Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012/Archive 1

Archive 1

The website is the campaign

At this point, the website is the campaign. We should describe it and mention any peculiarities covered in the press.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when I first saw this page I wondered if it should even be here yet. If Gingrich eventually does not run, what then? Will this article be deleted? I think that points to the problem here: there isn't much to be said, and that's fine. But there's also nothing peculiar about politicians using stock photos. Here's an example involving the DSCC from a year ago.[1] I imagine you'd agree that if he does run, this will be too minor to mention. If so, then isn't this a clear case of recentism? Stargat (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything widely covered in reliable sources merits inclusion. [2]. I believe this page was mistakenly created with the belief that Gingrich had formed an exploratory committee. If he does not form a committee, then anything meaningful in the article should be incorporated in the main page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're relying on WP:Notability (events) as a guide, which I suppose makes sense though there's no strict guidance. Even so, I disagree that it was "widely covered". Looking at Google News closely, I find the WSJ blog post, a Vanity Fair blog post, a National Journal blog post, and maybe one or two passing mentions elsewhere. That seems awfully thin, especially considering it was a one-day story and seems to have had no further consequences. Stargat (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am unhappy that you have chosen to disengage this discussion, revert my changes (which are supported by guidelines) with a mischaracterization of this discussion, and then accuse me of edit warring on my talk page. I have responded on your page, and would like to resolve this politely. But right now, I don't understand what policy-based opposition you have to my edit. Stargat (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Silence? It remains a secret of the Universe? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiffany's Update

I've added this relevant detail and I trust that this is OK, despite my relationship to Mr. Gingrich. --Joedesantis (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! Location (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pledges

I would like to suggest a new short paragraph for this article, perhaps as a third heading under the "Campaign developments" section. As Newt is on the trail he will be making announcements and some have already received significant coverage. One from this week I think can be treated in an encyclopedic manner, and I've written a short section with a short description and two sources. Because of my role with the campaign, I'd like to invite another editor to review this and consider it for use in the article. And if you do add it, feel free to delete this here if you like. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Pledges

On Wednesday, June 8, during an appearance at C&M Machine Products in Hudson, New Hampshire, Gingrich signed the "Strong America Now" pledge, which calls for a 25% reduction in federal government spending and to start paying down the national debt by 2017, becoming the first Republican candidate to do so.

Campaign coverage

I am starting a list of stories about the Gingrich campaign that I think could be useful in this article. I'd like to encourage any editor who decides to work on this article to consider these reliable sources for inclusion in the article at any time. I will continue to add useful links on occasion, and try to respond to any questions as quickly as I can. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
On 6/22 Newt Gingrich called for a "dramatically limited Federal Reserve," arguing the Fed supported Libya during the financial crisis. From the article: "A New York subsidiary of Bahrain-based Arab Banking Corp. was among many foreign banks the Fed lent to during the crisis to prevent a global financial meltdown. The Libyan government has a large stake in the bank, though Fed officials have said most of the stake was purchased by Tripoli after the bank's loans from the Fed were repaid. A Fed spokeswoman declined to comment." -- "GOP Candidates Set Sights on Fed," Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2011.
* On 6/28 Newt Gingrich signed the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge urging Congress to oppose raising the debt ceiling limit unless the following conditions are met: a) cuts to federal spending to reduce the debt, b) caps on federal spending, and c) passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Article also notes: "Gingrich was Speaker of the House when Congress balanced the budget during the Clinton administration. -- "Gingrich signs Cut, Cap and Balance pledge," The Daily Caller, June 28, 2011.
July 2011
* Tony Blankley comments on Newt Gingrich's campaign trail discussion of Alzheimer's as an issue, pointing out that it is neither new issue for him, nor is it a "niche" issue: "I remember Newt talking to me about the coming crisis in Alzheimer’s back in the 1990s. And in 2007, the Alzheimer's Association along with the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease called for the creation of the Alzheimer’s Study Group. Newt was named co-chairman, along with former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey. ... The bipartisan study Newt co-chaired reported that unless there are breakthroughs in the diagnosis, treatment and reduction in the rate of Alzheimer’s, Medicare and Medicaid will spend nearly $20 trillion on the treatment and care of the disease by the middle of the century - a trillion dollars a year by 2050." -- "Newt is no niche candidate," Tony Blankley, The Washington Times, July 5, 2011.
* Politico reported on Gingrich's Twitter following, the biggest among the GOP presidential candidates: "Gingrich has a whopping 1.3 million followers on the popular social media site. His three closest Twitter rivals from the 2012 GOP presidential field, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Reps. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann, all hover around 60,000 followers apiece. Even Twitter enthusiast Sarah Palin, who hasn’t indicated whether she’ll run, has less than half the followers Gingrich does." --"Newt Gingrich miles ahead in Twitter primary", Politico, July 12, 2011.
* TechPresident covered Gingrich's announced hosting of a video "hangout" on the new Google+ website, dicussing "everything from the space program to Thucydides with a slowly rotating cast of up to 10 Americans at a time. ... Gingrich took the time to throw questions back at some of the other nine participants, such as a professor of political philosophy who interrupted some study of Socrates to participate." The article compared it to "the online version of a campaign stop at a New Hampshire diner." --"The +Newt Gingrich Google Hangout: How'd That Go?" Nick Judd, TechPresident, July 13, 2011.

I think you are focusing on relatively trivial stories that are generally not getting much coverage by major news sources. A Google News search indicates that the coverage Gingrich is getting this week is centered on his $1 million of campaign debt. Location (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we know if Newt is betting the farm on a run in South Carolina or is he building an operation in other states as well? Manofmyth (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Gingrich at Ames, Iowa.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gingrich at Ames, Iowa.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Of Georgia"?

Gingrich has lived in Virginia since 1999. Per the Cheney precedent, isn't a candidate's "home state" determined by the last place he voted? -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On Palestinians

I have no motivation in engaging in the American Presidential Election nor in any conservative vs democrats laundry...but I cannot believe how much my edits have been washed in one single day: [10 December 2011‎ ] to present [11 December 2011‎].

What is the purpose, to potray Ginrich in a more favorable light or simply to provide some [original research]--Caygill (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The edits you made were not washed away. I kept the facts, and I shifted them down to the bottom where the most recent info is added. The section you had was a simple "commonts on palestinians" and was worded as a criticisms section. Since he has become frontrunner, there has been an explosion of news and criticism on Gingrich as of late, and this is only one of many that will surface in the news. The idea that a reader will read criticisms, comments, and gaffes sections repeatedly makes for a negative and unbalanced article. I do not support a separate section for just one group of comments he has made, as there are many other ideas, proposals, policies, and personal histories that are surfacing in the media that deserve due coverage.--Screwball23 talk 05:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

last section

I'm a little unsure how to proceed with the final section. It's clear he's frontrunner, and it's clear he is getting a lot more criticism as of late. I personally would like a section to the effect of Frontrunner: increased criticism. In all objectivity, that would be the best way of handling it, but a lot of editors want to highlight controversies and push undue weight on week by week statements. It does not make sense to do that, as I expect editors will start pushing sections into this on a day by day, week by week basis dedicated to gaffes and controversies. I would like to have a discussion with those who want sections here, because it is not an easy judgment to make on how to constitute, name, and divvy up sections, and I know it will be done soon.--Screwball23 talk 06:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents go to the importance of the presented issues from a global perspective. Surely there are plenty important issues and views on the US domestic agenda, especially the wealth of partisan questions - and pro-this-n-that. Is this about criticisms or simply highlighting expressed views - I don't know? However, the election is about a leader of the world's only superpower and, also as such, the Wikipedia article should have a emphasis on a non-local perspective. In short, let us create some kind of sub-section, with the prominent questions from a global perspective. --Caygill (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explain. My concern is that the article will lose continuity like the Michele Bachmann article did. In her 2012 campaign page, editors added bits and pieces of her campaign, and the focus was on gaffes and controversies. I'm not saying they weren't valid to put in, and I want to be clear that I support the inclusion of Gingrich's statements and other historically valid information. However, if a person adds a section "On Israeli-Palestinian conflict", and then the news focuses on something else for a week or two, editors will follow sectioning convention and begin to reference a new gaffe or controversy, only to follow another the week after. In effect, the article would become a timeline of news headlines and the organization of the campaign's history will suffer.

I see you want to reach a compromise, and I do agree with you that his reception oversees is valuable to this article. I have added several links to responses from Palestinians and the Arab world. However, it is premature at this point now to place a section dedicated to international opinion of Gingrich's candidacy. Should he take international trips, say, as Barack Obama did in 2008, we could argue for a separate section. But at this point, I do not see it as necessary or strongly valuable.--Screwball23 talk 01:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the sub-section simply entitled "Frontrunner" is acceptable. Brief mention of the "attacks" from the other candidates could be mentioned there. The main section is entitled "Campaign developments", so gaffes and controversies that receive significant attention (e.g. Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, the Palestinian issue) in the media probably should have their own sub-sections. Blurbs with lesser or shorter-lived mainstream attention probably should be briefly mentioned under the time period that they were brought up (i.e. the child labor comment should go under the "Frontrunner" section). Location (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Addressing issues in the article

Hello, my name is Joe DeSantis and I am the communications director for Mr. Gingrich's presidential campaign. I have previously made edit requests and provided source material on this talk page, and I hope to be able to suggest changes and be of assistance in providing information once again. In recent months there have been a large number of changes to this article and, while many have introduced good material, I do have concerns about some. I'll address them as follows:

• It is noted in the current final sentence of the "Staff resignations" section that "Gingrich took a liking to the Six Sigma business management model", implying that he had only recently taken an interest in the model. However, this is incorrect, as he was introduced to Six Sigma principles in 2007 (covered in a Feb. 5 2007 Fortune article). I would suggest that this sentence by amended to state "In August 2011, Gingrich proposed the use of the Lean Six Sigma business management model to reduce the federal deficit."

• The mention of the glitter protest in the "Debt to Tiffany & Co." section appears out of place in this section, and I would argue that it wasn't a significant event in Newt's campaign, one that has happened to other candidates from time to time.

• Most recently, as the "Frontrunner" section has grown, perhaps more has been written about the latest issue of National Review than is advisable:

A National Review magazine cover parodied Newt for his futurist ideas, illustrating him as Marvin the Martian to poke fun at his support for U.S.-built moon bases. The magazine urged its readers not to vote for Gingrich, saying conservatives would "blow it" by nominating him. Among its scrutinies of Gingrich were his past marriages, his "irresolute action" as speaker, and his absence from government since 1998."

In addition, an image of the NR cover was added to the section with a caption "Gingrich parodied on the cover of National Review, which urged its readers not to vote for him". The inclusion of this material perhaps gives too much weight to a single magazine piece. No other source (critical or otherwise) has been given such coverage in the article. I suggest that the NR could be added to the list of critics at the end of the section, and ask if the cover is really necessary (especially considering it is a copyrighted image).

Due to my relationship to Newt, I would appreciate input from other editors and hope to reach agreement in addressing these issues. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the above:

1. The Sigma Six blurb received barely any coverage so I think it should be stricken altogether.
2. The "glitter bomb" incident received coverage from a lot of national sources, but there wasn't commentary about it after the initial report. I'm OK with striking it.
3. The National Review piece was a significant "anti-endorsement", so mention of it should be kept. It likely could be trimmed.
4. I've requested input on the appropriateness of the image from someone more familiar with image copyright issues.

