Talk:Frank Guinta

Untitled

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.172.232 (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with NHprman that Frank Guinta pronounces it himself with the hard G sound. ~KCF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.145.146 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He does pronounce it in that manner. however, everyone else in his family and extended family prounce it June-ta. ~S. Guinta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.172.232 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

too advert like

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)

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

"Electoral future" section

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.149.70 (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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) — LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

Edits from last night

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountbaldface (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 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)

The paper still has a right-wing slant, even if Loeb is dead and it's moved a tad closer to the center. I'm not saying that the Union Leader sources should be removed, as you're right that it is the cities' only daily paper, but other NH papers should cover Guinta as well, and could be used for balance. In addition, any articles from the Union Leader should be monitored to ensure a minimum of editorializing. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 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)

I can understand why people are removing it. First of all, the wording of the section is terrible and makes it seem like Guinta did something wrong, which he didn't. The title of it as "controversy" is terrible as well since there is no controversy. Third of all, police and even the individuals involved who are trying to stir up trouble by making this into a huge issue have admitted that Guinta had nothing to do with the incident itself. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of political tabloid garbage as another user stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.223.230 (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As you are using much the same language as LivefreeordieNH, and also use multiple indents and don't sign your posts, you'll understand why I suspect you are the same user. If you have a problem with the language, help fix it. And yes, he might have done something wrong. At no point did I suggest he was involved in the fight. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue who livefreeordie is, however I do not appreciate you questioning my integrity like like that. I am happy that others are involved in deleting this section as well because it is political slander and that is it. As stated before, Wikipedia is not the place for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.223.230 (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not political slander. It's reported by unbiased sources. If you remove it again, you will be reported based on WP:3RR. If you have constructive changes to suggest, suggest them. But the section stays. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Who died and made you ruler of wikipedia. You have a giantsection of your wiki profile saying you worked on teh Obama wikipedia. Well, it is common knowledge that wikipedia whon't allow anything about his involvement with Jeremiah Wright other other political slander because it is not appropriate for wikipedia. Well, this fits the same guidelines and this kind of garbage where the individual didn't even do anything is not appropriate for this wikipedia either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.223.230 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

plus it is pretty obvious that you have either multiple identies or you are using other people just to revert my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.223.230 (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this is pointless. Good day sir. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am one of those who had factual edits about the bar fight taken out. Guinta did NOT "do nothing wrong." He witnessed a serious crime— an assault-- and did not report it. He didn't even report it after the (alleged) perpetrator turned up with a serious injury. From what I have heard, it sounds like the Mayor was just hanging out by the entrance while his friend was picking up another friend. Guinta's involvement was probably very minor. But he still didn't report what he saw. Guinta's (non-)actions may not be a crime, but it was not exactly the right thing to do.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, LivefreeordieNH, for contributing positively to this article. This is the kind of balanced, well-sourced content Wikipedia is looking for. I appreciate your input. Jaybird vt (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am happy to work with you guys on this article as long as we can be civil about it from now on. I understand that as a conservative working on this article, I am in the minority, but I really do hope that those of us who have spent time on the article can put our differences aside and continue to work together from here forward. With regards to the bar fight, I am content with how it reads now if it has to be included. However, once the police release their final investigation, perhaps we can reconsider the importance of this section's inclusion to the wikipedia article. At this point, from all parties involved and from all media sources covering the situation, they all agree that Guinta did nothing legally wrong. Although some have questioned his decision not to call the police even though Mr. English reportedly requested that the police not to be called, realistically, this situation (which really seems like someone going to help out and then being in the wrong situation at the wrong time) has been blown up and over exaggerated by the DemocratIC party in order to attack Guinta (its politics, it obviously can be expected I guess). Is it fair to say that we can re-examine the importance of this section in the wiki after the police release their report? I mean, come on...an entire two year mayoral term gets a small paragraph and this incident is being given its own section. Also, if you look at how other controversies have been handled in wiki articles ex: Ray Buckley or Obama, it really isn't fair to give this small incident that much influence on an article about an individual's life. Lets re-examine it when the police release their report and see if we can agree to remove it then. Deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in a constant state of flux, and if, after the final inquiry is complete and a report is issued noting Guinta's innocence, that too will become part of the article... If you want to improve the quality of the article in any other way you see fit (such as expanding the section on his mayoral term): as long as you follow the guidelines of Wikipedia, go ahead and do it. As for whether there are more liberals than conservatives on WP: well, I'm apolitical, but I guess I would be a "libertarian" if you tried to fit me into the spectrum. It takes all kinds... Jaybird vt (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As of today, there have been some changes to this incident that further give proof towards the need to remove this section about the bar fight especially since it is unjustly being given such a large and prominent section of Guinta's wiki page bio. The individual who broke his leg has been arrested for attacking Garrity and the police have made the statement that "We have not developed any probable cause to charge any other individuals who were at that location," Lessard said. Enough is enough with this story that has been sensationalized by Democrats in NH and nationally. Now that police have agreed that Guinta and Garrity will not be charged because they didn't do anything wrong other than going to a bar to pick up a drunk "supposed" friend, it is time for the bar story to be taken down. The reason why it is here on wikipedia is because of the Democrat blogging site (bluehampshire) has encouraged its users to come to wikipedia and alter/attack Guinta's wiki consistently. Can we put political parties aside and at least agree that the bar story can at least be shortened to a short sentence or two under the section about his run for congress? Here is the link to today's article: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Charge+filed+in+skirmish+with+alderman&articleId=287f3113-53f5-4b17-bb5d-be9f3112205d LivefreeordieNH (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There are rumors that Guinta himself has been editing the page

