Talk:Frank Guinta

The Jan. 2 14:56 update was a major addition of material. Sorry the edit summary was left off that update. Nhprman 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Could someone put in how his name is pronounced? I only ever see it in print. Thanks... --Ken Gallager 09:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pronounced: "GINN-tuh" (hard "G", as in "Guy", emphasis is on the first syllable.) I'm not sure how that would be put in the article, because I'm sure the stylebook regulates what punctuation, etc. is used. Someone more knowledgeable can do it. - Nhprman ^List 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is pronounced with a J sound not a G. It is Italian, from bona guinta which means good addition. (June-ta) ~S. Guinta

I'd have to agree with NHprman that Frank Guinta pronounces it himself with the hard G sound. ~KCF

He does pronounce it in that manner. however, everyone else in his family and extended family prounce it June-ta. ~S. Guinta

too advert like

I apologize for not discussing the edits from last night everyone. My question now is- why was the cited information about school funding and the new budget removed? In addition, this section: "During Guinta's first term as Mayor, he did substantial work in crime prevention by overseeing the hiring of over a dozen new police officers, adding additional police sub-stations, and was successful in closing several downtown trouble spots. With regards to taxes, Guinta delivered on his promises and gave Manchester its first tax cut this decade. [2]" reads like an advertisement and I would like to provide an additional cited alternate account of his time as mayor. How does everyone feel about that? thanks for the work everyone is doing to make Wikipedia as objective as possible.

seems a little to advertising like for wiki, any thoughts Cinnamon colbert 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No more advert-like than the article for his predecessor, Robert A. Baines. Both seem straightforward and very biographical. - Nhprman 05:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'electoral future' section is entirely unbalanced. There is a quote from a Republican party representative without the publicly-released response from the Democratic party. The partisan nature of On Message, Inc, conductor of the referenced poll, is omitted, as is any link to the poll itself. The inclusion on a Politicker list is irrelevant. The 'it should also be noted' sentence in the 'electoral future' section is entirely partisan advocacy, not neutral and factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.176.178 (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Politicker reference is just "irrelevant" because you are most likely a liberal Democrat (to be totally honest). To anyone else, the Politicker reference would be totally relevant because they released an editorial of top powerful Republicans and Democrats from NH. Guinta was honored as one of them so it absolutely should be included. Everything on this page is backed up with a quote or a reference. POINT BLANK. There is not a link to the On Message poll because one doesn't exist. All that was released was analysis of the poll from the Union Leader. There isn't a Democrat response because he is a Republican Candidate and there hasn't even been a Republican Primary yet, however it is important information that the National Republican Party/NRCC has shown so much support for Guinta running for NH01. Your criticism just shows that your are a Democrat worried about Guinta running for Congress because he is going to give Shea Porter a tough re-election rather than someone concerned about a truthful wikipedia article.

"There is not a link to the On Message poll because one doesn't exist." - Therefore, under Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability, this poll should not be included. Further, your comment makes plain your misconception of 'neutral point of view.' Any article in Wikipedia must be factual and verifiable, even if the article is about a political figure in a primary. Guinta is also, in case you have forgotten, currently the mayor of Manchester and therefore Democratic commentary on his performance is entirely justified. Puffery and pro-Guinta statements can go on kook sites like Conservapedia instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.176.178 (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ACTUALLY sinebot, there ISN'T a link to the poll, but the polling agency released its numbers to the Union Leader and other media outlets, which is the SOURCE used to verify the numbers. Grow up dude.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.149.70 (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Political Updates

I have updated this article. User ManchGuy85 altered this article to include editorial quotations from the New Hampshire Union Leader. While the endorsement of a major state paper is certainly worthy of inclusion in this article, one must question the addition of entire paragraphs of editorial praise. I have summarized said paragraphs and have left the links available for readers to follow. I removed other content, as most of the citing led directly to New Hampshire Union Leader editorials. This user's updates were even noticed by one of the paper's political writers. See http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=City+Hall%3a+Mayor+wannabes+are+lining+up+in+Manchester&articleId=3e111354-b9b1-4aeb-9e2e-aeb76e5a8f43. I believe that these additions were made by a fan of the mayor's. NHteach 21 April 2009