I would wait for some mini-consensus before changing. Location (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• User:Location invited me here to comment on the NR image. There is a weak argument for inclusion of the image. But, I think Joedesantis' comments regarding undue weight, especially in light of the non-free nature of the image, weigh in favor of removal. Further, there's more discussion of the content of the NR's article than the cover, and the nature of the cover is replaceable (and has been replaced) by noting Gingrich was depicted as Marvin the Martian. I'd recommend removal of the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally good points, Joe, I've made some edits accordingly. I have to object to the suggestion that NR's view is overweighted. The view of National Review's editors as a collective represents a consensus view that carries more weight than the view of an individual pundit, whose views may be idiosyncratic. The NR editorial has also made a splash... it, or follow-up/related pieces, attracted an unusual amount of comments (many critical of NR) and there was considerable secondary coverage. Although I trimmed this material a bit, I suggest a more promising route would be to find a mainstream media source noting a "backlash" to the editorial, and suggest incorporating that to balance off, if that's what's required. The copyright status of the cover is a standalone matter and not related to notability. If it can be used as "fair use", we can use it accordingly (this generally means on en.wikipedia only).--Brian Dell (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting a new section

To whom it may concern: I'm Joe DeSantis, the communications director for Newt's campaign. I have noticed this article does not currently have a section about the caucus and primary results, although similar articles for the Romney, Santorum and Paul campaigns do. I've put together a paragraph that I think would work here:

Caucus and primary results

On January 4, 2012, Gingrich won 13 percent of the vote in the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses, finishing 4th behind Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Prior to the caucus, Gingrich stated that a large amount of negative ads taken out against him had impacted his support in the state. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a PAC supporting Romney launched "more than $1.2 million of negative ads in Iowa, mostly aimed at Gingrich", the content of which included "at least one false statement and several misleading ones".

Here is the markup code:

==Caucus and primary results==

On January 4, 2012, Gingrich won 13 percent of the vote in the [[Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012| 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses]], finishing 4th behind Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-caucus-results-mitt-romney-defeats-rick-santorum-8-votes/story?id=15283406#.TwcOOSNkvcY Iowa Caucus Results: Romney Edges Santorum by 8 Votes] Huma Khan, ABC News, January 4, 2012.</ref> Prior to the caucus, Gingrich stated that a large amount of negative ads taken out against him had impacted his support in the state.<ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/03/news/la-pn-iowa-caucuses-setback-perry-bachmann-20120103 Iowa caucus results a setback for one-time favorites Perry, Gingrich] Paul West, L.A. Times, January 3, 2012.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/29/gingrich-plays-down-slide-in-iowa-polls-says-race-up-in-air/ Gingrich Plays Down Slide in Iowa Polls, Says Race 'Up in the Air'] Fox News, December 29, 2011.</ref> According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a PAC supporting Romney launched "more than $1.2 million of negative ads in Iowa, mostly aimed at Gingrich", the content of which included "at least one false statement and several misleading ones".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/05/bloomberg_articlesLXCDEE07SXKX.DTL Romney Backers Stretch Truth in Gingrich Attack Advertising] Kristin Jensen, San Francisco Chronicle, January 6, 2012.</ref>

To summarize, the first sentence is a straight summary of the results, the second addresses Gingrich's performance, from his perspective. The third addresses Gingrich's performance, as summarized by the mainstream media. Maybe you will think it's slightly favorable in this writing, but the San Francisco Chronicle article is pretty representative of the post-caucus coverage. Similar stories were filed by NPR, New York Times and Politico. I wish to avoid adding this section myself, and would like another editor to consider its inclusion, but I may if another editor expresses agreement here. Thanks. Joedesantis (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

that's fair. It's up now.--Screwball23 talk 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy action and response. Joedesantis (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The avalanche of attack ads, many of them unfair, is well enough established we can just state this without stating that the Gingrich campaign claimed that this occurred. Gingrich's claim that the negative ads are the primary cause of his polling decline is disputed as a point of fact, however. After noting the claim I've added the analysis of a Vanderbilt poli sci prof who says it was the media scrutiny in general that's been bringing him down over the last month.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the added bit about increased media scrutiny is accurate, however, I think the "toxic waste dump" quote should be removed as it is a bit sensationalistic and sways discussion of the issue from a NPOV. If we were to include it, then we would need to include a similar inflammatory quote from one of many pundits discussing what they believe to be a hypocritical stance on negative campaigning (e.g. [3]). Location (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems fair enough, recognizing the mediocre finish while noting the negative ads that are widely known to have caused it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "toxic waste dump" quote as suggested... the problem in my view being not the idea that "Nasty Newt" should be the last one to complain of hardball tactics (we're not here to moralize about hypocrisy) but the factual accuracy of the idea that the ads were so influential and so substantively misleading that they are primarily to blame as opposed to Gingrich's actual history. The rest of the Geer quote about media scrutiny notes that "The resulting stories did not paint a favorable portrait. The bottom line is that Gingrich’s checkered record — not the attack ads — drove his decline in the polls." There are several sources concurring with this idea. In mid-November, The Economist's US political writer Lexington wrote "A whole regiment of skeletons has taken up residence in his closet. Once these rattle back into view, as they surely will, many of the Newtly enamoured Republican primary voters will surely drop their search for an alternative and reconcile themselves to the inevitable nomination of the less exciting but more electable Mr Romney."--Brian Dell (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion about Freddie Mac

I'd like to offer another suggestion for this entry, and it concerns the "Top tier candidate" section. I have noticed that it includes a lot of material on the Gingrich Group's work for Freddie Mac. I realize this was at issue in the debates in November, and I understand that it needs to be here. However, about half of the section focuses on this subject, while there is little to no mention of other topics from those debates. My opinion is that it probably includes too much about Freddie, and should be summarized. I'm interested to hear if other editors agree. If so, I could make some more specific suggestions.

A more clear-cut issue is the inclusion of Fannie Mae. The Gingrich Group was not a consultant to Fannie Mae. I think whoever added this may have been confused. For accuracy's sake, someone should review this and determine themselves if they think this belongs.

That's probably enough for now. I'd like to get feedback from others about this. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the Fannie Mae reference, which was a clear mistake. But as for the space devoted to various issues in debates, etc. that is properly determined by gauging the extent of coverage in independent secondary sources. For example, a candidate could talk for 30 minutes on the virtues of motherhood and apple pie, and then spend just 3 minutes on his proposal to extend voting rights to sheep. The coverage of such a speech is likely to ignore the 30 minutes of uninteresting material and focus exclusively on the 3 minutes in which something remarkable was said. The Wikipedia coverage would reflect the focus of those sources. See WP:WEIGHT for more information.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed back the amount of Freddie Mac material on grounds of WP:UNDUE weight, in particular a paragraph about a 1996 event in which Gingrich indicated his support for expanding home ownership. While there's an argument for keeping that in (namely, to indicate that Gingrich was not averse to a government role on this point) a single stop so long ago is not directly relevant to a Wikipedia article about the contemporary campaign.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a lot better. One more question, if I may. As Newt states in the cited CBS News article, it was Gingrich Group, not Newt himself that received the $1.6 million compensation. Could the sentence be corrected so that rather than "Gingrich's total compensation", it states "Gingrich Group's total compensation"? Joedesantis (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it was the Group and not Gingrich personally that received the money, however, this should be backed-up by someone other than Gingrich or at least attributed to Gingrich. Do we have another source confirming that the money went to the Group and not Gingrich himself? Location (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I had considered specifying the company (again, as the $300K payment for 2006 was corrected as going to his company) but several reports in November didn't seem to be especially interested in making the distinction. Checking the current mainstream story, the narrative is that it is the Gingrich Group that was paid, not Gingrich. This may reflect recent work by the campaign with the media to get the story straight. So I've made the change, adding another source. I should note that Wikipedia could nonetheless be a little more skeptical about the no lobbying claims... from a AP wire dated November 17: "Before Gingrich was hired, Freddie Mac paid $2 million to a Republican consulting firm to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed both companies. The $2 million was money well spent. The legislation died without ever coming to a vote on the Senate floor. But the danger of regulation wasn't dead, so Freddie Mac hired more consultants, Gingrich among them."--Brian Dell (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

South Carolina

Today, it seems that there is a substantial backlash among many conservative pundits regarding Gingrich's criticism of Romney's involvement with Bain. I imagine this could wait a day or two to see if it is still an issue later in the week. Location (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Add Sheldon Adelson?

Add Sheldon Adelson connection regarding Political action committee#Super PACs? 99.181.131.215 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Add what? Why? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already given an explanation below. According to CBS News, his $5 million contribution in support of Gingrich's campaign represents the "largest single donation that could directly aid a candidate in American history". If the article can mention something as trivial as the Sigma Six blurb, it really should include this, too. Location (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's currently a mention of both donations to Gingrich's SuperPAC. This may be undue.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncomfortable with potential unintended bias

I don't want to start hitting a hornets nest but I am quite uncomfortable. It seems that the communicatios director of the Ginrich campaign is directing and shaping the communication into this Wikipedia article about his boss. I appreciate his candor and honesty for being forthright in identifying himself. But there is no way that I can see that he can be the impartial editor required to present ALL sides of the candidate, warts and all. He is duty bound to apply make-up to the warts and turn the facts so the camera (article) captures Newt's best side. That's his job!!!! Going forward this article will become a puff piece and be relatively useless as a source of information for our readers but extremelly useful as a political sales pitch for Mr. Gingrich's campaign. Wikipedia MUST stay impartial...above the fray!!! This is not about politics. Its about building an encyclopedia that ALL the public can trust...Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To his credit, Joe made his COI known from the beginning and has only attempted to directly edit the article once. The rest of his involvement with this article is to bring-up items for discussion on the talk page for other editors to evaluate for inclusion. I believe that is what he supposed to do. There are a few minor things I would like added to or removed from the article, but I don't have a problem with Joe's involvement here. Location (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Has Joe agreed to abstain from any and all article edits? Can anyone guarantee that his input into discussions here at the talk page is not flavored with financial benefit to get his boss elected (or even just to stay in the hunt)? His COI is a major drawback and can only adversely effect the outcome. I think an administrator or two or three needs to provide some insight and direction on how to proceed. Any suggestions as to what the appropriate admin site would be? Maybe the Help desk can help. ..Buster Seven Talk 16:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Added comment: So this article will have the Communications Manager for the Gingrich Campaign managing communications to the unaware general public and you two don't see a problem with that?...Buster Seven Talk 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Buster, Location is correct. I am not here to edit articles directly. I try to offer information and help by pointing out issues on discussion pages, which I understand to be best practices in line with WP:COI guidelines. Joedesantis (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear: De Santis has made numerous direct edits e.g. to Newt G, Callista G, Political Positions of Newt G, and Rediscovering God in America* (a Gingrich production), but not to the presidential campaign article. He also openly invites others to make specific edits on his behalf. All of which is kosher because he states his connection to Gingrich. COI/N is a waste of time for this, I'm afraid. *Oh so that's where He ended up.