There have been rumors that Guinta himself is editing this page. There have been an inordinate number of edits from anonymous users who have Comcast Cable broadband service in or near Manchester. These anonymous edits invariably delete factual material which reflects badly on Guinta and/or puts in fluffy material which puffs up Guinta. If this is Guinta doing these edits or even just someone in his inner circle, whoever it is should desist. Editing your own article is a bigtime violation of Wikipedia rules. Even if this is just a supporter, he should identify himself or herself by at least a pseudonym. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL ok bud, just cuz people who live in Manch and are supporters of many republicans, Guitna included, delete the liberal trash that some people put on wikis for individuals such as Guinta, Sununu, ect, doesn't mean the person himself is editing. Regardless, even you MAKING this kind of claim is just an attempt to slander the individual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.223.230 (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits without verification are to be reverted. Even if the rumor was true, it would be violating Wikipedia:Autobiography. ZooFari 04:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if the content is factual and has a reliable source, I don't see how it's "liberal trash". -Falcon8765 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer it if anyone editing a political article stated his or her party membership.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

2010 run

It now says: He filed the paperwork and made an official announcement that he is running against incumbent. Does he have to win a Republican primary first? That would be normal. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his race appears on the Republican primary ballot in September 2010 even if no one files to run against him. Although no other serious candidates have emerged, it is fairly easy to get on the primary ballot in New Hampshire, so Guinta is unlikely to be totally unopposed. Oh and by the way I am a Democrat. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording of the article should be changed then. Now it implies that he will automatically run in the general election in November. I am a Republican, in fact an Obama Republican (so that everyone can be mad at me :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote it to be clear he has to win a primary before he can face Shea-Porter. Oh, and I'm a Democrat and Obama supporter who can check personal biases at the login page. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote to say that he has to become the Republican nomination, but Republican Primary didn't sound right. Oh, and I am a Republican. (LivefreeordieNH (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Bar Fight - Consensus

Per the resolution of the WP:3RR, we need to establish consensus regarding the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding the bar fight. My vote is to include, as it is newsworthy and sourced. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

'Include; an ongoing police investigation is encyclopedic and noteworthy. If I was reading this article as a third party, I would be interested in the information. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Include; well-sourced current information on a politician's life is worthy of inclusion. The truth favors no cause except itself. Jaybird vt (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Include; well-sourced and neutral (at least in my eyes). (While this is my first Wikipedia post, I am not a sock-puppet!) ManchWonk (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Include Although it was a minor incident, or seems to be anyway, it is sourced by news media. Also including it shows that the editors of the article, and WP, are trying to be fair-minded. Other political figures' articles include this kind of stuff. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Include Currently worth being noted. If something comes of the investigation, that will be worth noting; if he's cleared of any wrongdoing, that too might be worth noting. Certainly a random New Hampshirite looking to Wikipedia for information about candidates to support would be interested in the information, which is well-sourced and given a clear, neutral voice. Vote (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

