Talk:Callista Gingrich/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suggested edits

{{Request edit}} I have a few suggestions to put forward for changes to this article to remove superflous or biased material and add some information based on recent press.

• In the "Early life, education and early career" section, the inclusion of Callista's acceptance into Emerson seems unnecessary, since she did not actually attend. As others have pointed out on this page, being accepted into a graduate program is not itself a notable fact. I would like to suggest this be removed.

• I suggest that the paragraph regarding her internship and staff jobs be consolidated into one sentence as follows:

She accepted an internship in 1988 in Washington D.C., in the office of Republican Congressman Steve Gunderson and subsequently moved to the House Committee on Agriculture, where she worked until 2007.

The mention of her meeting Newt during her internship and other family background details seems misplaced in a section focusing on her early career.

• In the recently added section "Participation in the 2012 Republican primaries", currently the material included gives the impression that Callista has not taken an active role in the campaign. I'd like the section to be brought up to date and include mention of her recent campaign activities. I propose that details should be added such as her introduction of Newt at CPAC, attendance at rallies and speaking appearances at women's groups:

In early 2012, Gingrich began to take a more active role in the campaign, and undertook her first campaign speaking appearances without her husband. On February 10, Callista Gingrich appeared at the Conservative Political Action Conference, giving an introduction to Newt Gingrich prior to his speech. In addition, she has supported the campaign through speaking appearances at Republican women's groups, meetings of Gingrich supporters and various rallies.

• In the final section, I would also like to suggest removing the comparison to Ann Romney, which is not relevant to Callista's campaign activities.

• The final sentence of the section is sourced to the Maureen Dowd column which has been discussed on this page before as a problematic source. In Dowd's column, she writes:

“She’s a transformational wife,” Alex Castellanos, the Republican strategist, told me. “She’s the wife who makes the candidate think he is destiny’s gift to mankind, born to greater things.”

Based on the source material, it's the opinion of one strategist, passed along by one columnist, and not representative of other commentary. For a concise summary, this is more misleading than informative. And it's certainly not a fact. Castellanos is only speculating about the psychological aspects of their relationship, which seems like undue weight. I'd like to request this be removed. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Reviewed, approved and implemented for reasons given by Joe DeSantis as all suggestions comply with all policies and guidelines and are improvements to the article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So this is an edit request from one COI editor being reviewed, approved and implemented by another COI editor. As a self-declared COI editor on the Gingrich articles, are you willing to follow the WP:COI guidelines, i.e. refrain from making direct edits to Gingrich-related articles either for yourself or as a proxy for other self-declared COI editors? Writegeist (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious and I've stopped editing this article because it's a waste of time. Any attempts at balance are removed Kenatipo at the request of DeSantis and I'm not really interested in edit wars.Mattnad (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