Professional bamboozlers, presidential campaign managers and indeed any paid corporate/political information managers can - and do - play around with their paymasters' WP articles so long as they openly declare their vested interest and affect to be here just to ensure the relevant articles' er, um, accuracy. For additional hilarity see [here, here and here. Writegeist (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments. Joe made a significant change in his editing in early June 2011, going from editing the relevant articles to editing their talk pages. There are no mainspace edits by him after June 2. I think he has done a very good job of following the WP:COI guidelines. There are only two small improvements that I can suggest. First, that he state on his userpage that he will not directly edit the articles in question and second, that he *might* consider adding (Gingrich Communication Director) to his sig. In fact his edits over the last 6 months might be used as an example of how *to* correctly deal with COI. (Note, I'm politically opposed to Newt Gingrich)Naraht (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Writegeist (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you for the clarification. The addition of Gingrich Communication Director to his signature will make me a happy voter...Buster Seven Talk 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr De Santis need not promise to never edit directly, for reasons explained here. According to Wikipedia policy on biographies

Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.

This article should be neither a puff piece nor a hit piece. Mr De Santis has been helpful with respect to avoiding the latter outcome, pointing attention to what he considers to be inaccuracies. These requests have been dealt with critically. Journalists will tell you that they welcome reviews by the subjects of their articles as a double-check. Having a subject comment does not turn something into a puff piece! In fact, I object to anonymous editors complaining about editors who have disclosed their affiliations. If all editors were fully transparent, editors would know that they are more accountable and irresponsible editing would be less likely. Those who move in the direction of disclosure are the last ones who should be challenged.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this discussion even taking place here, and why has nobody hatted it by now? The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss article content, not article editors. User Joedesantis has been extremely straightforward in making his position within the Gingrich organization known. If there is an objection to article content changes made by him or at his suggestion, discuss those changes specifically. If you believe he has violated Wikipedia rules, which state "editors who have a connection to the subject fully comply with the conflicts of interest guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines", then WP:COI/N is that-a-way .
Fat&Happy (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion here and support for my goal to provide new information and helpful suggestions on keeping this page neutral. I will update my user page to make more clear that my goal is to focus on requests and comments. I'm not so familiar with signatures, but I'll look into it. Joedesantis (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

He served as Speaker until exiting the House in 1999

Does that sentence really capture the dynamics of his exit? Its reminiscent of the elope/married controversy from Gov. Palins early entry onto the national scene. He didn't exit...he was escorted to the door by the Sergeant-at-Aarms. Kind of like being thrown out of the local moviehouse...theres leaving when the show is over and then theres leaving for throwing popcorn boxes at the screen. He left under duress with a bill for $300K. Not exactly peanuts to the average farmer. I have replaced it with... He stepped down as Speaker and resigned from the House in 1999

• http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/politics/politics_truth-squad-ex-speaker_1_speaker-charges-of-ethics-violations-vote?_s=PM:POLITICS
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/newt-gingrich/gIQAnmSt9O_topic.html Buster Seven Talk 06:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

See Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives. 99.19.46.200 (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change to "resigned", however, "like being thrown out of the local moviehouse" is not an accurate simile. Location (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"like being thrown out......" never made it to the article. True-it is an inaccurate simile. Thrown out of a moviehouse is a minor trangression. Mr. Gingrichs' was a bit more serious. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich was not expelled from Congress. Location (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Relax. I didn't say he was.```Buster Seven Talk 05:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you think I'm not relaxed or not assuming good faith. Just correcting the implication that he was thrown out of Congress under escort by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Location (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And I am correcting the implication that it was a minor misunderstanding. [4] But, you are correct. The Sergeant-at-Arms was not involved. I should have said the House Ethics Committee (see List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded) escorted him. I took poetic license with the facts and lessened the outcome. My bad! ```Buster Seven Talk 12:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought poetic license was something we were attempting to avoid here since it can further a non-neutral POV. Gingrich was reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee in January 1997; not expelled. Location (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your right again. Its only the Democrats that play loose with the facts. But, consider this. Any article about a political candidate that has prioritized editing by the Communication Director of his campiagn is non-neutral POV. So a little tongue-in-cheek shouldn't get yer knickers all a'dither. Gingrich stepped in a cow pie, the Ethics Committee smelled it, he had to pay a $300K fine or fee or charge (or whatever he wants to call it) to get rid of the stink and it was suggested that he not continue as Speaker. Your probably thinking, "Again with the enhancement" but I'm a poet in RL. I can't help it. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears as though your concerns regarding the neutrality and accuracy of the wording pertaining to Gingrich's resignation has been addressed. The nice thing is that two people who are not Gingrich supporters were able to get this done. I look forward to working with you on hammering out specific issues with the article. Location (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

When your grandchildren and mine read this article in 2020 they should find an unbiased evenly balanced history of the campaign. Not one sided or both sided but no sided. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Like Buster, I'd like to see users who edit Gingrich articles on his campaign manager's behalf voluntarily disclose it in their edit summaries. Writegeist (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe's contributions to Wikipedia have been discussed here. I certainly agree with Buster that this article, like all others, should present a neutral, unbiased view of the subject. Location (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe's contributions have been discussed. But not the communications and the resulting contributions from editors he has canvassed to act as his agent. ```Buster Seven Talk

I would encourage you to open another COI discussion if you have new information to present. Location (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I"m aware of that discussion. I'm just saying that when a user is incited - by the campaign manager of a person campaigning to be POTUS - to make edits on the campaign manager's behalf to articles concerning that person, I think it would be good to see voluntary disclosure of that fact by the user concerned. It seems to be more transparent than not disclosing that the edit was incited by someone whose job is to help engineer the subject's advancement to the most powerful office in the most powerful nation on earth. That's all. Writegeist (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird - Buster7 stated that the person violated nothing. No "incitement" was made, no improper posts made, and to claim that "incitement" was made without evidence thereof is grossly irresponsible here. See also the WP:COI/N discussion on this. editor is following the guidelines, all is well. Rklawton (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC) is pretty clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have stated my position. It's perfectly clear. Collect, I have no interest in any further discussion here with you personally. That is all. Writegeist (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk page potential abuse

The purpose of this talk page is to improve the article.

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.

Asides about other editors, accusations about editors, personal attacks on other editors, removing of posts from other editors, are all abusive of talk page guidelines. IMO. Collect (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think we are? Encyclopedia salesmen?

Complete from the Guideline...The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. All my Questions and comments involve changes that are, have been and will be made to this and other articles. I'm not going to the Home Office to discuss this. The editors that are editing this article are here. If some other editor wants to take the issue elsewhere, be my guest. My only Platform is the on-going maturization of the Encyclopeia and continued collaboration with almost every single editor I have ever met.```Buster Seven Talk 19:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see in what you've recently posted here any suggested "changes to [the] associated article." Your complaint seems to revolve entirely around who the editor was or why he apparently edited as opposed to the substance of any edit. You want the editing community to ignore Joe Desantis and to block him from editing. That's a problem you have with an editor and not this article. May I remind you that the starting point when it comes to editors is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." I might add that there's a logical fallacy at the root of your thinking here called Poisoning the well. Finally, Mr Desantis' communication with other editors that you seem to find especially objectionable is what is generally called for at this link and you didn't provide any objections to the arguments brought up there last time I offered that link.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree and would cite Defensive walls as a more relevant interpretation of my concern (some would say platform). And the fact that Jimbo is not inclined to see the connectedness of Editor Joedesantis to the subject of the article is glaring. But then I'm not sure he is aware of this particular situation. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Resubmitted by ```Buster Seven Talk 22:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

review/analysis of ads/calls

Although I am reluctant to remove material contributed by other editors I removed the addition of a robocall about kosher food made in late January. Firstly, Gingrich communications man DeSantis won't stand behind it, saying it was "unfortunate" it went out. While this does not settle the issue of notability, this article aims to give readers info about the campaign and its strategy and DeSantis says it's not part of the strategy. If this incident says something about the campaign's quality control or lack thereof, that would be different but it would be more convincing that there is a story there if this sort of thing were to to happen more than once. Secondly, many many ads have been run by both the Romney and Gingrich campaigns, many of them dubious in terms of their facts and their harshness. What is especially notable about this one? The ads that have been discussed in the article to date are generally ones that address themes that have come up before and/or can be expected to come up again in the general election. Romney's record with Bain Capital, including Damon Corp specifically, came up in Romney's Mass. campaigns and may well be issues again in the fall. Calling attention to them gives readers more info about Romney's candidacy. Advising readers as to what Romney really decided regarding kosher food also would provide info on that count but the info here is trivial and unlikely to come up again, not least because DeSantis said it won't be raised again by the Gingrich campaign. If a retrospective by other media sources on the Florida campaign were to identify this robocall as notable (e.g. llke the debates, the tenor and size of the ad war in general, etc) I would stand corrected.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the candidacies of Gingrich and Romney either overlap or are intertwined. The war of words by the candidates in speeches, interviews, and through their ads is definitely notable and, IMO, could actually use a separate subsection focusing on it. The substance of this as an issue is lost as the various mentions are diluted throughout the article in various places. As it applies to this article, Gingrich has been on the receiving end of many "attacks" as well as on the giving end of many others. I do not think we should disregard all of them under the guise that there are too many of them, but rather we should focus on those which have been most widely reported and discussed. I think it is somewhat arbitrary to pick a number of "gives" and "takes" to get this done, but I am OK with it if that is what it takes. (In this sense, I am OK with mentioning the kosher food robocall, but with the caveat that it should be removed if it is dwarfed by more substantial discussion of negative ads.) Mention of the various "attacks" in debates is certainly one standard for inclusion, but it should not be the only one as 1) the debate season is coming to a close and 2) what receives a certain amount of attention in debates does not always receive the same amount of attention outside of the debates. Location (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless we change the title of this article, the strategy behind it is secondary and to be included in the body of the article.. The article is about the campaign, not the campaign and strategy. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Florida robocall...

...was a notable event in Florida campaign, with significant coverage in multiple RSs. Inclusion of this topic in the Florida section of the article complied with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc. BDell reverted and I have restored it. Dell's rv ed sum said: "article will be massive if every ad or call discussed. Is there a theme here or is it trivial? Gingrich Comms Dir says this robocall won't run again" WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is a deficient argument. And the straw man argument re. a "massive" article if "every ad or call discussed" also fails to impress - nobody has suggested discussing every ad or call - and anyway, WP:SPINOFF can be implemented if/when needed as usual. To offer DeSantis's promise that the call won't happen again as a reason to exclude it from the article is patently absurd. Sorry but I can't even begin to take seriously an argument that this event in the Florida campaign, which received significant coverage in multiple RSs, should be excluded from the article on the grounds that Gingrich's campaign manager says "it won't happen again" ROFLMAO! We build the article according to what RS sources say, not what Gingrich's campaign manager says. Or do we? Writegeist (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you starting a new thread on this when there is already one above discussing it? Please join in. Location (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should include Mr Desantis' assurance that it won't run again as a footnote or something. As his edits (and his agents edits) now have the complete backing of Jimbo, WP has an inside track into newsworthy and 'first with the story' type information. Rather than hide his assurance here at talk (where most visitors never tread) it should be included in the Florida section. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent suggestion. I have inserted reference to DeSantis's statement that calls on the topic won't run again in Nevada.

Further to my previous post, and touching on points raised by Location: Strong support for Israel - a hot-button issue - is a central foreign policy plank of Gingrich's campaign platform (see also his Jan 31 Florida speech). Republican Jewish Floridians are "pretty much committed to Romney". What was the Florida robocall if not a move to undermine Romney's pro-Jewish credentials in order to diminish his Floridian Jewish support and redirect it to Gingrich? Please.This Gingrich campaign call is clearly significant, it is WP:V, it is widely reported in RS secondary sources, and its inclusion is not in breach of WP policies.