Unsourced

The claims that crime was reduced in Manchester during Frank Guinta's time in office have no factual source provided. These claims are disputed, particularly by state Democrats (see http://bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7286 for an example), and should be excluded until evidence is provided for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.176.178 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL did you just reference BLUE HAMPSHIRE!? Your point is totally invalid RIGHT there. The article/editorial in support of Guinta for mayor in the Union Leader references a reduction of crime under Guinta, which is why it is included in his wikipedia- thus there is proof. If you find proof otherwise from a more reliable source other than BLUE HAMPSHIRE such as a reputable newspaper claiming otherwise on crime, then we can have that discussion then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.149.70 (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, you don't think Blue Hampshire is a reliable source of what New Hampshire Democrats dispute in Mayor Guinta's record? The user above didn't cite it as evidence that crime has increased; only that the suggestion is disputed. And clearly, it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Guinta booster watching over this article seems to have a problem with the concepts of 'neutral point of view,' 'verifiability,' and 'disputed content.' This article as currently written fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines on all three counts and needs substantial rewriting. A large number of claims stated as fact are neither verified nor undisputed; the use of NRCC and Union Leader favorable quotes while vigorously battling against balancing negative material indicates an incapacity to abide by neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.176.178 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Go check out some Democrat politicians wikipedias (such as shea porter) and you tell me if they have a "criticims" section. Yea, I didn't think so. In fact, wikipedia itself has noted that several points on shea porter's article have to be verified because they aren't. EVERYTHING on Guinta's wikipedia is backed up with sustainable documentation from a reliable newspaper- The Union Leader. Blue Hampshire is NOT reliable. It is a liberal attack blog. Do you see references from Red Hampshire on here? Nope..didn't think so... You liberals need to grow up and quit with the dirty campaign tactics of tinkering with Guinta's wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.149.70 (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of one's opinion of editorials from the Union Leader and diaries posted by NHDP repsentatives on Blue Hampshire, the fact is that New Hampshire Democrats clearly dispute some of the claims made in the non-news editorials regarding Guinta's performance as mayor of Manchester, as the earlier commenter noted. That entire section needs either a countervailing viewpoint for balance or an unbiased source of data to judge from, such as public crime statistics and school performance figures. Wikipedia style guidelines do not go away for political figures. The page would equally need unbiased citations if it claimed that Guinta had caused an increase in crime instead. Vote (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This article should focus on the biography of the subject. It should not be a piece of campaign literature. Please be careful in adding back text that others have removed without any sort of comment - expecially if all of your contributions are to this article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Spam

This is actually getting pretty obsurd watching individuals from the NH Democrat Party spamming Guinta's wikipedia every hour. They have altered his wife's and mother's names in order to make jokes and consistently add spam comments as well as unsourced attacks on Guinta. Regardless, everything on this wikipedia is sourced as others have argued here before. The constant altercations and deletions by some individuals at the NH Democrat Party or else where should stop and need to stop now- especially such low and dirty tactics as messing with a politician's family member's names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review our policies on Personal attacks and Assuming good faith. Your above comment is inapropriate and should not be repeated. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No "Hypocrite" I am not wrong in my comment. Regardless of who it is, it is wrong to manipulate names of politician's family memebers, which is exactly what someone recently did to this wikipedia. In addition, it is your oppinion that Kiplinger and other awards are irrelevant. I disagree and it seems as do others which is why it will stay.

