Talk:Callista Gingrich/Archive 1

Notability

Other than who she's slept with, who cares? She doesn't deserve her own page, especially if it goes on about what a great Catholic she was while having an affair with a married man for 7 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.182.224 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this truly noteworthy material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.53.168 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted. It seems like it was written by a family member, friend, or agent. Bro2baseball (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have an opinion about whether the article should be deleted, I agree it sounds very partisan. It has major edits by User:joedesantis, who is Newt Gingrich's Communications Director. Davemck (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

An article that focuses on the subject's high school awards, choir participation, and ethnic background should indeed be deleted, for none of that is remotely noteworthy. What is noteworthy about this figure is that she was the mistress of the Speaker of the House at the time that that very House was impeaching the president on charges deriving from adulterous behavior. Whether that is sufficient notability to warrant inclusion I'll leave to others, but if that information is excised from the article, what remains definitely does NOT warrant inclusion. 67.164.116.160 (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If the article is left in, it should include a statement after "third wife" to the effect that she was having an affair with Gingrich while he was married to his second wife. This is relevant because of Gingrich's and her claims to be concerned with traditional values.Tamarzt (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I added some phrases referring to the affair and that it occurred during the Clinton impeachment investigation. I think this is relevant since Callista Gingrich is known because of her marriage to Newt Gingrich, and the two of them purport to represent conservative values -- note some of her documentaries listed in the article and also these links about Newt Gingrich http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983876,00.html and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/18/gingrich-launches-bilingual-site-american-hispanic/ (Tamarzt (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

This article is an insult to wikipedia and should either be deleted or heavily edited to indicate that this supposedly devout catholic was having an affair with a married man while his wife was suffering from multiple sclerosis. I do NOT think wikipedia should be used as a free publicity platform. FrancisDane (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

She is notable only for her relationship with Gingritch. Yes she has a production company, but so do thousands of other people who are not in Wikipedia. None of Newt's other wives are given this kind detail outside of their celebrity relationships. I will set up an official merge / discussion notice soon.Mattnad (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Third wife

I edited the article to note that Mrs. Gingrich is the former speaker's third wife. Someone edited to remove the word "third." It is in fact true that she is his third wife. If her protectors insist on controlling the content of this article, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.181.53 (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is her first marriage. The number of times her husband has been married is irrelevant to her entry. Inclusion of the word "third" is a partisan edit against the former Speaker.

it's relevant, as I noted above, because of the stand she and her husband take on traditional values. For example: they disapprove of gay marriage because they view it as a threat to traditional marriage but many traditional values voters view divorce and adultery as threats to traditional marriage. Therefore, the fact that she is his third wife and committed adultery is very relevant. Tamarzt (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia article on Catherine Parr. It begins: "Catherine Parr (11 November 1512 – 5 September 1548) was the last of the six wives of Henry VIII of England." Is it a partisan entry against Henry to point out that his sixth wife was his sixth wife? No. It is relevant to an article about Catherine Parr to make this point, just as it is relevant to an article about Mrs. Gingrich. There is an article about here only because of who her husband is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.0.110 (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The comparison is hardly a fair one. More instructive: Cindy McCain is not described as "the second wife of Senator John McCain," but rather has "the wife of...John McCain;" Teresa Heinz Kerry is not described as "the second wife of John Kerry," but as "the wife of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry." Rpworth (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of Gingrich's marriage

User:joedesantis has removed my edit (and reference) about the date of Gingrich's marriage for not being relevant to the "Education, early career" section. Her marriage is the single most relevant item in the article. I think it's likely that if it were not for her marriage to Newt Gingrich, Callista Bisek would not have a Wikipedia article. (And if it's not relevant to this section, where should it go?)

By his own disclosure, User:Joedesantis is the Communications Director for Newt Gingrich, which makes his judgments of relevance a conflict of interest. Wikipedia policy on Conflict of Interest is that those with a potential conflict, such as employees, should limit their edits to objective facts, and leave judgments about relevance and notability to disinterested editors. Davemck (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems that what we've got here is an edit war between people who are trying to communicate what little is notable about this person, and a communications director who insists that the article be a puff piece focusing on her high school awards, choir participation, and ethnic background. 67.164.116.160 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Works

Edits have repeatedly removed Mrs. Gingrich's works as president of a production company, Gingrich Productions. This is her full time position. Considering tens of thousands of viewers know her as the host of numerous documentaries, it is not credible to argue that a list of her works is irrelevant. Rpworth (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Is User:Rpworth a sockpuppet of User:Joedesantis? Both have edited only Newt or Callista Gingrich's articles (or related) in highly positive terms, and Joedesantis' edits ceased after I pointed out that he is Newt Gingrich's Communications Director (on 18 August, 2010), while Rpworth's edits started after that. Sort of like Superman and Clark Kent never being in the same room at the same time.