Of course I agree that this particular campaign event could be revisited if/when a section is developed on campaign advertiing/promotion/propaganda - where, as an egregious example, it would clearly merit inclusion (note: not, as Location bewilderingly and illogically proposes, removal). Meanwhile it obviously merits inclusion as is. If [m]ention of the 'various "attacks" in debates is to be a standard for inclusion then the rest of the article's content must be tested against the same standard - an insupportable position, I think. If Gingrich is on the receiving end of equally significant, similarly widely RS-reported, inflammatory attacks during the presidential campaigns, then they, too, merit inclusion in the Gingrich presidential campaign article subject to WP:V and WP:RS etc. There is nothing to stop us finding, sourcing and including them; indeed due editorial diligence would seem to require it. Writegeist (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, WG, re "nobody had suggested discussing every ad or call", if you decline to offer a limit to the implications of what you are calling for when asked to identify a limit then you are arguing for unlimited implications as a matter of logic: it's not a "straw man" for me to object to B if you are arguing for A and it's also true that if A then B. Explain how B does not follow if you want to refute the objection. Secondly, we already know from the South Carolina section that a major ad put out by a Gingrich SuperPAC got a "4 Pinocchios" rating. To go over something where the number of "Pinocchios" may turn on whether "kosher food" or "kosher kitchens" was mentioned is getting towards WP:UNDUE weight and/or repetitiveness, especially given that neither campaign in Florida had a monopoly on inaccurate attacks or for apparent pandering to the Israel lobby. This incident immediately follows Wikipedia calling readers' attention to Gingrich failing to phone Romney and congratulate him. Is there really a possibility this ad could ever be spun out like the 1964 Daisy (advertisement)? Thirdly, is there not a difference between an action authorized by the campaign and an unauthorized one? I submit that authorized actions are more notable because unauthorized actions say less about those at the top of the campaign and more about whoever it was lower down that went off message. In my view, this incident is semi-authorized and accordingly is at best semi-notable. Would you not agree that the notability of Damon Corp's fraud in the context of Romney's candidacy is dependent not just on whether Romney was a director of the firm but whether Damon's behaviour was typical of Romney's directorship career versus an exception that evaded the strategies and policies he wanted pursued? Fourthly, the edit itself could be far shorter even if it stands. We're told the Romney campaign is unhappy with the robocall. Even if Romney communications are germane to the Gingrich campaign, wouldn't that be obvious? This is included but not a substantive objection to your contention that this incident is remarkably "egregious" and "inflammatory" like this one? We also don't need the "WSJ reported" part when it concerns a claim of fact that a reasonable person would not dispute. Fifthly, with the Florida campaign over I stand by my contention above that we should be taking a retrospective view and I have not seen any retrospectives identifying this incident as notable. Sixthly, the debates have been identified by many sources as critical; the specific attention the article directs to Gingrich wheeling on Wolf Blitzer may be distinguished because attacking the media has been a recurrent Gingrich theme, not a one-off. Finally, there seems to be enough media coverage about this today that I'm not inclined to attempt to remove this again absent a clear consensus. I'm rather taking issue with an editing style being brought to this article henceforth that could be longer on due diligence. Your response to a concern of mine was to declare it laughable and not worthy of "serious" consideration. It appears that you reverted me without consulting the Talk page first to see if I had expanded further on my edit summary. While this sort of check is not required as a matter of policy, it is analogous to interrupting someone to act before hearing out what the interrupted party has to say. I might add that Wikipedia policies are specific and accordingly it is useful to actually quote from them. If you believe WP:IDONTLIKEIT is relevant here you could note one of the several examples given in that policy and then point specifically to what I said to which that policy applies. Looking at WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in fact, it says "Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)". Pegging someone as verbose on Wikipedia as myself as prone to "one-liners" is about as inaccurate a prejudice about myself as I can imagine.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, BD, I just can't deal with the wall of text. For me it's tl;dr. Writegeist (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you "don't like it." All it would take for you to avoid arguments from editors that you "can't deal with" is declining to revert those editors. In any case the material you added from the Guardian helped considerably.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I think I may have miscommunicated. If so, I'd like to clear it up. It's not that I can't deal with you personally - I don't even know you. It's that I can't deal with walls of text. I'm not much good at reading an writing, so I need simplicity and clarity. And are you saying that you reserve the right to revert me (as you did) but that for some reason I should not allow myself any reverts? I'm glad inserting The Guardian pleased you. I think it's an improvement. Writegeist (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguing from editors? I thought the talk pages were for collaborating. Why even mention arguing. This article is of a political nature. Is it any surprise that editors will have differences of opinion as to the edits into it. But no one comes to argue. Discuss...collaborate...negotiate...but not argue. If you want to argue Ill send you my first wifes phone #. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

:)) I read it that way too, but then I thought he might have meant arguments in the sense of discourse from premise to conclusion? I could be mistaken, cuz I didn't read that long bit wot he rote. Writegeist (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling Romney. Not.

So Gingrich didn't call Romney after Florida.[5] Is that really sufficiently significant and notable for inclusion? Somebody not calling somebody seems deeply non-eventful to me. I mean, if he'd called him and sworn at him or something, OK. But not calling him? Is that something we want to bother with? Who knows why he didn't call? He might have been a long time in the john, or dealing with some other kind of personal emergency, or just drowning his sorrows... Maybe he lost Romney's number. Maybe Romney blocked Gingrich's number. Who knows. Writegeist (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a crucially important point, but it complies with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc. and serves to support the notion that the campaign has turned nasty and "bad blood" has developed between the two candidates. I alluded to this issue above - one that I think needed expounding upon - in my support of your robocall addition. Location (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. Might be useful if we can find reference to the antipathy between them, (e.g. [6], [7]?) and include as context to frame the material about NG not calling MR ? Writegeist (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps material from this article: "Florida fight rattles GOP leaders" could be used.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally. That's an excellent source. Location, what do you think? Writegeist (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think all of the above could be used. I'm not sure what others think of a separate section discussing this. Location (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul supporter story

I'm concerned about this allegation as presented here. I reverted the anon IP's first iteration of the story, on the grounds of NPOV and RS (could have tossed in OR, SYNTH and BLP violation as well), and the IP reverted back with a fresh source (which, on the IP's talk page, I had suggested they look for to replace Ron Paul Forum or some such notice board and Yahoo News) but unrevised text, which bore very little relation to what was inthe source. Now this, which is equally a mess.

I don't want to revert the IP again, but I'm far from convinced that the incident merits inclusion yet, even if reduced to a couple of lines. Anyone else interested in knocking it into shape or removing it? Writegeist (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I found the original Yahoo story HERE. I did see this on Yahoo yesterday and happened to catch it on Cavuto, too, but I'm not convinced that enough sources have reported on it to warrant inclusion here. Location (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands at present, should it be removed altogether pending wider reporting? Writegeist (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Addendum: The IP posted as 155.188.183.16‎ (not xxx.17 as per their most recent edit) and that's where I've left messges on their talk. Writegeist (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The above was removed pending further discussion. This was on par with the earlier glitterbomb entry. Location (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As the anonymous IP user... I disagree. This story was captured on a number of newspapers in Florida in addition to Yahoo news, Ron Paul's site, etc. It is a reflection of the actions of Gingrich staffers which if left unresolved is a reflection of Gingrich and his campaign. I'd gladly add Gingrich's actions to resolve/rectify if there were any or if there are any at a later time. Furthermore, it is a relevant snapshot of the type of campaign run overall (not just by Gingrich) where tensions have risen to this level. I question removing significant events in the Florida specific area for the Primary just because they may paint a negative picture of the candidate. It is what it is and the candidate is certainly capable of resolving positively the important piece of this specific primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.17 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded the section to remove any potential bias against Gingrich and present the story as alleged claims. If you want to add additional references I'm sure you can find them as well as me and add as many references as you want and by all means if Gingrich takes action it would be completely appropriate to also add that. It is a significant piece of news regarding the Florida campaign and therefore should be in this section. I've left the one papers reference... there are other papers and sites which have also reported this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.18 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI...this has now been picked up by the Huffington Post also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/eddie-dillard-ron-paul-supporter-stomped-gingrich_n_1245650.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.18 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And on CNN http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-740059 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.18 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I have raised the issue of Yahoo News, a news aggregator, as a reliable source (IP, your Tampa source cites Yahoo News as its source) at RSN. IP, please take the trouble to indent your posts here and sign them. Writegeist (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Adding: Huffpo also cites Yahoo. Writegeist (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if the source stands up to scrutiny, much of the material you have added is not in the cite. I suggest you remove it so that at least the content accurately represents the source. Writegeist (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I would add that the CNN report is an iReport which states explicitly "not vetted by CNN". The Huffington Post report, as well as the few other reports I have seen, refer back to the original Yahoo News report. Part of the trouble here is that we have a new editor who is well-meaning, but not familiar with WP:UNDUE. This is particularly troubling in that the foundation for the story lies with one reporter. With all those cameras and journalists around, you would think someone else would have posted something if this were a significant part of documenting this campaign from a historical/encyclopedic perspective. Location (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what the problem with yahoo news is, doesn't matter to me. When multiple reputable sources such as Huffinton, CNN, other Florida papers reference it and when Ron Paul posts it on his page and asks for an apology and there are pictures of the incident on various news sites which show different angles from the one by yahoo news plus a picture of the injured foot. The event happened. It's there. It is an important part of the Florida primary. It is important to have in the record and about the only reason I can see to keep having issue with it is if there is some pressure or desire to keep everything positive. On the otherhand, I could have added that Newt is being sued for using Eye of the Tiger or a number of other issues but they did not seem to be significant to any part of the entry including the Florida Primary.155.188.183.18 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The best way to deal with this is leave the text as is and go back in to cite all the news sources which support the story. Yahoo News isn't an invalid source. I can certainly make reference to the pictures posted of the guys foot if that make everyone happy but otherwise that is the story, I've tried to make it as politically correct but the story is what it is. It is and will continue to be reported and is a significant part of the Florida Primary for many reasons. If you want to HELP by looking up all the sources and working your magic on the wording I'm open to that but removing it doesn't seem like the responsible thing to do given the importance of the event. IMHO 155.188.247.17 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF. We are trying to be neutral, NPOV, and respectful of policies and guidelines. And please indent your posts. Writegeist (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just read it. It appears I'm complying with WP:AGF. I was trying and upon further editing was in fact neutral, NPOV and respectful of policies and guidelines as presented...both in my edit to the page and my answers above. If you disagree, by all means, please let me know the error of my ways.155.188.247.17 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I was asking you to AGF in your posts here. I have removed your cites to the Ron Paul campaign website and Twitter. Neither are RS. Thanks for indenting! It makes threads easier to follow. Writegeist (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem on indenting...learning that and the references like I learned HTML back in the early 90's before java... by reviewing codes and copy and paste. :) 155.188.247.17 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I made changes before I realized there was this discussion. Reading Now!!! OK...changes stand as is. Buster Seven Talk 06:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)`