""Do Not Include"" I respectfully but strongly disagree. Guinta did nothing wrong other than basically being in the wrong place at the wrong time-point blank. Almost every newspaper article on the subject agrees with that fact. It is a story that is only out as a big deal because of sensationalized headlines fueled by the Democrat Party in NH and nation wide in order to try and take as many hits at Guinta as possible. It does not deserve a place on his wikipedia page at all and should be removed. A single mayoral term has been shorted to a single paragraph, sections about the vocal support of the RNCC are deleted, and every word of his mayoral accomplishments are nit picked and skewed in order to make sure it doesn't make Guinta sound "too good," however it can be justified to give "pay to play" its own paragraph and this bar incident its own section- that is very wrong and shows a very obvious bias of those working on this article. I also have to say that because of the NH Democrat blogging network "Blue Hampshire's" constant mentioning of this particular wikipedia article, it is expected that there are going to be an inordinate number of individuals supporting and adding information to this particular wikipedia that attacks Guinta whenever possible- because of that, this little "voting" thing is obviously going to be skewed and it really shouldn't be given any weight in determining whether the bar fight incident is included or not-Heck look at the individual above saying this is his/her first wikipedia post. There is a heavy bias towards criticism on this wikipedia and it has become increasingly more and more obvious in the recent future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 11:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, but at this point the vote is 7-1 favoring include, that's enough for consensus to keep it in. Though I don't agree that "almost every newspaper article on the subject agrees" that Guinta "did nothing wrong"; they agree he didn't participate in the bar fight but they also agree that he was there and did nothing (which is wrong, though not necessarily illegal). Next, this particular conversation isn't talking about whether or not discussion of his mayoral term has been unfairly shortened. If you have an issue with that, create a new section on this talk page so we can discuss it. Finally, I agree with Timothy Horrigan: there is no "Democrat Party", I don't appreciate the use of that term as it is meant as a slur by Republicans, and the use of that term makes civil discourse more difficult than if you'd just say "Democratic Party". --Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Include It is a significant part of the story, and Livefreefordie's rant shows why it's significant. The key issue is not that the fight broke out while Guinta was there: the key issues are that he never reported an assault and that this incident contradicts one of his credentials (i.e., the factoid that he closed down two clubs downtown.) I will confess that I do blog on BlueHampshire.com--- and we have actually been more obsessed with Guinta's wikipedia sockpuppetry than the bar fight. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is no "Democrat Party" in New Hampshire. The two major parties in NH are the "Republican Party" and the "Democratic Party." And there is no sinister motive behind some members of the Democratic Party's attempt to highlight Guinta's flaws: Guinta is a Republican candidate for Congress and the Democrats have their own candidate. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I even try to be polite and cordial with how I wrote my last comment, and look how you still are all confrontational and rude with your approach. I'm sorry but comments like "It is staying" aren't exactly going to fly. Its wikipedia. Its not your own personal website where you yourself get to decide even with your one sided votes where you and your cronies get your buddies on bluehampshire to slam this particular candidate.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals with controversial material in articles by seeking consensus among as many editors as want to contribute their perspective. To understand more about this process, see Wikipedia:Consensus. If you refuse to abide by this policy, you may be blocked from editing again. What you interpret as rudeness or incivility is either your own bias or a simple flaw in text-only communications' limitations with regards to conveying subtlety and candor. Also, he really was only pointing out that you intentionally and repeatedly misspell 'Democratic' as 'Democrat,' which is a language meme perpetuated by the Republican Party. See Democrat_Party_(phrase) for more information. Thank you for your contributions. Jaybird vt (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Include, barely But avoid exaggeration. Guinta was in the bar, there to help out a friend of a friend, and was not AT ALL involved in the scuffle that resulted in injuries and was not charged. Any attempt to exaggerate its importance or significance to Mayor Guinta's very new campaign, or any personal attacks on him, will, I'm sure, be instantly reverted for POV. I would advise that we use reporting of incidents involving Democrats in NH as a guide here, just to be fair. I'm thinking of the mild and almost gentle way actual charges were handled on WP against Raymond Buckley. Here, Mr. Guinta wasn't even charged. Nhprman 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do Not Include I agree with Nhprman. Right now, Guinta hasn't been charged with anything and from what the police as well as even Mr. English's family, he won't be charged with anything. Because of this, in addition with the fact that this was basically a non-issue blown out of proportion by the Democratic Party on the national level for political reasons, it should at the very least not be given its own section on the article. It should be included as a couple of sentences on the congressional run section and the wording should be fixed because right now, it is certainly biased against Guinta more than it should be. NHPrimary43 (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Include I just wanted to say that it is a sad commentary that the fact that something is not a crime is supposed to prove that it is OK. Yes, Guinta is not going to be charged with anything: but did his response show the type of leadership we want from a mayor or a congressperson? I don't think so. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Point blank, wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion of whether or not someone "should" be elected or not. This comment proves exactly that you and some others on this wiki are politically biased against Guinta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 03:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not include It's way too long and makes the article unbalanced, and it's way too topical. But also remove reference to the 3 so-called award won by Manchester during Guinta's term, which have a tenuous link with him at best. And remove "he stated he was asked to run." I mean really. I am also not keen on reproducing or even summarizing the paper's editorial arguments in an encyclopedia article (but please note i did not remove any of those bits unilaterally). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtedit (talk • contribs) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Section

This section was deleted because it is no longer valid. There is a Union Leader article explaining that school funding was discussed at a very recent article and sports will be fully funded. When I first deleted this section, I explained it with a link to the afticle (in reference to falcon's claim that I deleted the section without explaination.)

The section was realisitcally just an attempt by people who disagree with Guinta's budget to get a "jab" at him, but we left it there for months anyways. Now, since the budget has been renegotiated and school sports will be fully funded, it is no longer vaild to say that the budget was cut by 7 million (since that isn't even the # anymore). This is why, because of all of these changes, that the paragraph should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Things don't get deleted from WikiPedia like that. If he got national attention, then it's valid. If you are pointing out an article that invalidates the point, then it should be added. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Show me where it got "national" attention... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.136.51 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did the mayor's budget from Manchester, NH make "national" attention? Secondly, why would it make and sense that if new information invalidates something, than the invalid point should stay and the valid part should just be added? That makes ZERO sense. If the section is invalid because of new info, then it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again: you can't just decide to delete material that was properly sourced. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh you can if the new material invalidates the first situation. I would like a second and UNBIASED opinion on this. Not just another liberal blogger's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 15:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh Grow up. It is a totally justified comment. There is a liberal blog in NH that consistently posts wikipedia articles of NH republican candidates thus drawing the bloggers to come and manipulate the particular page. I didn't call Muboshgu a liberal, even though he has himself identified himself as a Democrat in previous posts I do beleive. My comment was in reference to asking for an UNBIASED third party to give their opinion other than those funneled to this page from the lieral blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You calling me biased is the pot calling the kettle black. I don't care about this guy, whether he wins his congressional race or loses. You, however, seem to have a lot personally invested in him, and I have the page watched to try to maintain some impartiality. I'd also welcome an unbiased third party reviewer. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Political Positions

Including a 'political positions' section is entirely relevant to a political candidate, and many candidates have them (including his potential general election opponent, Carol Shea-Porter). Whatever anonymous contributor keeps blanking the section apparently has a problem with laying out Guinta's positions, both as he's stated them and as his record indicates. Vote (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of blanking the section, it would be better for people to try to collaborate on an accurate, neutral statement of Guinta's platform. I did try to give an accurate, neutral account of his views on healthcare and the economy, just to get this section started, but somebody blanked it anyway. Take a look at (for example) Rand_Paul#Political_views for an example of a conservative candidate's views explained in some detail. betsythedevine (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Article still reads like a Guinta press release

Item: the Union Leader's endorsements are used to support the claim that he reduced crime in Manchester. According to official pdf annual reports from the Manchester Police Department linked to from their website, Manchester had 301 violent crimes and 3937 total crimes in 2005 before Guinta took office. In 2009 after 4 years of his mayoralty, there were 502 violent crimes and 4317 total crimes. This represents a substantial increase in crime under his leadership, not the decrease this article now claims.

