This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
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 The photo is outdated and should be replaced with a recent like similar to how Bernie Sanders' infobox is?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)
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)
"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)
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)
Contains sources that violate NPOV remove 2600:8805:C980:9400:6CA5:272F:8B6C:F6C6 ( talk) 20:05, 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)
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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
References
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
Under personal life, as part of the last paragraph, we say:
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
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Contains sources that violate NPOV remove 2600:8805:C980:9400:6CA5:272F:8B6C:F6C6 ( talk) 20:05, 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)
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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
References
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
Under personal life, as part of the last paragraph, we say:
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