Does "Dillard" have a first name? Or is that his first name in which case my question is does he have a last name. Dillard makes him sound like the newest rap-star. Eddie Dillard. Maybe thats a good moniker for the anonomous user. Something to consider. A name always helps. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny but I'll stick with my IP for signature.  :) BTW Writegeist...I saw you deleted and why, I disagree. In fact reading through the entire Newt page there are many other items listed which are less worthy of being included and have less credible sources. I've added it back. Besides, I read your bio...you're a rule breaker. :) Again, it was picked up and spread quickly and widely, that would indicate importance beyond many other items in the content. I did review WP:RS and do not find that the source is not RS. Also reviewed WP:UNDUE and it also does not appear to apply in this case.155.188.183.23 (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The foot stomping story is on a par with reports that Newt doesn't picked up his dog droppings. No story here, citizens. Move on!`Buster Seven Talk 15:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) I stuck with the one RS from Tampa Bay paper - which is then given reasonable weight - not all that major a story in fact, and precisous little to do with any actual campaign story. Collect (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) I stuck with the one RS from Tampa Bay paper - which is then given reasonable weight - not all that major a story in fact, and precisous little to do with any actual campaign story. Collect (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok first, putting this story on par with not picking up dog droppings? Are you serious? People don't pick up dog droppings walking dogs by my house all the time. Upsetting sure but not newsworthy even though they are doctors, dentists, etc. doing it. However, if Bono was having a parade and someone unknowing he would be doing that was holding up a sign that said "Sting is the best" and one or a few of Bono's people stepped on his foot...it is newsworthy. Now Newt is no Bono but the point it still valid and the fact is happened at a primary voting location during the campaign in the state it is listed under and in an attempt to intimidate a person with opposing views does not make it legitimate to say it has little do to with any actual campaign story. By the way, as you changed the wording it is not inaccurate. He didn't try to place a sign behind Newt... HE WAS THERE FIRST! It is distressing to see how the lengths to keep this out of the record or edit it to something less than it was in the very source provided. WP:AGF155.188.247.23 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We are stuck with the disturbing policy about WP:BLP and WP:RS. In short - we dun gotta say what the source says,not waht you assert to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking no further part in this thread other than to say: I still have serious reservations about including this incident. It hasn't yet received wide enough coverage to make it sufficiently notable or significant; the pubs that did carry it picked it up from Yahoo Noos, and were at pains to disclaim any responsibility for accuracy by explicitly citing it to Yahoo (Tampax Bay Times, please note, twice adds the disclaimer "according to Yahoo News", mediaspeak for "we haven't fact-checked this story, we ain't gonna, we neither know nor care how much of it is or isn't factually accurate, the whole thing could be a crock for all we know, we really don't give a rat's ass"); and at Yahoo Noos it ran under the byline of Chris Moody, Gingrich campaign blogger for the news aggregator site, who ain't saying where he picked it up although it's clear he didn't witness the incident (cuz he'd have crowed about it if he had). Prolly got it from the photographer who shot it.

If we cited Yahoo Noos instead of TB Times, at least we'd have the byline for the blogger who was most likely the one that broke the story. I suggest this cite of Moody's second blog about it, which includes the additional claim that Dillard suffered a fracture. Writegeist (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We can argue about how important it is all day but if you haven't asked then how do you know? If it wasn't important it wouldn't be picked up on so many news organizations. They compare Obama and Romney's care of the family dog that has been dead for decades so clearly this is more relevant than that. Regardless, the prior edit was not NPOV. Putting a negative light on Dillard is not neutral nor is limiting the RS to one that does so. I've edited it to be more consistent with how other events were described "A campaign stop" versus "Tampa Bay Times reported" and added additional references as suggested above and from the all favorite POLITICO which clearly did talk to the blogger and do their own investigation into the event. That should suffice. The comment about Chris Moody being a Gingrich person seems odd given the article written by Chris wasn't favorable to Gingrich. To further insure NPOV, I have also added that Gingrich was not involved.155.188.183.18 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Due to User:Collects involvement in this thread I will no longer participate in its developement. However, I may start another that correlates to this thread. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I need to clear up the IP's misrepresentations of my posts, assuming the IP's refers to mine. I did not say Moody is a "Gingrich person". I said he is the "Gingrich campaign blogger for" Yahoo - much as one might identify a journalist as "Joe Johnsonrod, auto industry correspondent for Hooters News" without implying Joe is an "auto industry person". I did not put "a negative light on Dillard". I am not here to put any particular light on any particular person in the article but to build a balanced article from reliable sources.

On a separate point, it's increasingly worrisome that the IP persists in disregarding WP:WEIGHT in their coverage (and reverts) of the heel-on-foot incident which, being rather tangential to the Gingrich campaign, clearly deserves considerably less weight in the article than, say, the robocall duly noted, for which the Gingrich campaign admitted responsibility. Also cause for concern: the IP's chosen course of repeatedly forcing on the article an overly detailed coverage that gives greater weight to the heel-on-foot incident, which was not instigated by Gingrich or the Gingrich campaign, but by a bozo in a private-company security detail contracted to the campaign. This has the unfortunate appearance of "guilt by association" POV. And I do not take kindly to the IP's sly inferences here and elsewhere that my efforts to achieve NPOV, balance and due weight here come from an intention to make the article more favorable to Gingrich and his campaign than NPOV permits. Even the most cursory glance at my contributions here will show just how silly these smears are. I'd like them to stop. At present I'm giving the IP the benefit of the doubt, putting the behaviour down to the intemperance, perhaps, of extreme youth, and also to an obvious lack of experience in editing Wikipedia. Writegeist (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I corroborate the unlikelihood of you trying to whitewash the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we need to report a violation of the 3RR or get an admin lock on this? Location (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the IP's points valid and can see where Writegeist's apparent insistence of removing the heel-on-foot incident not NPOV but slanted in the candidates favor whether intended or not. The "bozo" referred to is an employee of Newt and just like the President is not directly responsible for one of his aides doing a bad deed the President still faces that blemish and it should be no different for a candidate for presidency. It isn't unreasonable to draw the conclusions the IP has about the omissions and with repeated changed appear Writegeist is editwarring. I question if references to the IP's extreme youth, which I see no reference to the IP's age anywhere nor an indication of age, does not further indicate a biased against the IP or the material he is sharing by Writegeist who should now recuse himself from any involvement.173.23.54.223 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) This article must conform to WP:BLP and WP:RS. Material which is not relevant does not belong in any article, and contentious claims must be sourced to more than a single source (that is, more than just the claim by the person that he was grievously injured). Thus the mention of the incident should not mention the "victim"'s name and should be conservatively worded according to what reliable sources state independently. And I assure you WG is not editwarring here - it is the one editor who is using multiple IP addresses who is so acting. Collect (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I know the IP and SHE is neither extremely young nor editwarring. She is also not using multiple IP addresses, but on a server that cycles a select set of IP addresses. I have been monitoring the changes after she (an attorney) told me the stuff going on with it and WG and I (an auditor) find WG not as innocent as portrayed and WG should be ashamed for his ignorance in trying to belittle her as someone of extreme youth.Goodbyz (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose either removing the foot incident or greatly reducing its weight (whose excess I have repeatedly drawn to the IP's attention, evidently to no avail) per either of these versions by Collect and myself.

I'll try once more to help the IP understand. Apologies to all for length.

All reports of this alleged incident are sourced from Yahoo!News. The blogger at Yahoo!News says he sourced the story from the alleged victim, who was opposed to Gingrich and said (1) his bare foot was deliberately trodden on, by a security guard employed by a private company under contract to the Gingrich campaign (presumably to protect Gingrich), which (2) caused a fracture. A photograph was taken of the man standing with a security guard who may or may not be the one he alleges injured him. And there is a photograph of a bruised foot, which may or may not be his. There are no corroborating sources for the alleged assault - i.e. nobody else has stated that they witnessed it. (I'm not saying it didn't happen. I only know the story. I'm just saying it was the alleged victim alone who reported it.)

Now imagine this totally hypothetical scenario. After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Barack Obama paid a visit to Baghdad, where he attended a heavily secured gathering to celebrate America's "liberation" of Iraq. In an uncorroborated report, an Iraqi individual opposed to the American presence said that at the gathering he was hurt by an employee of private security company Blackwater, which was contracted to protect the president. The report was accompanied by one photograph of the alleged victim standing by a Blackwater employee who may or may not have injured him, plus another photograph of an injury matching the victim's description of his own. Only diehard Obamaphobic POV warriors would argue, let alone edit-war, to include this story in Obama's Wikipedia article on the grounds that Blackwater was under contract to the government, Obama is the head of government, and therefore the incident merits inclusion as a "blemish" on Obama.

Also imagine that the Obama article already briefly covers a call to numberless voters from the Obama administration spreading a highly inflammatory and totally untrue slur on a political opponent, which the administration admits as an error. And imagine the Obamaphobic POV warriors not only trying to force the Baghdad incident into the Obama article, but stuffing it with fattening details to give it greater weight than the attack call.

Surely it's not hard now to appreciate the shortcomings in relation to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS - and WP:WEIGHT .

The Gingrich campaign article does not exist as an opportunity for us to "blemish" Gingrich, as the IP apparently thinks. It exists to cover the notabe, significant, verifiable, reliably sourced policies, issues, progress and events etc. of the Gingrich campaign, and to cover them with due regard to policies and guidelines.

"Attorney"? "Auditor"? Not impressed, sorry. It counts for nothing here whether an editor claims to be an attorney, an auditor, a rat catcher or the Queen of Sheba. ("On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog.") Ditto whether a he, she or it. (So why the pointy "SHE" in shouty caps?) I note Goodbyz also cries shame that I made allowances for the IP's disruptive edit-warring by taking into consideration that they might be young ("the intemperance, perhaps, of extreme youth") and inexperienced. I don't think of being indulgent as being shameful.

Now. The foot incident. Cut out or cut down? Writegeist (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the IP or anyone else, but I like Buster7's edits. Appears to meet WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHTGoodbyz (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

When both parties in a disagreement are slightly unhappy with the outcome, that is very likely an indication that a compromise has been reached.```Buster Seven Talk 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Eye of the Tiger

