Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Wikipedia editing by Gutknecht's office

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. [1] - Ta bu shi da yu 09:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

What I would really like to know is why the heck were house staffers using a government office and equipment to edit this article. Were they on the clock (and the taxpayer dime) when they repeatedly tried to delete a reminder of Gil's vow not to become a career politician? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.180.154.209 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 August 2006.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I added context to the pledge and his votes for term limits. --Tbeatty 09:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contract with America

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. [1] Guknecht voted for a Constitutional Amendment to limit Congressional terms to 12 years but it was defeated on a largely party line vote[2]

The first sentence is absolutely incorrect, and the second and third sentences are therefore irrelevant. The USAToday article [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Contract with America is absolutely relevant and part of all the Freshman congressman pledges when they ran for office. It is at least relevant. Simply the fact that his pledge matched the Contract's pledge is relevant. His pledge may have been in addition to the termlimits ammendment but it is relevant, sourced and factual. Also, ovting for a Constitutional Ammendment for term limits is also relevant to a pledge of term limits. --Tbeatty 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

His pedlge was part of the contract. That's why the quote is "If I ever break this contract..." I reworded it so they are separate as I can see the other side but they are connected. And he has votes for term limits on the record. That's relevant. The fact that they weren't made part of the constitution is relevant. The CWA item on term limits was a Constitutional Ammendment to limit congress terms to 12 years. That vote and the ammendments status is relevant, sourced and factual.--Tbeatty 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference USAToday was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Term Limits Constitutional Ammendment Clerk of the House of Representatives March 29, 1995

CWA New Wording

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are right, I'm wrong. The wording reads fine now to me. --DavidShankBone 20:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Walz mention and Rossp's edit

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)[reply]

Agreed --DavidShankBone 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. Walz is the nominee and unopposed in the primariy. Kablammo 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Issue from me

When I researched this issue (after arguing for a point over which I was wrong, I admit) I could not find the "throw me out" phrase uttered by Gutknecht. I only want the article to be accurate, not partisan. Where this comes from, it seems, is the pledge at the bottom of the contract: "If we break this contract, throw us out." If this is the only source for GG saying this, then does qualify as a quote, but should read, more accurately, "If [I] break this contract, throw [me] out." The quote, as it exists now, does not have support. --DavidShankBone 21:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the paragraph I propose:

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] The pledge mirrored the one found in the 1994 Contract with America that called for 12 year congressional term limits. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that congressional term limit laws are unconstitutional.[1] Gutknecht voted for a Constitutional Amendment, but it failed to win the two-thirds majority of the House required before it could move on to the Senate.[3]


If the quote really is talking about the "contract with america" with "If we break this contract, throw us out.", then the contract with america was fulfilled since it only required a vote within the first 100 days. We need to use the quote exactly. I don't think it is okay to use [I] where it was a [we] meaning of the Contract with America.--Tbeatty 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I question the reliablility of "MyDD" as a source for this article. I don't think it's notable or reliable. --Tbeatty 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's okay to replace the "we" with the an [I] as acceptable journalistic practice, and it is followed in Supreme Court (or any court) opinions. It is acceptable--preferred--form in cases such as this (unless someone can come up with where he said that). I agree with "MyDD" being taken out. The USA Today does a sufficient job. Someone needs to research GG and term limits to get this right. --DavidShankBone 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MyDD is quoting a May 29, 2004 AP story. I think it should stay in; it has more detail than the USAtoday story. I don't believe the author, David Bliss, is a bald-faced liar.
Also, the following is from a partisan blog - 8/21/06 entry, so its reliability can certainly be questioned, but the detail is interesting, because it is saying that his statement was in 1995, not 1994 during the campaign:

The bill eventually failed, but that didn’t stop the then freshman congressman from CD1. In 1995 he introduced his own bill limiting the pensions of legislators with the purpose of providing “incentive for people to stay no longer than 12 years ”. This too failed and to demonstrate his unfailing support of the contract Gutknecht unequivocally declared: “I will not serve more than 12 years. ” That was one year after being elected, eleven years ago.

-- John Broughton 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the replacing "we" with "I", it's not mentioning the CWA as the context of the quote. If it really is only the CWA that the pledge was based on, a stronger link to CWA needs to be made. It is misleading to imply he said it out of the blue if he really only signed on the to CWA. The CWA "contract" was to bring up those 10 issues for a vote and that happened. In that context, the contract in "If [I] ever break this contract, throw [me] out" was fulfilled. Republicans never agreed to unilateral term limits with the contract (whence the reason why they proposed the ammendment). It is false to claim the pledge was broken if the pledge was only the CWA pledge. --Tbeatty 23:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tbeatty - there are three separate sources (USAToday, DD, and dflers) that distinguish between CWA (which, as its article says, EVERY Republican signed), and Gutknecht's separate pledge. Or do you really think that USAToday arbitrarily singled out Gutknecht?
I do agree, from what I'm seen, that the "throw me out" statement may come from or pertain only to the CWA. But that is a separate issue from whether Gutknecht promised, separately from CWA, to serve only 12 years. All the evidence says that there was a separate promise, plus USAToday is about as good as it gets in terms of a reputable paper (if "reputable" means "not known to be left-leaning", in this case). John Broughton 11:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen that particular quote (nor does the USA Today article) call out a separate pledge by Gutnecht. It does call out Jeff Flake. But as far as I can tell, Gutnecht is on the sidebar. That quote is identical to the CWA quote though so I believe it is accurate to say it was related to CWA. Please provide the quote from USA today or the pledge. He may have said it, it's just not listed and therefore can't be verified.--Tbeatty 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b USATODAY.com - Term-limit pledges get left behind Accessed August 12 2006
  2. ^ Weak Republicans pick expediency over principle - Term Limits MyDD Accessed August 22 2006
  3. ^ Term Limits Constitutional Amendment Clerk of the House of Representatives March 29, 1995

Separate pledge to 12-year term limit by Gutknecht

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

2006 election

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Relatives

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Harte

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)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gil_Gutknecht