In addition, go to Obama's wikipedia and you'll see that every criticism has been deleted by wikipedia. A wikipedia is not for slamming- it is for information. This specific wikipedia informs the reader what issues the politician has run on, which is then backed up by facts. Your constant attacks and manipulation of this article to what you believe it should say are annoying and certainly warents the argument that you are doing so with a bias against the particular politician.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs)

I don't see how the changes I made are "slamming." I don't see any names of mothers or sisters being changed in my edits. I never commented on Kiplinger or whatever awards. I do not care what is happening in other articles. Please stop trying to attribute the actions of others, or elsewhere to me, or here. Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Didnt say it was you specifically- however someone has been doing it today. In addition, you say you don't care about other articles, then why do you care about this one so much? Is it because you are particularly interesting in manipulating the article to your liking in order to attack the particular candidate where you find it possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It's because you were mentioned on a noticeboard. But please, keep assuming bad faith, it's very becoming. Hipocrite (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone Asked Guinta to Run for Some Reason

There is a sourced comment in this article to the effect that Guinta "was asked" to run for Governor and US Senator as well as the office he chose to run for, i.e., US Representative. An unanswered question is: who asked Guinta to run for these offices and why did they ask him? The source is a brief Associated Press story, which also doesn't actually say who asked him and why. The factoid may as well as stay in the article: it is plausible, albeit meaningless. The New Hampshire Republican party has fared badly in recent elections. Unless you count Gov. Lynch (a conservative and very bipartisan Democrat) as a Republican, they lost every top of the ticket race in both 2006 and 2008. Guinta is an appealing young candidate. But it is still a fact that we don't know exactly who asked him. I shouldn't be making too big a fuss about this: this is just typical political faux-humility, and this is nothing unique to Guinta. I might add that I myself am a politician: I am one of 400 NH State reps. My friends did ask me in the spring and summer of 2008 if I wanted to run for office: I could certainly say, with honest humility, "I was asked to run." But it would be even more honest for me to say that I decided to run because there was an open seat in my community and I was confident in my ability to fill it. So, I frankly believe that Guinta CHOSE to run for the US House because his party needs a good candidate and he is confident in his own abilities. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Timothy, I think you should do a little research on the neighborhood watch groups before deleting it just because of your assumptions (infact, you aren't even in Manchester, so I don't know how you would know otherwise). Guinta absolutely has been the driving force in the addition of DOZENS of new neighborhood watch groups primarily after the terrible murder of Officer Briggs. This should be added back into the article as Guinta has mentioned it several times in speeches and has been credited on many occasions for his work int eh area of neighboorhood watch in order to battle crime. Otherwise, so far, especially considering the fact that you are a Dem State Rep, you have been very unbiased in your edits and I commend you on such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.165.137 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Find a verifiable and unbiased source that enumerates the Neighborhood Watch groups Guinta has been responsible for and then it can go in, preferably with a more specific figure than 'dozens.' Guinta's own speeches do not qualify under regular Wikipedia guidelines. It's the same standards as any other biographical article: as the page on biographies of living persons says in its 'in a nutshell' section, "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research." Without a credible source for that datum, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Vote (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who makes speeches can have speeches quoted. As long as the material is identified as being from a speech, it is fine. Right now the article is fairly NPOV ... and I have seen no scandals mentioned above which were removed so someone could say that they were removed because of any POV concerns. Collect (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

The material the unsigned commenter wants restored was not a quote nor sourced at all; it was simply entered into the article without source that Guinta had been responsible for dozens of neighborhood watch groups, and then the comment there was entered sourcing the claim to Guinta's own speeches without any documentary evidence (transcripts, etc) that could be verified. Guinta's speeches may be quoted, but they need to be verifiable. Just saying in the Talk page that Guinta 'has mentioned it several times in speeches' is not sufficient. Vote (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

recent edits by an unsigned user...