Item: Guinta got plenty of mileage from promoting the fake story that Carol Shea Porter threw Carl Tomanelli out of a Manchester town hall for daring to ask her a question, when the police officer involved has publicly stated that it was his decision, not Shea Porter's, to eject Tomanelli, and that Tomanelli was removed not for a sincere effort to take part in open dialogue but for repeatedly interrupting others with his shouted accusations.

This article needs more independent sources and fact-checking, in my opinion. betsythedevine (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Item: If somebody wants to include one or more awards won by Manchester in this article, then that person should demonstrate that Guinta had a role in winning each award mentioned. Otherwise the implication that Guinta deserves credit for these awards is inappropriate. betsythedevine (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He was mayor at the time. He certainly deserves the credit for the accomplishments and awards the city was given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.249.241 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Guinta does not deserve credit for improvements to the millyard which were made years before he was mayor or for the tax policy of the state of NH, just to cite two of the Manchester's good points mentioned in the awards on that list. LIsting them in his biography clearly implies that he deserves full credit for all the awards, but not one of the awards listed mentions Guinta or anything he did in his two terms as mayor. betsythedevine (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Betsy, you are obviously politically biased in your accusations. How about you try and put aside your political beliefs before going to a particular page and ravishly making edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.249.241 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My goal is improve this article so that it is fair to Guinta and fair to the facts. Manchester won some awards while Guinta was in office. Putting the awards into the bio implies that he deserves credit, -- but none of the awards mention Guinta. Look at the other side of the question -- if the article about Guinta talks about the substantial rise in crime during Guinta's 4 years in office, it would imply the crime increase was his fault. I don't think crime in Manchester is Guinta's fault, and I don't think the millyard improvements and NH's tax structure should be credited to Guinta either. betsythedevine (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Betsy, you are active on Guinta's opponent's page, Carol Shea-Porter in positivly changing her page so that it reads like a "press release." Your bias is obvious and edits are obnoxiously partisan. I would advise you to stop with your trashing of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.145.154 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I invite any reader to look at my edits, then compare them to yours or those of the recently banned IP who shares your POV. Please discuss edits, not editors, on this talk page. If you have complaints about another editor's behavior, report their specific bad edits to some appropriate place like WP:3RR or WP:ANI, don't clutter up this talk page. betsythedevine (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"The mayor attributes the 17% drop in violent crime during his first term ..."

Consider this statement in the article: "The mayor attributes Manchester's 17% reduction in violent crime during his first term to these actions." I don't see any citation for the claim that Manchester's violent crime was reduced 17% during Guinta's first term. From the official Manchester NH Crime Index for 2006 and the official 2009 Police Department report, violent crimes were as follows:

2003: 301
2004: 367
2005: 301
2006: 321
2007: (no data about 2007 violent crime rate in Manchester Police reports for 2007 or 2008)
2008: 457
2009: 502

Violent crime spiked up about 20% between 2003 and 2004, then fell back down the same amount in 2005, but since Guinta was not elected until 2005, how could his policies have caused that decrease? The article cites no source for its claim that violent crime decreased 17% during Guinta's first term. Furthermore, people's statements about themselves may be acceptable as per WP:SELFPUB but not when those statements are essentially self-serving. I am trying to edit this promotional material back to a normal Wikipedia biography based on neutral statements from reliable sources. betsythedevine (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Related to the crime reduction, the Manchester Union Leaders endorsement of Guinta in 2007 never mentions 17% or any other specific figure for crime reduction. It says "Guinta made crime fighting his other top priority, and he has overseen the hiring of nearly 20 new police officers in the last year and the closing of several downtown trouble spots. The shooting of Officer Michael Briggs concentrated the aldermen's attention on crime, so Guinta cannot take all the credit there." betsythedevine (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Guinta was instrumental..."

Yet more editorializing about Guinta, that is not supported by WP:RS: "Guinta was instrumental in revitalizing the newly formed Rimmon Heights Neighborhood on Manchester's West Side and in bringing a large economic development project in Manchester; Elliot at the River's Edge, which plans to turn the long closed Jac Pac Foods warehouse into an $87 million dollar redevelopment project." Two references given, neither of which supports this statement: http://www.manchexpress.com/express092807.pdf and http://millyardcommunications.com/index.php?src=news&refno=582&category=News

One of those references talks about the opening of a police station on Manchester's West Side, but neither reference gives Guinta credit for benefiting Manchester in anything like the glowing and specific terms of the sentence they are attached to. A 2008 article by the Union Leader about the Jac Pac project also fails to credit Guinta. betsythedevine (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I gave this its own section, since a new IP has just re-added this material using the same two "references":

Here is what Millyard Communications says: "Another major project in Manchester is Elliot Health System’s $87 million redevelopment of the former Jac Pac site near the riverfront, which is scheduled for completion next year. The hospital broke ground on the project in October to build the 236,000- square-foot complex, which will be four stories and include a 700-car parking garage. It’s the first building of its size to be built designed to be green, and it is the largest private building construction in the city since the Mall of NH was built. Of the 17 acres the hospital hasn’t built on, four acres is being developed into a park and donated to the city. Three additional buildings will house medical offices, retail businesses and a residential building. Schmidt says Citizens plans on opening a branch in the new development. While the facility is certainly a feather in the cap of Elliot and the community, Rick Phelps, executive vice president of clinical operations for Elliot Health System, says ...." and so on, giving ZERO credit to Frank Guinta. The source does not mention "Rimmon Heights" or Manchester's West Side.