18:33 minus 15:06 equals 3 hours and 27 minutes. No talk, no debate, no fellow editor input. Reviewed by a COI editor and self acclaimed proxy of JDS, approved by the same editor in conference with, well, nobody, and implemented contrary to collaboration standards typical everywhere at WP, especially political articles. Decisions as to compliance and article improvement were made by...well.....one of JDS's vassals. This does not bode well for the future fundamentals that will be absolutely essential to safeguard WP articles against this kind of indisciminate disregard for fellow editors. If this is the model that Jimbo supports, problems are inevitable. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that collaborative efforts on this contentious article would have been better served by a discussion rather than unilaterial move. But I do agree with at least the removal of the "“She’s a transformational wife,”" bit. In order to fully place that quote in context it would be gratuitiously UNDUE weight. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Writegeist, Mattnad etc - this is exactly the point I have tried to make several times. Joe has moved from pointing out errors (welcome) to making edit suggestions to totally crossing the line, in my view, and providing actual mark-up to make it oh, so easy to cut and paste it in without critical review or discussion, because there is always someone standing by ready to implement what the campaign wants these articles to say. The fact that Joe is following the guidelines isn't the point - it's that this inhibits the organic development of our articles, what Wikipedia has stood for for over ten years. If the editors here - not the Gingrich campaign, the editors - felt that a sentence should be in or a section out, sooner or later they'd edit that way, and there would be back and forth, maybe argument, but cooler heads would prevail and we'd have the articles we want. I've said it before - with what is going on here, we may as well just give it up and let Joe edit directly, because that's the effect we're seeing here. It's wrong, and it hurts the project - not least because conscientious editors leave articles like this one because it's just not worth it. It's wrong. Tvoz/talk 16:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a relevant ongoing RFC here. I asked JDS's proxy (in this thread and elsewhere) if he'd be willing to follow the guidelines. No answer. But the next day he deleted COI templates he'd placed at this and a couple of other Gingrich-related articles. Note the proxy's comments here, and also here. Writegeist (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, as if by deleting the template he deleted the COI, and the bias. I know about the RFC but policy RFCs usually are so dense and complex that they require a major time commitment and this one appears to be no exception. I'll try to slog through and see if there's a place to express my opinion on this. Tvoz/talk 20:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• (refactored from above: [1])
• (Refers to JoeDeSantis' first point above)
• If this was properly cited, I see no reason this shouldn't be included. It's a biographical detail. Why would you like this point removed? Remember, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE don't ask us to scrub all potentially negative items, it just requires that they are well-cited and balanced within the article. On every life, a little rain falls. The Interior (Talk) 21:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• On further reading, this isn't even negative. Why remove? The Interior (Talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• D'oh! (The Interior, you tickle me!). The reason given was that it isn't notable in itself and that others had argued for its removal on that basis. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• These sort of details humanize the subject. It's what transforms a list of events into a more narrative biography. I dunno, I don't feel that strongly about it, but I can't see a strong reason for removal either. As for notability, I'll defer to the New Yorker editors on that. (they, getting paid, must be wiser than I) The Interior (Talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• But The New Yorker editors weren't writing an encyclopedia article; they were trying to write something interesting, so, they probably have different standards of notability. Personally, I argued in favor of keeping it, for the reasons you cite, and because I'm an inclusionist. But, it's a coin toss (and the haters aren't going to complain about removing something positive from the article, now are they?). --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection of article

The semi-protection of this article appears to have been removed, although it was previously supposed to be in place for 6 months. Based on my understanding, this happened after the article was fully protected, and then this protection was removed. As there has recently been vandalism of this article since the protection was removed, I would like to ask if the semi-protection could be re-added. Without this protection it seems likely such vandalism will continue. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well there was one edit nearly a week ago inserting the fact that this Mrs Gingrich is her husband's third wife; which was removed. Is that what you're referring to as "vandalism" or was there something else that I missed? Writegeist (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In the past when this page was unprotected, there were other repeated cases of unreferenced changes with BLP implications, so it was then agreed to put the article under semi-protection for 6 months. It seemed to have a positive effect, and its removal was apparently accidental. I'd just like to see if it can be reinstated. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, apparently I misunderstood. I thought your "As there has recently been vandalism of this article since the protection was removed, I would like to ask if the semi-protection could be re-added" meant semi-protection should be reinstated because of recent vandalism - whereas AFICT, at the time you wrote that, there had been no vandalism since semi-protection had been removed. Writegeist (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The semi protection originally was supposed to expire in August, however it was recently replaced by short-term full protection (to deal with a problem), which expired on February 24, and presently there is no protection. But, as Writegeist points out, there has been no vandalism since the protection was lifted - almost two weeks ago - so normal procedure would indicate that we should proceed without it unless there is a return of persistent vandalism. Right now I wouldn't think it is justified - it's not uncommon for semi prot to be lifted to test the waters and see what happens, since the norm here is no protection and we generally do not proactively protect. Tvoz/talk 09:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the dilemmas of wikipedia is balancing openness of editing with protection of articles from vandalism, especially that which harms peoples' real life reputations. The reasons I have not reinstituted semiprotection are as follows - the sole edit by the IP was not vandalism. Although not included in lead, it does appear to be a prominent part of coverage elsewhere on the web, and hence becomes a content dispute rather. The correct policy for content disputes is full-protection and discussion on the talk page. This page is so actively watched that the likelihood of vandalism lasting more than a minute or two is very low. This may change if the article is bombarded by IPs on an ongoing basis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of Personal life section

In the last few days, two details were added to the "Personal life" section of the article and I would like to ask for a discussion of whether these are appropriate from a BLP and NPOV standpoint.

The first addition is "six-year" in the sentence on Callista's testimony: the sentence already mentioned that the testimony was in 1999 and Callista stated that her relationship with Newt began in 1993. As the dates are already included, adding that it was a "six year" affair doesn't add new information.