If they are the same person, he should review Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry -- in short, it's forbidden. If not, welcome to Wikipedia, Rpworth. Davemck (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's not correct. I'm just new to Wikipedia.Rpworth (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP issue

Obviously this seems to be a contentious page, given the above, and considering WP:BLP I think we should be careful to protect the subject's privacy. She was not a public figure at the time the relationship began, and it surely is not Wikipedia's position to be making judgments about the private lives of private citizens. Even now she is a limited purpose public person at best, known for her documentary works with her husband, who is of course much more well known. Any discussion of infidelity belongs on his article, not hers. Stargat (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that people are entitled to a reasonable degree of privacy, that false statements should be removed, and that there are reasonable standards of decency that apply to the discussion of topics like adultery. But BLP considerations don't require that her long affair with the Congressman and Speaker of the House be redacted from this piece. Consider the articles about Judith Giuliani, Rielle Hunter, Monica Lewinsky, Elizabeth Ray, Fanne Foxe, and Donna Rice, among others, all of which involve women in similar circumstances as Callista Bisek Gingrich. None of them were public figures before their affairs began, and most of them became public figures as a result of their affairs with men who are "of course much more well known." The parallels between the Giuliani and Gingrich affairs are quite strong, and the Judith Giuliani entry in Wikipedia includes the publicly known details of the affair. The fact of the Gingrich affair was revealed to the public by Callista Bisek in 1999, when she testified in a deposition taken by her future husband's lawyers that she had engaged in a six-year affair with him. Mr. Gingrich has since confirmed the truth of his current wife's deposition testimony in numerous media interviews. There's nothing improper or defamatory about this entry including these true, relevant facts, which are in the public domain. Do you disagree? Aquinist (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid I do still disagree, strongly. In most of the examples you provide, there are women who pursued greater fame on the basis of their involvement in scandal, in several cases by posing for nude photos in men's magazines and trading on the notoriety earned from that incident. I'm not aware of Callista Bisek/Gingrich doing anything of that sort. The best comparison here may be Judith Giuliani, but in that case there was such overwhelming coverage of that part of their relationship in 2007-08 that it was apparently judged relevant. However, I think that article is far too detailed about matters of her personal life and I think I'll bring that up on her Talk page, too. Stargat (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The relevance of public information can't be determined by the subject; it's decided by the public. I think the burden to exclude this information is on those who want to change the status quo evidenced by the articles on Giuliani, etc. None of those women sought to publicize their affairs, and most wouldn't be public figures without their affairs. Your proposal about raising the issue on the Giuliani page is reasonable. Let's try to keep the articles consistent. If there is a consensus to remove the references to affairs on the Giuliani page and this page, I'll defer to the community. Thanks. Aquinist (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of public information as it pertains to articles about living persons on Wikipedia is determined by the policy regarding Biographies of living persons, among other policies. In fact, material included in articles does in fact pertain to the subject's actions. There should be no rush to include personal information on the Wikipedia article of a person who is just barely a public figure, and if Newt Gingrich does run for president, we'll find out how relevant it is then. Stargat (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see that we disagree about Biographies of living persons or other policies. Where we disagree is whether Callista Gingrich's affair should be mentioned in this entry. Under WP:WELLKNOWN, it seems relevant: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." She is a public figure, even if just barely, and if Newt Gingrich doesn't run for president, she'll still be a public figure. Aquinist (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Have added a sentence about her 1999 deposition testimony in connection with the events that first made her well known. The sentence complies with Biographies of living persons, because her testimony and the affair are "notable, relevant, and well-documented ... even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Hoping this edit will not be contentious, because I've tried to respect concerns expressed here about NPOV, authoritativeness, relevance, documentation, privacy, and salaciousness.Aquinist (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting your edit in a moment, not because it is usually my style to edit-war but because we are dealing with a BLP, and the presumption should be to leave out contentious material unless there is consensus. I know the portion of the policy you quote, however I disagree with the claim it is "relevant". Two other portions of the same: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether ... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Why is it not relevant? Because, as I said before, she was not the married party, but moreso because it does not relate to her public career, which is what she is known for: "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability..." If you still disagree, perhaps we need to seek a third opinion. Glad we can keep this civil. Stargat (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea to seek a third opinion. WP:3O Do you want to make the request? Aquinist (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is best to eliminate the questionable material on her private life. Callista Gingrich seems to have a very limited public role as the host of documentary films. Surely claims about her husband's personal life and arguments about relevance to his career belong on his page, not here. Rpworth (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