From the other reference cited, the September 27, 2008 edition of Manchester Express, talks about the opening of a new police station on the West Side saying, "Yesterday’s celebration was not just about the opening of the substation, but also about a community-based revitalization effort taking place in the area of the city know as Rimmon Heights." It is talking about the beginning of a revitalization effort. Guinta as mayor was present at the ceremony. Search for the name "Guinta" in the article and you will find him in photo captions or being quoted, not being described as "instrumental in revitalizing" Rock Rimmon or anything else.

The sources being cited do not support the sentence that they are attached to. Neither article credits Guinta with being responsible in any way for either of the two achievements cited. betsythedevine (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards to Manchester vs awards to Guinta

This article used to contain a list of several awards to Manchester, NH -- a list that included a Forbes award to "the Manchester-Nashua region." Not one award mentions Guinta or anything he did. These were not awards given to Frank Guinta, and they were not awards given to Manchester because of any action by Frank Guinta. Including them in this article, however, clearly implies that Guinta deserves credit for these awards. Find some reliable source exists that gives credit to Guinta for having achieved x, y, or z or else leave x, y, and z out of this article.

It is WP:SYNTHESIS to attribute credit to Guinta for good events that happened to occur during his mayoralty. One could, by exactly the same token, implicitly blame Guinta by listing here the many bad events that occurred in Manchester during his mayoralty such as the huge recession that has hit the city, the striking rise in crime over the 4 years of his term, etc. etc. That would not be fair, and it would not be in accord with Wikipedia policy. It is also a violation to keep larding this article with praise of Guinta for things that no WP:RS has said were achievements by him. betsythedevine (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Disputed quote: Frank Guinta on Social Security

In May 2010, during the Republican primary, Frank Guinta was asked about how to fix Social Security. Somebody blogged his remarks on the subject as follows:

"When Social Security was created, we didn't have the wealth of private sector solution for lifetime savings that you do today. We have to honor the obligations that have been made to those who are reliant on the federal government - older generations. But future generations should seek different private sector solutions and have personal responsibility start to lead the way. My kids are 6 and 5. They shouldn't know what Social Security is!"

These remarks were quoted in part or in full here and here. They have been rejected as reliable sources vouching for the accuracy of the quote. The conservative website GraniteGrok hosts a video of the remarks in question; Guinta gets the microphone at about 6:52 and very soon gets to the words just as quoted above.

"Let's not forget that this [Social Security] is something the government created. And now we're trying to have a government solution to a problem government created. Government's the problem here, ladies and gentlemen. When Social Security was created, you didn't have the wealth of private sector solutions for lifetime savings that you have today. We have to honor the obligations that have been made to those who are reliant on the federal government - older generations. But future generations should seek different private sector solutions and have personal responsibility start to lead the way. My kids are 6 and 5. They shouldn't know what Social Security is! You want to get down this debt and deficit? 65% of our budget is entitlements. We're going to have to make tough decisions as members of Congress..." [and then more about the deficit, etc.]

In other words, the quote that has been multiply written about in other media is 100% accurate and its accuracy is verifiable by anyone who cares to check. betsythedevine (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Politicians may not like having their statements from the primary being repeated when the general election is under way, but the quote is accurate. When Guinta was challenged by Shea-Porter in their St. Anselm debate to specify the 'reforms' he wanted to implement in Social Security, he dodged the question repeatedly. Guinta has notably not placed any comment on his opinions about Social Security on the 'issues' page of his own campaign website. Without any other public word, Guinta's primary comments are the only source of information about his stance on Social Security. It is not biased to record his position, even if that position is politically unpopular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vote (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As of 2 Days After the Election

Two days have gone by since Guinta won the election and no one has updated the article to reflect that fact. This must prove something; I am not sure what it proves, however. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of controversies section

The following section has been repeatedly removed and re added to the article. Please discuss here before continuing to edit war over this section. The next person to add or remove the section will be reported by me to the appropriate noticeboard. Reach consensus, as opposed to edit warring. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Discuss here

I agree that the name should probably be changed ("Controversy" is unnecessarily leading) but this matter played a significant role in his Congressional campaign, and the section on it looks to be balanced and well-sourced (WMUR, Fosters). The attempt to remove it completely appears, to me, to be whitewashing. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It should stay, and be in the section about the campaign. It's well sourced, and has been investigated by multiple respected news sources, thus it is notable and verifiable. The attempts to remove it seem to be from a single editor, which suggests they may have a conflict of interest of some kind. Matt J ^User|Talk 19:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Disuputed section

Guinta has been challenged on the origins of personal loans to his own campaign of $355,000. Guinta states that he saved this money over the course of his career from real estate deals and from consulting work, but has not provided supporting documentation. The issue was first raised by Guinta's fellow Republicans during the Republican primary, but Guinta won anyway.