The second addition is "a few months," inserted to note the length of time between Newt's divorce and their wedding. This does not reflect the source: the cited New York Times article noted that Newt and Marianne had divorced in December 1999 but it does not say anything along the lines of "a few months". The period from December 1999 to August 2000 (when the marriage occurred) is longer than "a few months".

It appears to me that these additions are not neutral and go against Wikipedia's guidelines for biography of living persons articles. I would like to see these changes reversed if it there's consensus for it. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the second one, that's not a few months. I made it more specific. I am less sure about the first (how common are six year affairs?), so will leave it to someone who is more sure one way or the other. --GRuban (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing part of it, GRuban. I have a follow-up request about an edit that happened afterward. An anonymous editor wrote that Callista was "an intern" when she met Newt. This is not true, and the existing source makes no such claim. I'd like to request that someone please correct this. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe, can you provide some detail for us? Wasn't Callista working as an aide on a committee that Newt oversaw? Which one was that? Also, this fact problem (intern vs. aide) is probably not an NPOV issue but a factual error. You sometimes come across as overstating things (e.g. Third wife = vandalism).Mattnad (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "six-year", there is nothing that is POV or against BLP guidelines: this is not contentious, and it is a true and sourced clarification. I think the clarification is needed because saying that she testified in 1999 that they began an affair in 1993 does not make it clear that it was an ongoing event - it could have ended in 1994 by our previous wording - but saying "six-year" clarifies that fact. I have no problem with GRuban's specifying of the timing of the divorce and marriage. I would, however, like to hear a response to Mattnad's question: if "intern" is incorrect, was she working in Gunderson's office or as an aide on a committee that Newt oversaw, or both, and if so, which committee? Tvoz/talk 08:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Let us not forget to discuss BEFORE we act on JDS's requests. Editors have been a bit to eager recently and have bypassed the discussion part of the "Paid Political Operative" arrangement. JDS can not be faulted; he asks for a discussion. But his requests are being acted upon almost immediately. Either we discuss or JDS might as well directly edit this or any Gingrich article. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with acting on uncontroversial requests quickly. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --GRuban (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

@Editor GRubin. 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 By Jimbo Wales and JDS is doing his darndest to raise the standard of paid editing. But his vassals need to also raise their standards and adhere to the suggested guidelines for COI editors. Uncontroversial requests are almost non-sxistent at a political article: changing from 'a' to 'the' can be controversial. And, since her husband is still in the race for President, this is a political article. The difference between "aide' or 'intern' may seem uncontroversial but, as you can see, some editors find the difference worth noting and clarifying. Paid political operatives are controversial no matter how tolerant they are or how well they adhere to the guidelines. There are many on-going conversations about paid editors/advocates/operatives all over Wikipedia.```Buster Seven Talk 23:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Replacement of category

{{Request edit}} Earlier this year, the category "Americans of Polish descent" was removed from this article for being unsourced. The following two sources both mention Callista's Polish heritage:

• http://www.fordham.edu/Campus_Resources/eNewsroom/topstories_2041.asp
• http://www.catholicadvocate.com/2011/03/newts-catholicism/

Based on these sources, can this category be re-included in the article? Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are ok, but usually we would only list a category when we had text in the article that made the point. It seems kind of random to me to put just one grandparent's birthplace in the article, so if we have sourcing for her other grandparents - or for her parents - I suppose we could add it all. I'm not sure how meaningful it is, but I don't have a major objection to including her heritage, if it is more complete. Not just one grandparent, though, which could be misconstrued as trying to pander to one ethnic group. Tvoz/talk 20:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rhetoric, Living Person, Conflicts of Interest, Political Viewpoints of Interest, Edit Warring, Waste of Human Energy

This is review of talk page.Orschstaffer (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Point of View from a novice

The negative connatations of all the above warrants the Removal of this Article at least to somewhere similar to Legislative Committee Session, closed or open to public visibility, but out of the Article namespace, debated, culled, prettied-up for Wiki and resubmitted to Article status only after a thorough purifying if anything is left to publish.

Point of View from a Conflict of Interest Politically

Would You even give it a chance? I spent maybe 15 minutes scanning visually this talk page and frankly yet politely I say the Subject itself even removing Madame G. from it totally would fail as an encyclopedic article.

Unless it was entered under category:debate, debate topic, or some similar heading.Orschstaffer (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Point of View from an Encyclopedia

Short, concise, factual to purpose, quiet on every non-encyclopedic principal. Perhaps I misunderstand the encyclopedia part of this wiki? May I also interject - innocence of ignorance over blindness of expertice.