The anonymous editor makes mention of the suit regarding use of a copyrighted mentioned song. While the Ron Paul supporter incident may have no life, I believe some mention should be made of Mr. Sullivans lawsuit.[[8]]. While the foot grinding of Mr Dillard was a poor decision by remote field staff, the decision on what songs to use at events was more than likely a major consideration of key campaign personel. Verification of the suit should be no problem: many reliable news sources have reported it. What is the current guideline? Do we wait for Mr Desantis to decide whether mention of the lawsuit can be included or can we "be Bold" and edit the article?```Buster Seven Talk 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor item at best - this sort of suit happens all the time and is not generally considered to be of any appreciable weight - it definitely has nothing to do with any genuine issues, to be sure. A huge amount depends on whether only a few bars were used, or whether substantial infringement occurred. The article does not give us enough information for us to hazard any opinion thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to the envolvement of User:Collect I regretfully must abandon this thread. I reserve the right to re-present the issue at an other thread since facts are contrary to those stated in Collects reply. Other editors may want to investigate and uncover the myriad of articles, etc. about the suit. It is not normal during political campaigns to be sued for copyright infringement and appreciable weight will be determined by the setttlement or final adjudication. It could rival or exceed the $300K fine from the House Ethics Committee. I apoligize to fellow editors for this unusual but necessary variation in editorial behavior. It is predicated on being true to my word. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"It could" --- see WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not in the business of predictions - we can only use what reliable sources state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Alleged assault of a Ron Paul supporter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the story regarding alleged assault of a Ron Paul supporter by Newt Gingrich's security personnel be included in this article? Location (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Only to the extent that the story meets WP:RS and WP:BLP -- that is, unless the acts are directly related to Gingrich and his campaign, the weight of them are trivial. The complainant's name etc. are not of encyclopediac value at all, and it is possible that the entire incident is insufficiently connected to be proper here. Collect (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• No per RS and UNDUE and arguably also BLP. The story is tangential to the Gingrich campaign, and of no significance or notability here. The very limited coverage it received is sourced to one blogging journalist in one publication (Yahoo! News), where in turn it is sourced from the alleged victim alone. Also inclusion implies guilt (of Gingrich) by association - with an alleged action by an individual (the security person) not associated with Gingrich, and not working for him or the campaign directly, but only staffing a company under contract to the campaign. (The story might have a place in an article about the company.) Please refer to my post "I'll try once more" et seq. in the Ron Paul supporter story thread above. Writegeist (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, with due regard to WP:WEIGHT, now that the alleged victim has filed suit against Gingrich, the Gingrich campaign and the security firm. I have changed the content to reflect this change in circumstances. I hope it's acceptable with regard to policies and guidelines. I think this RfC is unnecessary now, but others may not agree? Writegeist (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Still only based on Dillard and his lawyers - no independent corroboration at all currently that he was deliberately assaulted by a "swarm" of guards who deliberately broke his foot. Best cite only says he "claims" this (WaPo cite). Collect (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that you think a single, uncorroborated source is insufficient for a contentious claim?   Will Beback  talk  05:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I say that WP:BLP deals with this sort of claim here. Collect (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• No this should not be included. So somebody has sued the campaign. Google gets sued every day and these lawsuits don't get covered in detail in the Google article. This article seems to be headed downhill as people come here to add what they perceive as the latest outrage committed by Gingrich or the campaign, regardless of how trivial.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• No per Bdell555 reasoning. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• No. We've had a few days to let this settle. A search indicates that a few additional sources pick-up on this each day with a few additional details, however, a Presidential campaign is going to generate tons of coverage about various things. Our task is to sift through all of it to determine which is most significant and appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I would be willing to reconsider if more details emerge and more extensive coverage occurs, but for now it appears to fails WP:WEIGHT. Location (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Not Yet. Partially under BDell's reasoning; I'm giving it a "not yet" because it could easily change from a "no" to a "yes" depending on how the case goes. There are two questions that we need to answer first: 1) Is it sourced? (That is, do we have secondary sources to corroborate the event?) 2) Is it relevant? (This issue may be suitable for inclusion in the Newt Gingrich article, but is this lawsuit - regardless of whether the suit is successful - likely to ultimately affect Gingrich's campaign in any noticeable way?) Until the answer to both of these questions is "yes" (which may very well be the case at some future time), then we can't really include it here. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• More Info? Does anyone have the sources that describe this event? I'd like to look at them before recommending a decision.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  You can find the paragraph, complete with sources, at the end of the "Florida: 2nd place, 32%" section at this link. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not yet. My reasoning is the same as Sleddog's. At the moment this is an isolated incident that doesn't seem to be directly related to the campaign. If these events gain more significance as a result of being brought to trial, or increased media coverage, then there would be a better case for inclusion. Also, looking at the responses above it seems clear that there is a consensus to remove the section, so I will go and do that now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE. This incident was a blip in the news cycle. Nothing else in three weeks to suggest that this was a significant part of the campaign to be reported on. I will ask for admin input to make a ruling. Location (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Um, you already !voted above - I'm guessing that you forgot about your earlier one when you made this post. Regardless of this, there still seems to be a very clear consensus to remove the section, so I don't think we need to go to the trouble of asking an admin to close this. In fact, I have just closed it myself. I think it's very unlikely that this RfC would end with anything other than a "no" result at this stage, but if anyone would like to discuss this more, please leave me a message on my talk page and I'll open it back up. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  I did forget. Thanks! Location (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia in the news

Heads-up for those regular to this article. I just saw on the CNN scrolling ticker: "Gingrich spokesman defends Wikipedia edits". On-line here. Location (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joedesantis&diff=474200049&oldid=473252019 – Jimbo complimented Joedesantis. The media simply want to sensationalize Joedesantis' involvement, just as the media sensationalizes everything. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but is there any dispute about the reported facts? This story seems to have gotten widespread attention, so we should probably find a way to mention it briefly. [9]   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

CNN quotes a comment by Cullen328. I find Cullen's message odd. It was sysop Jonathunder who removed the "third wife" from the article (later followed by this revision by Cullen328), yet Cullen328's warning ended up on Joedesantis's talk page instead of Jonathunder's talk page even though Joedesantis didn't actually remove anything. Most of the diff's CNN uses involve the neutralization of language or improvements to accuracy. Most of the diff's include edit summaries. I haven't finished reviewing everything yet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What strikes me about these off-Wiki beatdowns of Wikipedians who disclose their identities and the ever present potential for such off-Wiki stories is that it evidently isn't enough for many anonymous Wikipedians who also feel compelled to make these self-outers unwelcome on-Wiki. The mob, it seems, would rather be infiltrated anonymously than corrected transparently.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's stick to using this page to discuss improvements to the article. There are plenty of talk pages and noticeboards where other issues can be discussed.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

While Bill Keller is directly editing his own article and that of his father (from the anonymous IP 170.149.100.10, which is registered to the NY Times and was the only editor of both articles) Buster7 (here) and Tvoz (at the Talk page for Callista Gingrich) have been preoccupied with Joe DeSantis, going on at length to argue that Joe's input is unwanted or unwelcome or both. I can make no sense at all out of these priorities. If we can all agree that Joe has an unlimited right to participate on Talk pages (something Tvoz in particular is rejecting), then, yes, we can get back to discussing improvements to the article instead of who is doing the discussing.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to open this conversation up again, but I am just seeing this for the first time, and it is a misrepresentation of what I've said about Joe's participation. I think his input for correction of factual errors is valuable and welcome; his suggestions for what should or shouldn't be included, sometimes including mark-up for easy pasting-in, are what I am uncomfortable with. And particularly so when there is no discussion of his suggestions, just almost instantaneous implementation. We may as well let the campaign write the articles. I'm stating this here for the record, since someone else brought my name into it here, where I have not edited. Tvoz/talk 23:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not discussing whether Joedesantis should or shouldn't edit, or even the quality of his edits. This is simply a question of how to summarize the secondary sources which have discussed the issue.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly in an article about public perceptions of Wikipedia, but it is not directly related to WP:BLP governed article at hand. Collect (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources in question frame the issue as being related to his campaign.   Will Beback  talk  03:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I, like Editor Tvoz, also just noticed Buster7 (here) and Tvoz (at the Talk page for Callista Gingrich) have been preoccupied with Joe DeSantis, going on at length to argue that Joe's input is unwanted or unwelcome or both. That is an exaggeration and an attempt to demonize editors that have concerns. I have never argued that Joe's input is unwanted or unwelcome. His input requires special attention and a ((request tag)) but they are welcome as long as they are discussed before being implemented. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

(EC)If I may. Let me at least be clear to my fellow editors. I am mentioned in the article here. as commending User:Joe's straightforwardness. I even gave him a barnstar for it. In hindsight, I was more than a bit hasty in my praise. I was and still am very troubled by editing, either by a paid operative or a volunteer proxy of that operative, that is obviously swayed to favor Newt Gingrich or any subject polititian. I e-mailed Jimbo with my concerns and the result was Jimbo's seal of approval posted on Joe's page. Dissapointing!!! The whole thing stinks. The "third wife" edit is beyond me. And how any editor can not see the subversive quality of making that edit is also beyond me. What will happen in the general election? What kind of precautions are planned for operative manipulation of our product? Jimbo seems to think that we are watchdogs; on duty 24/7 to protect all the articles neutrality. I am uncomfortable with the whole mess. It does not bode well for Wikipedias reputation.```Buster Seven Talk 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@User:Bdell. I don't argue. I collaborate, I communicate, I disagree, I opine, Etc. Maybe thats your problem You think this is an argument. User:Tvoz and I and others, seperately I might add, are doing our best to protect Wikipedia. Who are your edits protecting?```Buster Seven Talk 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your accusations do not befit this article talk page in my opinion. Collect (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is of zero interest to me. Keep it to yourself! I have asked you repeatedly not to be the first to reply. Your comments historically lead every discussion you take part in ...astray. I once again will no longer participate in this thread due to Collects involvement. ```Buster Seven Talk

Buster7 is the sort of person who creates a "list of jerk editors". Buster7 has canvassed at least six editors: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I also dislike how Buster7 is repetitively claiming that he's "protecting" Wikipedia. He wants to rob someone of their freedom of speech for the sake of "protection". Do the ends justify the means? I'm sure that the Committee of Public Safety believe that it was "protecting" the Republic of France when it carried out the Reign of Terror. I feel that Buster7 is the one who's "astray". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I omitted the jerk editors list 2 days later and listed them under "Editors NOT on my Christmas Card list", on my User page. I canvassed for input to User talk:Jimbo Wales which Jimbo has approved. Jimbo likes editors to discuss. His comment:

"...almost every time WP:CANVASS is cited, the person citing it is in the wrong. [It is] used to shut down discussion. [It]'s used to suggest that you shouldn't talk to people who you agree with." - Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia. Claims that I am "astray" are a cunning attempt to disparage my efforts. Demonizing me won't work. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One more memory seeps into my mind, User:Fcreid, one of the editors I "canvassed" claims to be bi-partisan, he seems to be a staunch Republican, and I asked him to join the discussion because he is one of the fairest editors I have met in 4 years. Like most, I have met an abundantly higher # of fair editors than I have jerks. Like I said, 2 jerks in 4 years ain't bad. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of That