In October 2010, New Hampshire Public Radio political reporter Josh Greenberg tried to verify the verifiable aspects of Guinta's claims. Guinta almost certainly made less than $100,000 from his known real estate deals (involving four residential properties in Manchester.) His other activities seemed unlikely to generate enough income to accumulate a quarter of a million dollars' savings. One of his past political jobs, as a New Hampshire State Representative, has a notoriously low salary— $100 per year— although like most of his colleagues he held down outside jobs during his New Hampshire House service. His two later political jobs paid somewhat higher salaries— but not high enough to explain his large savings, which were in any case not reflected on any of the many financial disclosure forms he filed over the years. (He made about $55,000/year as a Congressional aide and $72,000 a year as Mayor of Manchester.)

A controversy section has no business in a politician's page. The entire context is speculation and is not appropriate in an article. Continuing to bring it up and adding it back is done as an attempt to smear the politician and should not be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LivefreeordieNH (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsensical. The issue did not go away when the election did; the donation is still subject to investigation for illegality. Neutral sources and even sources friendly to the candidate have identified the issue as problematic; it is in no way a smear. It was similarly not a smear that former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson's infamous 'freezer money' was noted in his page before he was criminally convicted. The Union Leader and WMUR, both Republican-friendly media sources, both identified the $355,000 as being potentially illegal, and that does not vanish into the ether with the conclusion of the election. If he is investigated and exonerated or provides an exculpatory bank statement, then the section would presumably be removed. Vote (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The key word is "Potentially." There hasn't even been an investigation whatsoever, just accusations from the Democratic Party and Rep. Shea-Porter and former party foes that ran against Guinta in the Primary. Also, lets be clear here, I'm a NH native and WMUR is NOT a Republican friendly news source. I'm not saying its Democratic friendly either, but claiming it to be a Republican source is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.145.154 (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(Restart indents)Concord Monitor, Nov. 11, 2010: "It seemed suspicious to people of all political persuasions that Guinta forgot to disclose half his life savings in a clerical error." And so on. The story is not going to vanish out of the news--it would seem to me Guinta's supporters would be grateful for a chance to give a balanced account here in Wikipedia for reporters and others.betsythedevine (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Betsy, I need to chime in here. The quote you just took was from an editorial given to the Concord Monitor by the Exec Director of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, Mike Brunelle. This furthers the other editor's point that this is not something that should be included on a wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.241.70 (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of other more neutral sources questioning Guinta's finances. Betsy's quote just show's that the issue is still in the news. Matt J ^User|Talk 21:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(restart indents) I have attempted to give a balanced account of the story in the context the Congressional campaign section.betsythedevine (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Good work, although I expect we'll see someone whitewashing it again soon. Matt J ^User|Talk 10:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't going away - the Washington Post included it in a story today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120105763.html. Vote (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

References

"The SS section can be removed" until new consensus is reached

No. The SS section that was stable and under consensus can stay until a new consensus is reached on this talk page. That section has been repeatedly attacked, shortened, or removed by editors who claim that Guinta's own statements about his political positions should be removed. I don't agree that an elected official's campaign statements and promises should be whitewashed or hidden from people who come to this article wanting to learn more about him. betsythedevine (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Betsythedevine. If a politicians own words are the basis for a section about their view on an issue, then it's by definition true. And seeing as social security is a major issue it's notable enough that it should be included. Matt J ^User|Talk 19:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are using a direct quote manipulated into an attack commercial by this politician's opponent during the last election in a tv commercial. Your using of this quote as a means of attacking the politician's position on SS rather than using the candidate's direct position found on his own website shows that the goal of using your quote in the SS policy position section is not to actually show the candidate's position, but rather to attack the politician on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.145.154 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not policy to censor material out of Wikipedia based on a claim about the motives of the person who put it there. It is not policy to censor material out of Wikipedia based on a claim that similar or the same material was used in an attack ad. Shea-Porter's support for healthcare reform was used against her in multiple attack ads -- does that mean her article should leave people uncertain if she voted for healthcare reform or not?

The direct quote is taken from Guinta's own words, and given in context. It is meaningful and informative to our readers. His statement is also well within the Tea Party mainstream. Guinta is not the only deficit hawk who wants to deny or defer Social Security benefits for the currently not-retired. betsythedevine (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is that if your goal, which I believe to be unbiased, is to accurately depict the politician's position, then why not take the actual politician's position from his own website rather than a quote taken out of context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.145.154 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the website statement and the video-recorded statement are both Guinta's statements (and citation needed on how that video clip is 'out of context' given that it, well, shows the full context). He cannot be presumed to be telling the truth about one and lying about the other, so the only neutral option is to report both until such time as he accumulates a voting record and issues enough public statements on the issue as to clearly define his actual position from the multiple stated positions. Vote (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(Restarting indent) Politician's official statements on their own websites are often contradicted or clarified by what they have said in other places. As these comments were made very public during the campaign, perhaps you can find a public statement by Guinta backing away from them or explaining he meant something different from what he said during the primary. betsythedevine (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is my point. Using a single quote on SS that Guinta's opponent used in an attack ad as the sole distinction of his stance on the issue is obsurd especially when the quote is made to seem as if he is anti SS all together, which is something that I never heard throughout paying attention to all races here in NH throughout the 2010 midterms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.145.154 (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so maybe you can find a quote from Guinta explaining a different policy on SS. Matt J ^User|Talk 19:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The disputed quote:

"We have to honor the obligations that have been made to those who are reliant on the federal government - older generations. But future generations should seek different private sector solutions and have personal responsibility start to lead the way. My kids are 6 and 5. They shouldn't know what Social Security is!"