Collaborations of encyclopedic structure, core and entry

Non-personal, non-sectarian, non-political, non-anti-policy/guidline, could this page survive such scrutiny? Otherwise, put it where it would improve the Wikipedia most.
Submitted by Orschstaffer, new editor on the block, seeking guidance, assistance, tips for creating a featured article to improve the Wikipediea, Orschstaffer (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of Article Page by Section, Reference Reliability Report, Context

Lead Intro

^ a b c Buffalo County Biographical History: Celebrating 150 Years, 1853-2003 from Google Books - three refs, one to lead, one to photo name and duplicate of lead name, and one to section Early life as town of birth.
The lead sentence describes her name, birthdate and position in a named, catagorized business located in District of Columbia, aka Washington, D.C. which is the third ref and referenced to 'A Good Wife' which is an essay by ariel levy attributed to 33 article/essays for new york times, and is referenced six times in the lead and first sections of the article, and nine times for the entire article.

Section One

This article is starting to look like a candidate for ariel's work with the new york times. Not to mention where's ref number two? And the next one is number four, referencing Newt in a News Brief of the new york times and repeating the reference in section four personal life adding city and state of this marriage. Now I am being led to believe the article is more inclined to publicize for the new york times. Finally in section one we have reference three, which is once again, ariel levy and her essay for the new york times. Once again mentioned as leading her company as well as accomplishments of being a staff member of the House of Representatives, serving a congressman and as chief clerk of a House Committee. Then repeated that all this was in Washington, D.C. with three references bundled onto one sentence. One mentioning ariel levy's essay again and two more being time.com and legistorm.com stating her salary data which is not mentioned at this point of the article.

Section Two

The first sentence in section two is referenced to her's and her husband's production company's video and yet once again to ariel's essay. The next sentence is referenced from about us the production company again, and her husband's works. Not relative to her article. Debatable as it states "Gingrich is the voice of her husband's (works)..." Gingrich who? Her, Newt, the Company (personalized)? Gingrich photography published by yet again the the new york times, and referenced to a web press release. Then her works (photographic) are mentioned as appearing on a titled subject about rediscovering God (pandering to the right wing christians, however debatable in another venue), and this being not referenced or confusing with the rest of statement referenced to 'about us' and their company. The last senctence in section two refers to ariel and the new york times again. Is any one keeping count?

Section Three

The third section begins with a referece to providing annual scholarships to instrumental musical majors, yet viewing the off-site web of the college, they provide the funds to selected students for music lessons, not the scholarships. This just whammied the reliability of this article and makes me want to quit this task, but I will continue as my aim here is to improve Wikipedia. Section three finishes up with two good refs relating to section header contents.

Section Four

My personal opinion section four violate blp living people. Refs are newspapers Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Chicago tribune, ny times again, and assoc press.

Section Five

Section five, Participation in the 2012 Republican primaries reveal eight references to her supporting newt's campaign, where a factual simple statement like this would say it better. I vote now, lets improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

Section Six, Seven, Eight

Section six is devoted to the portal, which could be moved to a obscure corner and then the reference lists and external link.

Reviewer's Overal Rating of Page

Context irrelavent to subject needs to be removed. References and Reflists need to be reorganized, Ariel Levy needs her own article, References need to be condensed to minimize the repetitive nature of this article which makes it longer than it need be, erroneous and misleading references need to be removed with appologies to the community for trying to falsify reliability, and the remaining good material kept for the biography of this living person. The possibility of salvaging that part belonging to newt could be merged into their biography (as Mr. and Mrs.)

Final Comment

I just rated the page, poor trustworthy, heavily biased, some good content, poorly written, and to the ratings people, the poll needs a reliability check for references, which I rate totally lacking of proper referencing. Orschstaffer (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC), spent three hours checking references and context of this article.

Yep - this is puff piece and any efforts to make it an article (or really, merge the minor, useful content into Newt Gingrich) were rebuffed by partisans for Newt. Mrs. Gingrich is notable because she's Mrs. Gingrich.Mattnad (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio

Much of this page, especially the section on Multimedia productions, appears to be lifted from the Gingrich Productions "About us" page. The whole article needs to be reviewed and plagiarized portions substantially rewritten. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

or mostly removed. This content is not rally notable and is essentially a sefl published source. Mattnad (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)