Talk:Phil Gingrey

message: 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? Meelar (talk) 15:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, the facts aren't changed, but their importance is.  Meelar (talk) 23:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: No, it's based on the utter and complete lack of mentions of this so-called scandal. Meelar (talk) 17:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My suggestions for text

message: 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. Meelar (talk) 17:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Noncontroversial changes

message: 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. Meelar (talk) 14:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Meelar (talk) 00:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Current version

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Meelar (talk) 12:49, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  compromise 

message: 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)
thread_title: One problem solved, one or two more to go with our formerly anonymous contributor

message: 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)
thread_title: Side Note

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation of rollback 

message: This is Phil Gingrey talking to Rush Limbaugh. Yes, it's Youtube. 74.37.237.64 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone explain this?

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed deletion of elections section

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Elections section 

message: I have added an  tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost joyce for evidence. 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)
thread_title:  Undisclosed paid edits