Can someone else with more experience chime in here? I do not doubt my OCD with regard to use of the word 'that' ever since my English prof beat it into me. Removing conversational/subordinate 'that' is a more professional presentation which seems appropriate for an encyclopedia. Does anyone have a strong feeling or hurt feelings if one were to remove extra unnecessary 'that's? I did that on a few topics today as I noticed them (nails on chalk board) and they were reversed by Reichsfurst. I am not falling on my sword over it but do not see harm in making the entries more professional like fixing spelling and punctuation changes.Justify265 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Try posting your questions about grammar at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language instead. The individuals there might be more capable of helping you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will do.Justify265 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also remove excess "that"s - some editors just like to reinsert them I think, but grammatically, the "that" is unneeded. (My mom taught Latin <g>) Collect (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful that your mother taught Latin, but perhaps more useful here if she had taught English usage <g>. There is no grammatical rule that that is "unneeded." Various factors bear on inclusion/omission. See here. Pax vobiscum. Writegeist (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Try some stylebooks for breakfast <g>. "That" is not required. It is, I understand, considered a "restrictive pronoun" and when properly used as such, is fine. Such is not the case at hand. 'That" appears 93 times in the body of the article. Try [16] Collect (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I snack on them between meals. Mine are stylishly up to date and more digestible than your stale C19th example! There may well be unnecessary thats in the article (I don't know, I can't be arsed to go that-hunting), but that doesn't mean all thats are unnecessary or even undesirable. Are you saying there's a rule about max/min that counts per, say, thousand words? Is that it? Writegeist (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Read my post: I did not say that all the that's were unnecessary. I do state that some of the that's that are there in that article that were removed meet that guideline that not all that's are needed. Is that clear? The editor who was reverted, in fact, removed "that"s that were properly removable without impairing that reading comprehension of that article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a supporter of excessive "thats", but I'm puzzled by your English prof's insistence on removing them at the risk of making a sentence unreadable, as was the case in this article. I suppose I would have understood, had I been familiar with the names, but please remember that Wikipedia articles are intended to be readable world-wide, so clarity is important, and the use of "that" to introduce a subordinate clause has always been standard in most versions of English. Dbfirs 08:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The examples reverted were not, IMO, made "unreadable." YMMV. Collect (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One particular sentence, where names were adjacent, I found unreadable, though, as I said, to those familiar with the names, it probably made sense. My policy is to retain "that"s where they improve readability. Dbfirs 12:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added just a few back of the ones you removed, just to improve readability. I agree (that) there were rather too many in the original article. Dbfirs 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I teach English. Believe it or not, it is actually more correct to use "that" in most cases. I'll admit that it's more of a stylistic thing than a mechanical thing, but omitting "that" as a relative pronoun from the beginning of a clause creates what is known as an "elliptical clause." I haven't looked at the changes that were made, but I'm just weighing in here and trying to be useful. Elliptical clauses aren't wrong, but they really aren't the best way to write something stylistically - rather like syntactic expletives (sentences starting with "there is", "it is", etc.); they're not wrong, but the sentence can usually be written in a stronger way. Simply put, removing "that" in too many cases is akin to removing "which" or "who". Sleddog116 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my faith in American grammar and style. Sometimes, I feel that I'm getting left behind by modern trends in language, and that British English, as it was taught fifty years ago, is becoming obsolete! Dbfirs 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Launch Dashboard

I just realized that the reference I used for my recent edit [[17]] may cause confusion. The info re:# of delegates is on the right side of the page with a box that says "Launch Dashboard". If there is a better source for the info, please make any change necessary.```Buster Seven Talk 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Editor Writegeist (TY)...```Buster Seven Talk 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disproportionate use of quoting?

Earlier today, someone added a summary of a recent National Review editorial critical of Newt Gingrich to the "February" section. I have no problem with the editorial being mentioned, but I do wonder if other editors would agree the lengthy blockquote isn't necessary, and gives disproportionate weight to the single source. I think that, if this only consisted of the description above and below the blockquote, or the description with a quoted phrase, readers would lose no important details. Just looking to start a discussion, since I hadn't seen any about it. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And a mere 8 minutes later, with no discussion, this campaign request was granted. Is this error correction or shaping of the direction and emphasis of the article? Tvoz/talk 23:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

When a politician's communications director comes up with ways to shape the direction and emphasis of articles featuring his paymaster it might be better if his proxies didn't jump to it with quite such alacrity. But fortunately WP:BRD isn't just the B part, and the remedy is in the hands of all conscientious editors. Writegeist (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing editors here of some sort of improper behaviour? If so, make the complaints at WQA and not on the article talk page where some might view it as a sort of attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My position re. your meretricious cavils remains unchanged. Writegeist (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Neat - you avoid responding to me by responding to me saying you will not respond to me after previously .... See "recursion" on Google. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a request that wouldn't have had to have been made if someone else had fixed the problem with "alacrity." If there wasn't a problem in someone's view that topic should be discussed not Joe DeSantis, as this Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Joe DeSantis' requests can be, are, and should be treated like the usual edit requests on protected articles.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

All editors. Please note. User:joedesantis is asking for a discussion (in the beginning of this thread). ```Buster Seven Talk 02:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

@ User Brian Dell....Joe DeSantis' requests can be, are, and should be treated like the usual edit requests on protected articles. WP:COI suggests that a ((request edit)) tag be used when making an editing suggestion. Even at this late date, it would continue to show good faith if User:Joe would begin to tag his discussion and edit requests. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary for me to say "All editors. Please note" the above comment is by (well, we don't know who, but someone who goes by the made up name of) Buster Seven? It may be in Joe's interest to use the template as it would allow "editors browsing Category:Requested edits [to] notice [the] request" and thereby be acted on more quickly but what the COI guideline (which is below the level of a policy, by the way) calls for is simply using the Talk page. It would also show good faith if you did not imply that what I said above was inconsistent with the guideline which says "Requested edits will be subject to the same editorial standard."--Brian Dell (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seemed like no one noticed that User:Joe had asked for a discussion. My point was that User:Joe can't be blamed for a vassals speedy response. Even when I take Joe's side, somebody "blows a gasket". ```Buster Seven Talk 01:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, I disagree with this. The "edit request" template is primarily for articles that are full-protected, and the purpose is for error correction or requests for non-controversial edits of protected pages while whatever is in dispute is hashed out. Editors would be discussing such requests on talk where needed, and then admins would post the edits, if those suggestions aren't about the very dispute the page was protected against. (And similarly for semi-protected pages vis-a-vis IPs and new editors.) In my opinion, it is not appropriate or desirable for the campaign's "suggestions" to be more quickly noticed and posted by an editor who comes across it on Cat: Requested edits - the whole point, I think, is that the campaign's suggestions should be given extra scrutiny, not super-speed implementation, so that it is clear that there is a consensus among the editors who are most familiar with the ins and and outs of the article and the subtleties and potential campaign slant of these suggestions.

I think Joe attempted here to ask for discussion, and I do not see where "alacrity" is at all desirable or necessary in this kind of edit which did not involve vandalism or blatant error, just a discomfort about "overquoting" negative material. That has been my point all along in this matter - the Gingrich campaign's identification of factual errors - something that of course is more obvious to them than anyone else - is helpful. The Gingrich campaign's preferences for how the candidate's wife is referred to, for example (see discussions on Talk: Callista Gingrich re "third wife"), or their unhappiness with an extended criticism of their candidate in a conservative magazine, I believe goes beyond their proper role, and the almost instant implementation of the suggestion which was accompanied by a request for discussion, brings home to me why the overall project would be better off without campaign operatives' input.

I recognize full well that Joe or anyone from this or any other campaign of any party on their guy's article could well be here under pseudonyms, and doing their slanting with impunity. But I believe the process works - there are enough editors on all sides of issues and on no side of issues, to keep these articles balanced, accurate, and shaped in the way they want, without any chilling effect or hesitance to shoot down the respectfully worded campaign requests. Joe is doing what we told him is ok to do - my quarrel is not with how he has proceeded after he stopped editing directly - my concern, as I have said, is that we have here an imbalance, where by definition he is going to be viewed as more of an "expert" on the subject than the rest of us, but his expertise is of course biased, and I think the organic development and editing of articles by people with opinions of course, but not paychecks fueling them, is what makes Wikipedia great. Tvoz/talk 22:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Focus on energy policy

Recent press has highlighted Newt's focus on energy policies as a key theme of the campaign at this point, however this is not currently mentioned in the article. Based on a number of reports, I have drafted a potential addition to the "February" section, which I'd like to ask other editors to consider for inclusion. The following is my proposed wording:

Beginning in February 2012, Gingrich began to emphasize his proposal for American energy independence as a major theme of his campaign, in response to the rising price of gasoline nationwide. In a video posted by the campaign on February 18, he pledged to reduce gas prices to between $2 and $2.50 a gallon if he is elected. On February 19, 2011, in an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Gingrich was critical of the Obama administration's energy policies and accused the president of being "anti—American-energy." Following a speech on energy policy by President Obama on February 23, 2012, Gingrich criticized the president's embrace of algae biofuel, and at California's Republican Convention he spoke at length on the topic of energy, rebutting the proposals put forward by Obama.

Here is the markup:

Beginning in February 2012, Gingrich began to emphasize his proposal for American energy independence as a major theme of his campaign, in response to the rising price of gasoline nationwide.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203358704577237814186374428.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Gingrich Focuses on Gas Prices] Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2012.</ref> In a video posted by the campaign on February 18, he pledged to reduce gas prices to between $2 and $2.50 a gallon if he is elected.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2012/02/26/147457323/energy-fuels-newt-gingrichs-comeback-plan Energy Fuels Newt Gingrich's Comeback Plan] NPR, February 26, 2012.</ref> On February 19, 2011, in an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Gingrich was critical of the Obama administration's energy policies and accused the president of being "anti—American-energy."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/02/19/newt-gingrich-resurrecting-his-presidential-campaign-eric-cantor-talks-payroll-tax-holida/print Newt Gingrich on resurrecting his presidential campaign; Eric Cantor talks payroll tax holiday] Fox News, February 19, 2012.</ref> Following a speech on energy policy by President Obama on February 23, 2012,<ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/20/10460629-white-house-on-defense-over-gas-prices White House on defense over gas prices] MSNBC, February 20, 2012.</ref><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399591n WH admits no quick fix to rising gas prices] CBS News, February 21, 2012.</ref><ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/21/obama-to-talk-about-gasoline-prices-on-thursday/ Obama to Talk About Gasoline Prices on Thursday] Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2012.</ref> Gingrich criticized the president's embrace of algae biofuel,<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/gingrich-says-obamas-algae-policy-is-weird-and-could-take-40-years/ Gingrich Calls Obama’s Embrace of Algae Energy ‘Weird’] ABC News, February 24, 2012.</ref> and at California's Republican Convention he spoke at length on the topic of energy, rebutting the proposals put forward by Obama.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57385372-503544/gingrich-stakes-campaign-on-energy-issue/ Gingrich stakes campaign on energy issue] CBS News, February 26, 2012.</ref>

At the least, I'd like to open up a discussion on whether this topic should be mentioned in the article, particularly as it has received much press coverage and is seen as a key issue in the campaign. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done A review of the article shows it does not discuss the candidate's views on the crucial issue of energy independence. I've added the text presented here by Joe DeSantis. The article tells us more about David Gregory, Tiffany's and disgruntled ex-staffers than it does about what the candidate is actually saying on the stump. Joe D's proposed addition here helps correct that imbalance, and, the article would benefit by adding more information about the issues (and trimming the trivia sections). There used to be something in political campaigns called a "stump speech". Where is the article's coverage of it? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kenatipo. At the same time I made this request I also made a similar one on "Political positions of Newt Gingrich" because the "Energy" section is outdated and is missing similar material. But I haven't received any response there yet. Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the discussion that should have taken place before JDS's request was implemented??? I see him asking for it but I don't see any other editor respond...other than his self-appointed chief assistant. No discussion should lead to no implementation. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Buster, if you have a problem with the material added, then revert it and put a valid reason in your edit summary. If not, please take your obsessive behavior somewhere else. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have no problem with the edit as a statement of fact. What I point out is that while JDS asks for a discussion, a discussion does not take place prior to placing it in the article. JDS is being presented as a model of paid editor behavior and is doing his darndest to raise the standard. But his vassals need to also raise their standards. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A reminder:not required but strongly encouraged

