term limit pledge.  If that is what he voted on then that point (properly sourced with something more than a roll call which does not describe the bill) should be left in.  I'll let the partisans argue the other points.  Kablammo 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not partisanship, it's having accurate wording.  As I worded it above, that is accurate.  But the pledge that is quoted is a separate pledge in the Contract.  So if you want to add this wording, "He also made this pledge when he signed the 1994 Contract with America." then go for it.  --DavidShankBone 15:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And the Constitutional Amendment vote has nothing to do with his pledge.  He pledged to step down, Amendent or no Amendment.  What does the Amendment have to do with whether he runs after 12 years?  What, exactly, is that supposed to show in relation to his own personal  term limit pledge?  --DavidShankBone 15:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll give in on the CWA but not the Constitutional Amendment.  Irrelevant to his pledge, and to the CWA pledge.  And it did not "mirror" since he did not pledge to pass a Constitutional Amendment, but pledged to serve only 12 years so.  So, POV on your part. --DavidShankBone 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contract with America 

message: The way it reads now is NPOV and gives a clear indication of the separateness of the two issues.  There was a pledge.  There was also a signing.  They are not one in the same.  Here's the wording:
 Gutknecht is running for re-election in 2006 despite his 1994 pledge, when he was first elected, that he would never serve more than 12 years. He said then: "If I ever break this contract, throw me out."[1][2]
In addition to this pledge, Gutknecht signed the 1994 Contract with America, which called for 12 year congressional term limits by Constitutional Amendment (such amendment held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1995).
--DavidShankBone 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that it's wrong.  It was defeated in the House on a party line vote.  It was NPOV before (and now).  What issue did you have with it? --Tbeatty 20:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CWA New Wording

message: In response to Rossp's edits removing the sentence on Walz, I would like to propose we leave it in. It is pertinent to know who Gutknecht's Democratic opponent will be in November and it matches the Walz entry which makes mention of Gutknecht.
-- Boubelium 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed --DavidShankBone 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree.  Walz is the nominee and unopposed in the primariy.  Kablammo 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Walz mention and Rossp's edit 

message: I'm adding info to the article regarding Gutknecht making a separate pledge to term limits - that is, a pledge separate from the CWA.  In addition to the sources cited in the article, I note the following May 29, 2004 AP story: quoted on this page:
Gutknecht came to office in 1994 as part of a Republican movement engineered by then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and featured the Republican Contract with America, which limited lawmakers to 12 years. The proposal eventually died in the House.
It was in the immediate wake of that defeat that Gutknecht, who had resisted making a personal term limit pledge during his first campaign, said he would leave office by 2006.
"I will not serve more than 12 years," Gutknecht was quoted in March 1995.''
Further, Tbeatty has not responding to my point, made above, that several hundred Republican candidates and House incumbents signed the Contract with American, but the USA Today story listed less than a dozen, including Gutknecht, in its sidebar.  Why?  Obviously, because those were the ones that made a separate pledge.  (The CWA did NOT commit the Republicans to term limits - it committed them to getting term limits voted on within the first 100 days.) John Broughton 00:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do remember Gil Gutknecht saying clearly, years ago, that he would not serve more than twelve years. This week the voters decided he won't. On election night, David Strom, a Republican commentator, said it was a factor in this race. The DM&E railroad and the general perception Gutknecht had lost touch with his district and it was time for change were probably larger factors, however, according to Strom. Jonathunder 18:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate pledge to 12-year term limit by Gutknecht 

message: We now have Congressman Gutknecht's loss to Tim Walz mentioned in the infobox, intro paragraph, Events of 2006 section, and Electoral history section.  I think we got the point.  Do we really need all of these?  Kablammo 04:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, why do we have Tim Walz put as a footnote to the succeeded by? Why not just put Walk's name there instead of succeeded?  Boubelium 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the next congress is sworn in, they remain members-elect, and the outgoing ones remain incumbents.  On 1/3/07, all these will change to reflect the 110th congress. Appraiser 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 election 

message: I removed a reference to his nephew.  I'm sure people about whom biographical information is in Wikipedia have relatives.  However, I see no point in mentioning them unless they are notable. SlowJog (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing that and watching the article. It's something that keeps getting added occasionally, usually from a school IP. Jonathunder (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relatives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gil Gutknecht. 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/20060929121518/http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/Ratings2005Scorecard.pdf to http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/Ratings2005Scorecard.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Gil Gutknecht. 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/20061028115555/http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/29/3650/24063 to http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/29/3650/24063
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117164340/http://www.mngopwatch.com/archives/2006/02/317/ to http://www.mngopwatch.com/archives/2006/02/317/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117164340/http://www.mngopwatch.com/archives/2006/02/317/ to http://www.mngopwatch.com/archives/2006/02/317/
*Added  tag to http://www.msureporter.com/media/storage/paper937/news/2006/03/28/Newscampus/Candidate.Seeks.Student.Voter.Action-2021569.shtml?norewrite200609041417&sourcedomain=www.msureporter.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821074249/http://www.startribune.com/587/story/614563.html to http://www.startribune.com/587/story/614563.html
*Added  tag to http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/15333497.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929100226/http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_229144301.html to http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_229144301.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924220527/http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20060912/ElecRslts.asp?M=CG&CD=01 to http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20060912/ElecRslts.asp?M=CG&CD=01
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is Brian Harte. In 1995 I tried to prove that Fauci was a liar and a fraud. Covid vaccines are not safe and effective. CDC has now admitted it. I expect an apology. 73.129.19.102 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Harte