This is in reference to recent edits by an anti-Guinta person (not even a wikipedia user with a screen name) who has been making edits on this page. Over the past months, there has been a lot of conversation and give and take from both supporters and non-supporters over Guinta's wikipedia (because the NH Democrats have some sort of a thing with attacking this wikipedia article for some reason). First of all, I agree that the section about Guinta at the rally in Portsmouth for Memorial Day was not appropriate for a wiki-however it was actually a Democrat who added it and it went through many edits before it became what it was the other day before I removed at the request of the anti Guinta individual whom has been making recent edits. After many altercations over the past couple of months, we have agreed on the wording and exactly how the section about the editorial endorsement from the Union Leader reads as well as the section about the recent awards Manchester has received under Guinta's leadership. These edits ARE a compromise between Democrats and Republicans, so for this new individual to come it and delete entire sections and try to manipulate wording to an insanely partisan wording in attacking the Union Leader is wrong and will be corrected if changed again. Also, after much change to this article, it is time for the "advertisement" sign at the top to be removed. I would ask that someone who understands how to petition that this is removed do so. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs)

This article is not supposed to be a "compromise between Democrats and Republicans." Are you a professional political player? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on man, get a life. It pretty much HAS to be a compromise between people of two different views because all that happens on this page is liberals like yourself come onto the page and alter it to try and get as many cheap shots in at Guinta as possible and then leave it to a few of us (both supporters and non supporters of Guinta) to clean up your mess of terrible and biased editing. Enough is enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks. You again assume that I am a "liberal." In this, you are wrong. I am an encyclopedia editor, and my attention was drawn to this article because of a notice placed on a noticeboard about biography problems. I have taken no "cheap shots." Are you being paid to support a candidate? Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Many people work on this page, however YOU seem to be the only person who has any conflict. I will try and resolve the problems with you, however it is getting increasingly hard to do so. Why do YOU have such a desire to attack Guinta? Could it be that YOU are being paid to attack this candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs)

I don't feel that my edits attack him at all. Could you tell me which of my edits attack him? I can show you where your edits make the article read like a campaign ad, if you'd like. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd further note that tags on the article merely alert the reader to an ongoing dispute, and are not an attempt to disparage the subject. Surely, if the article attacked the candidate, you'd want tags alerting readers to the dispute, right? Given that I think the article appears to paint the candidate in a non-neutral light, you can see why I think the tags should remain. Could you tell me what's so bad about the version of the article I tried to neutralize here? Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I put back a somewhat critical section from your version.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and COI tags

I agree that these tags are justified on this article. An article on a person who is running for public office will generally attract the interest of people with conflicts of interest and non-neutral points of view. That is, people who want to help him or her get elected or who want to help some other candidate. I don't see any special reason for the tags on this article unless they are going to be added to every other article about a politican. When more criticism is published then that can, and will (I am confident), be added to the article. For the record I am a Republican (who voted for President Obama BTW) and I would generally support Mr Guinta in his run for Congress, although I had never heard of him before this article showed up on the BLP notice board. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was happy without the tags after Steve's edit from Friday. It is language like "After a distinguished first term and being recognized as a rising poliical leader," that leads me to want them reinserted. Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

surprise surprise Hipocrite...I am sooo surprised you want the tags up since you are the only one who keeps tossing them up because of you personal beliefs...If anything YOU should be blocked for your terrible edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any personal beliefs about this article. I hope you can refrain from personal attacks going forward and justify your removal of sourced content. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The tags need to stay until the "Politics" section is reworked, at the least.--Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pay to Play and accomplishments as mayor in first term

