Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012/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)

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)

resource

When Gingrich’s Big Thoughts Backfire by Trip Gabriel published New York Times December 5, 2011 (page A15 in print); excerpt ...

Ideas erupt from the mind of Newt Gingrich — bold, unconventional and sometimes troubling and distracting. On Monday, Mr. Gingrich sought to do damage control on the latest of his Big Thoughts to land him in hot water — helping children bootstrap their way out of poverty by paying them to mop and clean their schools, and rolling back child labor laws that he has called “truly stupid.”

• child labor laws and child labor laws

141.218.36.43 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

resources

Gingrich, Ahead in Polls, Is Still Selling Books by Trip Gabriel published December 8, 2011 New York Times, excerpt ...

Mr. Gingrich’s devotion to book-selling, Republican strategists said, raises questions about the propriety of a candidate who is generating personal income while seeking the White House, as well as whether he is making the optimum use of limited campaign time. Mr. Gingrich said that book sales, far from a distraction, effectively conveyed his views and values. They are “the cultural wing of what we’re doing,” he said in an interview. “I am a cultural teacher, with a political campaign to change a government. And that’s how I see myself.”

99.190.87.173 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Related NYT news ... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/politics/gingrich-the-front-runner-is-still-selling-books.html A version of this article appeared in print on December 9, 2011, on page A24 (A22) of the New York edition with the headline: To Gingrich, Selling Himself to Voters Means Selling Books, Too. 99.181.141.143 (talk) 00:54, 12 December 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)

potential resource

As debate approaches, Republicans, conservatives target Newt Gingrich "As front-runner in the Republican presidential nominating race, Newt Gingrich is a natural target for critics. At this point, it's mainly conservatives and fellow Republicans questioning his character and leadership qualities." by Brad Knickerbocker csmonitor.com December 10, 2011

99.181.141.143 (talk) 00:51, 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)

potential resource

The Nastiness of Newt, The Editors November 30, 2011. This article appeared in the December 19, 2011 edition of The Nation, excerpt ...

As part of the ongoing GOP rant against organized labor, he stepped up with a proposal to fire school janitors and replace them with child laborers. Blaming “the core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization” for “crippling” children, Gingrich told a Harvard audience, “It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, in child laws, which are truly stupid.” Gingrich did not misspeak. He was serious in suggesting that “most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school.”

99.56.122.24 (talk) 08:43, 12 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)

potential resource

"Newt Gingrich says he regrets his public service announcement with Nancy Pelosi." regarding Alliance for Climate Protection#WE Campaign ... Modernizing Attack Ads by Using Old Videos by Jeremy W. Peters published New York Times December 26, 2011, excerpt ... "They look into the camera, then at each other, and declare that they are really not all that different when it comes to caring about global warming."

99.190.86.5 (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The ad with Pelosi was made some years ago and is mentioned in the Political positions of Newt Gingrich article. It is better dealt with there than repeated here. Sitting down with Pelosi is just one of many things that Gingrich has recently been criticized for.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2012 (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)

Super PAC resource

from four days ago ... Big change in '12: Big GOP money from 'super PACs' by Jack Gillum Associated Press; excerpt ...

Last week, the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future PAC received $5 million from Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson. The group is expected to use the cash for new television advertisements in this month's primary elections — $3.4 million of it in South Carolina — as the former House speaker tries to overtake front-runner Romney in the race for the GOP nomination.

99.19.45.64 (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See Center for Responsive Politics http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012 from ABC News: PAC Men: Following the Super PAC Soft Money Jan 13, 2012 2:14pm. 99.181.140.39 (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

wikinews resource Republican contender Newt Gingrich refutes open marriage accusations

from http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_Shorts:_January_20,_2012 ...

Newt Gingrich refutes claims by his second wife, Marianne Ginther, that he demanded that they have an open marriage so that he could continue an affair with Callista Bisek, who later became his third wife. The accusations, aired on ABC News on Thursday, come just before the Republican party's South Carolina presidential primary. If true, the allegations would mean Gingrich was having an affair whilst pillorying President Bill Clinton over his involvement with Monica Lewinsky.

• Source|url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9024510/US-Election-2012-Newt-Gingrichs-ex-wife-Marianne-gives-explosive-interview.html | title=US Election 2012: Newt Gingrich's ex-wife Marianne gives 'explosive' interview | author=Barney Henderson|pub=The Telegraph | date=January 20, 2012
• Source| url= http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-debate-20120120,0,5109569.story | title=Gingrich rips into media, then his rivals, in GOP debate | author=Seema Mehta, John Hoeffel | pub=Los Angeles Times | date=January 20, 2012

99.181.144.253 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Made above more readable. 99.181.143.48 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nate Silver resource

Gingrich Is Well-Positioned as South Carolina Votes January 21, 2012, 6:51 AM

99.181.144.253 (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

resource here?

We Can Have Green Conservatism -- And We Should by Newt Gingrich 04/23/2007; from Green conservatism. 99.190.83.66 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Added to Political positions of Newt Gingrich. Not topical to this article unless it becomes a campaign issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just see above in this talk page ... Talk:Newt_Gingrich_presidential_campaign,_2012#potential_resource_3, Newt regrets being green. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:23, 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)

NYT Winning Our Future resource

• Pro-Gingrich ‘Super PAC’ to Spend $6 Million on Florida Ads by Jeremy W. Peters January 24, 2012, 5:43 PM
• Gingrich Tries to Lure Tea Party Support in Florida by Trip Gabriel, published January 24, 2012; regarding the Tea Party movement and the Florida Republican primary, 2012.

99.181.134.88 (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party movement resource

Newt Gingrich using energy, power of tea party movement by Amy Gardner and Rosalind S. Helderman, published Washingtion Post January 24

99.181.149.86 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

PolitiFact.com resource, regarding Mitt Romney on Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 in a Spanish-language radio ad

• Spanish-language ad says Newt Gingrich said Spanish is "the language of the ghetto"; excerpt ...

  The claim comes from a speech Gingrich gave on March 31, 2007, to the National Federation of Republican Women, as he was considering running for president in 2008. ... speech in its entirety through C-SPAN, which originally broadcast the speech and has a wonderful video archive. You can watch Gingrich’s remarks by clicking here; the statements germane to this fact-check begin about 23 minutes in. ... "We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto," Gingrich said.

99.181.149.86 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)