The disputed quote in context, a statement made in a Republican primary debate, before a very conservative audience:

"Let's not forget that this [Social Security] is something the government created. And now we're trying to have a government solution to a problem government created. Government's the problem here, ladies and gentlemen. When Social Security was created, you didn't have the wealth of private sector solutions for lifetime savings that you have today. We have to honor the obligations that have been made to those who are reliant on the federal government - older generations. But future generations should seek different private sector solutions and have personal responsibility start to lead the way. My kids are 6 and 5. They shouldn't know what Social Security is! You want to get down this debt and deficit? 65% of our budget is entitlements. We're going to have to make tough decisions as members of Congress..."

Do you want to add more of the quote from that setting, or to add the information that he was speaking to a conservative audience? It is pretty clear that he would like to see Social Security replaced by a private sector solution, at least for people the age of his children now. betsythedevine (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is Guinta's response to the claims that this quote, Shea-Porter, and you are now putting forth as his "stance on SS." Here is the link and here is the actual wording. http://guinta2010.blogspot.com/2010/09/guinta-statement-on-preserving-social.html

I don't understand how you can say a quote is putting forward a claim. He said those words, presumably because he believed them. So either those are his beliefs, he's changed his mind or he was lying. In any case, it should be in the article. Matt J ^User|Talk 21:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 Guinta Statement on Preserving Social Security

Frank Guinta has released the following statement in response to false assertions made by Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter's office:

"Carol Shea-Porter continues to deny there is a problem with Social Security. Social Security is projected to run a deficit in 2015 because of the partisan, big-spending agenda championed by Carol Shea-Porter and Nancy Pelosi. They have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous spending, and trillions on the failed stimulus package and Obamacare takeover. And for too long both parties have raided the Social Security Trust Fund, which is due to become bankrupt by 2037.

The only way to ensure Social Security's future is to cut federal spending, so we can maintain the commitments we've made to our nation's seniors. I believe we need a solution to preserve Social Security which does not privatize the system, does not raise taxes, and does not cut existing benefits. If Carol Shea-Porter is so concerned about our seniors, why did she vote for ObamaCare which cuts half a trillion dollars in Medicare benefits for seniors?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.241.70 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing a large difference between his earlier and later statements, it seems fair to include them both in this article. I added the later quote that you propose. betsythedevine (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Article looks like a Democrat hit piece

If we are going to have a policy section, it should be actually about the policy beleifs of an elected officialy - not an area of the website for member of another political party to take shots at an elected official. The section had gotten rediculous prior to these edits.

With regards to the mentioning of the elected official's bank accounts, it is a political attack and has no right to be in this article, but from prior edits from others, I can tell that the partisans who dominite Wikipedia want it to stay. If it has to, then there should be a statement that it has remained political in nature without ANY action from the FEC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.78.19 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We should objectively record what has happened, but it's important to cite independent sources for such claims. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the people who thinks the undisclosed bank account information should stay in the article, since it was a big issue in the campaign. The article and the WP:RS already say that "the New Hampshire Democratic Party" filed these complaints against a Republican candidate shortly before the election. Do you think any reader will imagine that the complaint was NOT political in nature? Most complaints filed with the FEC are "political attacks," at least from the POV of the person whose actions are questioned. The FEC is still working on a bunch of cases related to 2010 elections, to judge from their report this week. If they have not yet addressed the Guinta issue, that does not prove anything pro or con about the merits of the filing.

Many officeholders would like to see "their" articles scrubbed of now-inconvenient campaign statements. Past public statements are relevant and those that were quoted in WP:RS are notable. betsythedevine (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There ya go Betsy, cited source. Happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.78.19 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing properly-sourced but unflattering information

There appears to be a concerted effort to remove unflattering information about Rep. Guinta -- specifically the CREW allegations of corruption -- by someone, not logged in, apparently from an IP address in the Washington, DC area. I don't mean to get on my high horse here, but this is starting to look to me almost like vandalism. If you think this sourced information does not belong in the article, please discuss it here rather than just wiping it out. --Mark Asread (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't me, but I will discuss it here. As the previous section explains, the finance-report irregularity was a factor in Rep. Guinta's 2010 campaign and does belong in the article. CREW devised an overtly partisan list of "corrupt" Representatives, including Rep. Guinta on the list on the strength of nothing more than that irregularity, even after the FEC found him in "substantial compliance." Giving it its own section, headed "Corruption," fails NPOV. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

While we're here, the rest of the section "Tenure" is atrocious on the other side. How many times can you use a single footnote, it being a link to Guinta's own House of Representatives website? For a digest of what Guinta says he believes, a simple link to this website should suffice. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why Is Guinta's Own Congressional Web Cite Being Cited?

Why not just have Guinta's office write the page? It probably is. What possibly use is it to a reader to read that Guinta is for turning the Manchester V.A. into a full service facility? Where is the independent citation that tells us of his actual efforts on this and other issues? This looks like campaign literature. This is just a political stand. Where is the information, independent objective information, that he is trying to do any of this?Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

CREW "liberal"?