Action
Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment.

```Buster Seven Talk 04:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

J. F. C. WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why we (WP:COI) recommend this: "Compliance with the content policies is mandatory for everyone, not just users with a connection to the subject. However, people who are close to a subject are more likely to accidentally breach these policies. Therefore, the community encourages them to be particularly careful".```Buster Seven Talk 05:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Fat&Happy (please excuse his expression, Lord. ). BusterSeven, please go find a screwdriver and tighten up your loose screw. --Kenatipo <sup>speak!</sup> 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC) (aka JoeD's Hostile Flunky #1)

Amazingly enough, the new "rule" and the person creating this new "rule", and the person presenting it here, seem a tad related. The "rule", in short, does not exist in any Wikipedia policy at all. And everyone should be "careful" on every article. See WP:PIECE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that a response to the OP? Writegeist (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a response to the topic of this section, as titled. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK so you say it's a response to the topic as titled. I don't understand it as a response to a guideline (the topic) which is clearly described, as titled, as "not required but strongly encouraged". You go on about a "rule" (your quotes). Did you use the word in this way to imply B7 was trying to pass off a reminder about the guideline as a rule in policy? Or did you do it for some other reason? If so, what? What's its relevance here? The section title clearly states that the guideline shown in the post is "not required but strongly encouraged" - nothing about rules there AFAICT. What follows is merely the guideline exactly as it appears at WP:COI.. Where did your "rule" come from? The guideline has been in WP:COI for years. Why do you refer to it as a "new 'rule'", and refer to B7 as "the person creating" it? Are you saying he's made it up?

As for the actual reminder of the guideline (the topic of this section as titled), I don't think it's necessary here. Doubtless JDS has already taken note of being strongly encouraged to include a request edit tag with his submissions, and has decided not to, in light of the other measures he's taken. Writegeist (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Collect (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll state it more simply for you: I have shown that you egregiously misrepresented another editor, and asked you why. Writegeist (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To which the answer remains: Huh? Collect (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Editor Writgeist. Thanks for the attempt. Collect has cunningly led us to the cornfield. The way out is over there. Good luck!```Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Big cats are mean, but a little egregious misrepresentation never hurt anybody. --Kenatipo <sup>speak!</sup> 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I acknowledge that you are unable to comprehend a simple statement of fact or a simple question at this time. Cup of tea? Writegeist (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that JDS has started using the strongly recommended template, so that he now follows the COI guidelines to the fullest possible extent. Which is most commendable. Kenatipo, as you also have a self-declared COI (thank you for posting the template), are you willing to stop directly editing Gingrich-related articles on JDS's behalf - i.e. implementing the changes he requests - and instead leave such requests for other, non-COI editors to discuss and/or implement? Writegeist (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo, I see you have now removed your COI templates from the Gingrich-related talk pages because you have just discovered you cannot vote for Gingrich, as had been your intention while you edited the articles. WP:COI states: Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. [Emphasis in the original.] Your placement of the COI templates indicated that, within the COI definition, you stood in that exact conflict of interest. Please clarify: are you saying now that, having discovered you cannot vote for Gingrich as was your stated intention, it is suddenly more important to you to advance the aims of Wikipedia than to advance Gingrich's interests? In other words, did your perceived COI arise solely from the importance of your presumed ability to vote for Gingrich, and not from a desire to see him succeed? Writegeist (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, old boy. As much as I'd like to comprehend and answer your question, my IQ just isn't high enough. --Kenatipo <sup>speak!</sup> 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and no need to apologize. It's good to know you want to understand the question and answer it. I'll ask the question in simplified form, without the detail that probably confused you: You thought you'd be able to vote for Gingrich's nomination. Was that the only reason why you added the COI templates? Writegeist (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No. --Kenatipo <sup>speak!</sup> 03:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your summary for this edit reads: Hide reason for "COI". You hid the words "I intend to vote for Newt on March 6." It was the only reason you gave for your COI. You confirmed it as the reason when you removed the templates: the reason for removing them, you said, was that you had discovered you could not "vote for Newt" after all [18]. You wrote, "So, since I cannot vote for my preferred candidate, Newt Gingrich, I have removed the COI notice for myself that I had put on the talk pages of a couple related articles." . You now say there was another reason for your COI - one you did not disclose. What was it? Writegeist (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't remember. --Kenatipo <sup>speak!</sup> 04:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit surreal that a Kenatipo's COI ends because he can't vote for the candidate he wants in office. I'll hazard that he would like other people to vote for Newt as well, and exerts influence on related articles accordingly.Mattnad (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo doesn't have any more influence around here than Mattnad does! COI is a crock because here it's only used to harass an editor that has declared a COI. --Kenatipo <sup>speak!</sup> 16:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the COI policy guideline should be strengthened. Anybody who is a citizen of any governmental subdivision, who works for a governmental body, or who is subject to policies of a government has an obvious financial interest in the policies advocated by that government and those attempting to control it; therefore, no such person should be allowed to directly edit any article on the government, its policies, or any politician currently active in such a subdivision. That should work to significantly improve the neutrality of quite a few articles. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you, F&H, a US citizen wouldn't be able to edit Barack Obama or Newt Gingrich; and, how would you enforce it when practically all of us editors are anonymous and have no intention of declaring a COI? --Kenatipo <sup>speak!</sup> 20:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You certainly understand the implications correctly. Since it was merely a modest proposal in response to the apparent demands of some editors on this page, I figure details such as you mention could be worked out. After all, the enforcement issues you mention are pretty much the same as those existing for the current COI guidelines. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A new Adelson donation

Please see [19] and then we can discuss. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the implication that donations to non-campaign-connected PACs belong in each political article found in other such articles? Collect (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Although not directly affiliated with the official campaign, my thoughts are that super PACs and people who make multimillion dollar contributions to super PACs are intending to influence the outcome of a candidates campaign and should be mentioned. Location (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is hard not to inform our readers, now and in the year 2035, of $15 million in contributions from a single family. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Might you tell us which campaign articles have such donations noted in the article? Just to show us that what you seek is common practice on Wikipedia, of course. Collect (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia doesn't have a rule against using news articles that get their "facts" from anonymous sources, then it needs to adopt one. --Kenatipo <sup>speak!</sup> 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I might not. What I seek is a discussion and then, maybe even JDS will authorize inclusion. And...if this news article doesn't fit the bill I'm sure there will be others that do. AFAICT no entry to the article has been made about this third contribution. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

The "2011: campaign kick-off and developments" section of this article reads like a giant criticism section making up more than half the article. I would like to see a more neutral point of view. Bzweebl 14:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzweebl (talk • contribs)

What changes do you suggest? There is no doubt that his campaign got off to a very rock start, then picked-up steam as the article suggests. Location (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like all the criticism to be consolidated into their own section instead of having every event warranting criticism having its own section, which I believe is giving undue weight to certain events. Additionally, I would like the article to be condensed to mostly about his front-runner status and fall from that position. The rest is not very notable, as all it is is a primary campaign of a third-place candidate. Bzweebl (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article has been structured to present information about the campaign in a chronological order as various issues arose, and Gingrich's rise and fall is closely tied with those items of news that sparked criticism. If we take everything that sparked criticism and put it in its own section, then the article would not describe how the campaign developed or how his poll numbers went up and then down. Location (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll grant you that, but I still believe that this article should have a major cut in size by minimizing the length of the sections of minor events such as articles and interviews during his campaign. I believe that this article should be stripped so that the majority is made up of the specific primary sections. Bzweebl (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The article was constructed over time with almost all edits considered and "most" (sic) discussed by the editors present at each step and watchlisting. It chronicles a history of the campaign from start to eventual finish. There is absolutely no reason to chop it to pieces at this late date. Criticisms are a daily part of any campaign. This one was no different. I think the article is just fine the way it is. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to chop it to pieces, only give less weight to certain insignificant events. Bzweebl (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that we have a better idea of what is significant or insignificant as time passes. I'll let others weigh in on what they think needs to be trimmed or expanded. Location (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that Editor Bzweebl begin by specifying a few of the consolidations and condensings that he has in mind...here at the Talk pages before any surgery begins. Its really hard to judge the validity of his "its not notable" claim without some specific comparisons. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, I believe that the "Meet the Press interview" section and the last two sections of the developments section are excessive in comparison to information about his rise and fall as front runner, which is what will really remain significant over time, not minor interview controversies or obscure magazine articles. Bzweebl (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bzweebl is right. The Meet the Press section is larger than the Staff Resignation section. And why should the Meet the Press paragraph be larger than the On the Record show or Face the nation? Little of it is important now.Slmslr27 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see your point about the MtP section. The long winded question could be shortened considerably while still maintaining a relationship to Gingriches answer. Mention of subsequent appearances on other shows is also over-stating especially since its regarding an issue that didn't get any legs. Your right. What seemed important then is of little worth today. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I made edits. If anyone disagrees with any of them they can be reverted, or preferably, brought up for discussion here. Bzweebl (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. Location (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Press secretary/communications director

A user has changed the info box to list Joe DeSantis as press secretary and RC Hammond as communications director. JDS still declares himself as communications director on his UP. Sources variously identify Hammond as "Gingrich aide", "campaign spokesman" and "press secretary". So is the change correct? Or an error made in good faith? Or vandalism? Writegeist (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, the user has self-reverted. Writegeist (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bounced check

Newt Gingrich has a history of bounced checks. The most recent is the $500 bounced check his campaign submitted to the Utah elections office as payment for the fee to appear on the primary ballot. While the reason given (the check was drafted months ago and the account was subsequently closed) is understandable, it is embarrassing to the campaign. Perhaps the communications director and his staff can draft a sentence that will limit the predictable negative effect on the campaign. I'm sure the replacement check is in the mail and the story will have a happy ending. But, in the meantime, how do WE include this faux pas? ```Buster Seven Talk 06:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A minor detail, interesting, but just a grain of sand on a bumpy road. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Vague personal opinion without explanation isn't much help here, unfortunately. There seem to be two issues which maybe need to be treated separately. 1: the campaign stiffing some vendors (common political campaign practice AFAICT) and also issuing the bad check to the Utah elections office. 2: NG's 30-year history of debts, lawsuits and bankruptcies before the campaign. The first could be included in the campaign article as a brief mention if it's had sufficiently significant coverage (here's a Huffpo piece for starters). The second should be - maybe already is? - covered in the main NG article. There's been much coverage of NG's bad checks when minority whip, for example. To refresh memory:

"...of the top twenty-two check-kiters identified by the [House Ethics] committee, nineteen were Democrats. Gingrich then pressured House Speaker Tom Foley to publicly release the names of all members who had written bad checks [on their House Bank accounts]. Foley, who only wanted to identify the top twenty-two, capitulated and released the entire list. In an early sign of things to come, it was revealed that Gingrich had written twenty bad checks against his own account." Brian Thornton, The Book of Bastards: 101 Worst Scoundrels and Scandals from the World of Politics and Power, Adams Media 2010.

"Among the abusers from the Republican side was Newt Gingrich, the minority whip, who had written twenty-two bad checks with a face value totaling $26,891." Ron Kessler, Inside Congress, Pocket Books 1998.

NG's House Bank kiting arguably warrants inclusion in the In Congress section of the parent article but probably not here, as it's not campaign-related. Writegeist (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

After Convention is over, Gingrich back on CNN would be great !

From the UK Guardian, we read: ... To Quote: “... ... ... According to the RealClearPolitics website, which was given access to the meeting, Gingrich said: "I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through. In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we're more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That's just a fact." [And to continue quoting the UK Guardian article] "Fox hit back in a strongly personal attack. In a statement provided to the Guardian, it said: "This is nothing other than Newt auditioning for a windfall of a gig at CNN – that's the kind of man he is. Not to mention that he's still bitter about the fact that we terminated his contributor contract." [20] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not quite clear on what you want here. Aside from your apparent delight at the idea of NG on CNN, what do you want done with these quotes? If you want them in the article, you can just add them yourself. Or is it your intention to open a discussion about them? Writegeist (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1