When looking at other politicians wiki's, Obama's included, it seems totally acceptable to add accomplishments during political terms. Everything on Guinta's accomplishments are not opinion, but fact and have been cited substantially so should be left alone. Pay to Play is going to be voted on again by the school board, so until we actually know what is going on with it, it has no need being here. Plus, if giant accomplishments such as delivering the city's first tax cut this decade are being deleted, then what is the reason to add a small part of the 2009 school budget to Guinta's wiki page other than just because it is recent news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Hypocrite has thrown up a tag because of the removal of pay to play. Perhaps he/she should read the talk page as directed to do before putting these tags up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The pay to play section was sourced. If you have further sources that would add information to that section, feel free to add them. If you feel the language in the section was biased, feel free to change it. Please don't add unreliable citations, or use the "about the parties" section of a press release about food drives to source information about tax cuts. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are sources for the fact that Guinta delivered the first tax cut this decade cited FROM THE CITY WEB PAGE so it WILL stay. How many citations do you want for the nightclub shut downs? There are several because Guitna got the clubs known as Omega and Envy shut down along with others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What would be great is if you could be sure that the language you use in your edits is related to what the sources say. You use the phrase "trouble spots," but the articles reference the clubs by name. Have you considered hewing to what we can reference, as opposed to what you know to be true? Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I actually put the exact quote that Guinta delivered the first tax cut this decade from the CITY WEBSITE and you still deleted it! It really is pretty bad form to delete something like that. Also, there are SEVERAL clubs like Omega and Envy, not just one club, so that is why I didn't name the club exactly. Plus someone outside of Manchester isnt going to know those exact clubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We avoid promotional language here. You provided sources that he sent a letter regarding Envy, so that's what we can write about. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to just want things your way or the highway. Your edits are poorly written and you continue to take away the EXACT QUITE THAT FRANK GUITNA DELIVERED THE FIRST TAX CUT THIS DECADE from the CITY WEBSITE just to put the wording you want. That is inappropriate and you should stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed our article to make it clear that we are quoting his mayorial website. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With a simple yes or no - would you mind if I fixed the overlinking (we should link only the first instance of Manchester) and moved the inaguration to just before "During Guinta's first term as Mayor, he raised the compliment of Manchester's," and made the inaguration start a new paragraph? Thank you for your one word reply. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The overlinking makes the article hard to read and hard to edit. It needs to be fixed. I also think it should be clear when claims come from Guinta or sources under his control, the same as for anyone. Verbal chat 16:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the quote is not from Guinta himself as Hipocrite is trying to say- it is from his BIOGRAPHY from the CITY WEBSITE. This website is not under Guintas control, but rather a specific city department, so it should absolutely be left alone. I can give you a unionleader article saying the same thing that he delivered Manchester's first tax cut this decade as well, but the city website is absolutely even better of a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the union-leader link. Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did and ONCE again it was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on the heavy reliance upon The Union Leader for sourced material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountbaldface (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Um considering is the the only Manchester, NH daily paper, no. There aren't any other papers other than The Daily Express, which is also present here, however it is only a weekly paper. WMUR is also present, but they rarely comment on Manchester politics. The Union Leader is really the only source available for most news on Guinta since he is the Mayor of Manchester. It is absolutely acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From New Hampshire Union Leader: "The paper is best known for the conservative political opinions of its late publisher, William Loeb, and his wife, Elizabeth Scripps "Nackey" Loeb. Famously, the paper helped defeat Maine Senator Edmund Muskie in his 1972 bid for the presidency by attacking Muskie's wife, Jane, in editorials, leading him to defend her in a -- supposedly tearful -- press conference that some say ruined his image in the state."

Loeb was also involved in the United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 1974, as I learned when I created that article, though I have not yet done enough research to include it. It may be Manchester's only daily, but the reliance on a paper with a conservative bias is not a good thing. More of these papers should be mixed in. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, WIlliam Loeb is dead and has been for decades. The current publisher is much more moderate. Second of all, there are many other sources, however when Manchester only has ONE daily, so until Guinta begins campaigning heavily outside of the Manchester area, there aren't going to be a ton of other newspapers present. Other sources used are WMUR, Manchester Daily Express, Manchester, NH city website, NPR, Seacoast online..ect. I think it is a little hard to think that a wikipedia on the Mayor of Manchester isn't going to have a lot of sources from the ONLY daily newspaper in the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bar Fight

This section is appropriate, as there is a police investigation ongoing. This fact is properly sourced and presented in an unbiased way. LivefreeordieNH is repeatedly removing it without a proper reason. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)