In March, when Anon segregated the report by CREW into a new section Criticism, he added the adjective "liberal" to describe CREW. To me, it is not newsworthy that advocates of the other camp have criticism of the Congressman, nor is it particularly credible that CREW morphs a filing error, which did not seem to concern the relevant authorities, into a finding of "Corrupt." CREW primarily, though not exclusively, targets Republicans in office.

I don't mind that the article contain a Criticism section, as support for Rep. Guinta is not universal. The CREW report is also newsworthy in that its charge is often used by local adversaries. However, this month, another Anon deleted the word "liberal" and I restored it, a move that Arbor8 called POV. Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well-known internet roleplaying chatroom host on WBS

I have added this info to the page! Guinta ran one of the internet's finest chats and feuded intensely with the now-deceased "Jase Glenshadow," former male model and drug addict Chris Schiebel. For those of you not interested in the history of role playing or what sustained all non-World of Darkness goth games during what is now known as "the dark ages" this may seem like a minor historical footnote, however I assure you that Guinta and Schiebel were the two most well-known online RPG chat hosts in the world for a brief period (although Schiebel moreso). In particular the IWT was known for its high level of female "talent" cutting across all age groups and racial demographics. I myself met several women from that site "In Real Life" (IRL). Anyway just thought that this would flesh out the page a little more because I don't see any political stuff being added for the foreseeable future LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryFightFan (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added a source for the information which has been vetted on other articles. An unidentified user keeps trying to suppress information on Guinta's role in establishing an infrastructure for online roleplaying, possibly a rival campaign operative?? I found it VERY unusual that the completely unsourced statement above was unaltered. HistoryFightFan (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I now see that a possible malicious user is editing the page and trying to cast doubt on whether this is "the same" Frank Guinta from WBS. I assure you that this is the same Frank Guinta but would be happy to use my headjack port to allow us to share memories in order to prove this point - LOL! Simply a humorous aside. But it is the same person. Never doubt that.HistoryFightFan (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Long-term edit war

There has been an edit war going on for years on this article over this content. I don't really know what to make of it, I just know it should be discussed here rather than removed and re-added ad infinitum. It seems a bit like WP:TRIVIA and not a very notable biographical fact. I ask other editors with opinions on this content to please discuss it here rather than continuing this long-term edit war. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Controversy

The section under 2010 on the campaign finance controversy comes across to me as a bit disjointed. There are two sequential paragraphs currently referring to the $355,000 sum, one referring to the initial complaint, and another short paragraph referring to the 2015 settlement. I believe it would make sense for this to have it's own section on the page, since it is related to the 2010 campaign, but the controversy spans 5 years.

BallotPedia https://ballotpedia.org/Frank_Guinta#Campaign_finance_controversy has a well composed section, but I have been unable to find any policy statements on what license BP releases their work under, and whether it is compliant with WP policy and if it can just be migrated over. It already has citations.

I would still integrate the first paragraph from this article (about the 2010 election and initial complaints) with the BP text, as the BP text primarily focuses on the 2015 settlement and controversy (which is where I feel the WP is lacking). 166.20.224.10 (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Guinta. 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/20141008181023/http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/coming-soon-to-the-house-gop-more-moderates-20140930 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/coming-soon-to-the-house-gop-more-moderates-20140930

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Frank Guinta. 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/20110727133821/http://www.nwgm.org/uploads/pdf/news/UL-02272007.pdf to http://www.nwgm.org/uploads/pdf/news/UL-02272007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920214253/http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/216678/guinta-takes-eight-way-race to http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/216678/guinta-takes-eight-way-race
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409090523/http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/04/friday_house_cl_8.php to http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/04/friday_house_cl_8.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313190428/http://www.wmur.com/politics/25010214/detail.html to http://www.wmur.com/politics/25010214/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313190453/http://www.wmur.com/politics/25614038/detail.html to http://www.wmur.com/politics/25614038/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012104718/http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219217/formal-complaints-filed-against-guinta to http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219217/formal-complaints-filed-against-guinta
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229134410/http://nhpr.org/assessing-frank-guintas-finances to http://nhpr.org/assessing-frank-guintas-finances
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718073259/http://www.wmur.com/politics/25383031/detail.html to http://www.wmur.com/politics/25383031/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028053107/http://blogs.unionleader.com/andrew-cline/index.php/archives/1786 to http://blogs.unionleader.com/andrew-cline/index.php/archives/1786
• Added archive https://archive.is/20141015192206/http://www.concordmonitor.com/community/town-by-town/concord/13935165-95/guinta-ids-mental-health-as-a-top-state-issue to http://www.concordmonitor.com/community/town-by-town/concord/13935165-95/guinta-ids-mental-health-as-a-top-state-issue
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424034921/http://guinta.house.gov/issue/debt-and-deficit to http://guinta.house.gov/issue/debt-and-deficit
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505094201/https://guinta.house.gov/issue/economy to http://guinta.house.gov/issue/economy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616093434/http://guinta.house.gov/issue/taxes-and-spending to http://guinta.house.gov/issue/taxes-and-spending
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505090425/https://guinta.house.gov/issue/veterans to http://guinta.house.gov/issue/veterans
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616093405/http://guinta.house.gov/issue/energy to http://guinta.house.gov/issue/energy
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/343748/occupy-nh-takes-on-dual-forms

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)