What a very civil discussion on this page! :) I have read the comments made in this section so far; after some further consideration I will try to offer what I hope will be a useful 3O for helping reach consensus on this issue.—WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

3O discussion

I think the the most applicable section of WP:BLP here is Presumption in favor of privacy (of which subsection WP:WELLKNOWN has already been cited above): privacy is favored as a starting point.
The first thing mentioned in this section is that victimization of LPs is to be avoided. My first opinion in response to this is that I do not see how the material in dispute could be considered "victimizing" the subject of this article. The information in question has been available to the general public for quite some time now. Presumably, she has gotten used to it not being "private" anymore, especially as she seems to have contributed some of that publicly-available information herself (and has apparently not denied it or sued for libel over it). So: no victimization as far as I can see.
The next issue discussed is WP:WELLKNOWN which as already cited above says: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The sense in which this statement may apply here seems central to the disagreement. The addition in question seems well-documented-enough – I don't think there is disagreement about that. It is notable primarily in that involves her now-husband Newt, perhaps, but it is notable enough and certainly involves her as much as it does her now-husband. And in a way that is what makes it relevant, too: her own notability itself is to some large extent due to the notability of who she is married to. How she got married to him is then relevant in that sense. So: notable, relevant, and well-documented = it belongs in the article.
My third opinion at this point, pending further discussion, is therefore: this material belongs in the article. Keep. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao, thanks very much for spending your time and energy on this discussion. 70.138.178.147 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you WikiDao. Will wait for further discussion from Stargat before editing again. Aquinist (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again. Your third opinion seems to have brought peace to our minor edit war here. Aquinist (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am reinstating the facts in contention, including the fact that she is his third wife. Without these facts, the article is a puff piece, perpetrated largely by Gingrich's PR staff and apologists. Davemck (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally getting a chance to return to Wikipedia now. I understand WikiDao's point, that her notability is related to Newt Gingrich. I don't dispute this, however at the time the relationship began, she was not a significant person at all, and in that time she would have been covered by WP:BLP1E. She has only become a public figure since she started publishing books and making films with Newt Gingrich and his organization. So I think a balance should be struck, and topics which relate to infidelity on the part of Newt Gingrich beyond the mere fact of it should not be included here, even if consensus is that the circumstances of their relationship's beginning. As I have stated before, she was unmarried at the time, so it is not fair to include "affair" here where "relationship" will do well. The same goes for Davemck's re-insertion of "third" wife. Does it matter to her notability whether she was the first or thirty-first? I don't think so. I disagree also with the notion that an article that is not unflattering is somehow suspect. Granting the basic inclusion of the start of the relationship and these changes being made, I'll make these small modifications and hopefully we can agree this is fair. Stargat (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A not-unflattering article is not by itself suspect. It is the suppression of unflattering facts that makes it suspect—that's what makes it a puff piece. Davemck (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Relationship" is vague and ambiguous. She had a "relationship" with other people, and so did he, but its secret and romantic nature is what makes their relationship notable after 1993. Their relationship was an "affair" and they were "linked romantically." See the Chicago Tribune article cited as authority. "Romantic relationship" would be accurate and descriptive, but "affair" is the best term: one word is better than two. Aquinist (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This still does not sit well with me, but here is one point about the above. I think "romantic relationship" is perfectly good when "still married" is included. I would say one or the other communicates the same point, whereas "affair" is at best redundant in the current case. Thoughts? Stargat (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree that it's redundant, but we seem to have different definitions of "affair," which for me doesn't necessarily mean "extramarital." "Romantic relationship" may work better, because it's not ambiguous. Aquinist (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The definitive point is not how we editors would characterize the facts (he was married, she wasn't), but what the reliable source, The Chicago Tribune, said. To make up our own term is original research. I'm changing it to reflect their term, "affair", and to clarify that it was Callista who testified to it, not just someone's allegation. Davemck (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Aquinist (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet the Chicago Tribune story actually uses multiple terms to describe it. The word "affair" is certainly used, but so is "romantic" and "relationship" so it would certainly not be making things up to include that term instead. And my point stands that it is redundancy as written. There is nothing wrong with "relationship" or "romantic relationship" that I can see. Stargat (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Searching for news stories online, I found this New York Daily News article from 1999 which uses "romantic relationship" but does not use the word "affair". Because the existing sentence states that Newt Gingrich was married (though I think separated) at the time, no information is being withheld. And the phrase "romantic relationship" is more accurate, as "affair" does mean different things. And it may or may not be relevant that they did marry, that it was not a temporary fling. Stargat (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

During the same time as Newt Gingrich's investigation of President Clinton's "affair." I'm sorry to say, the only relevance this article has to the average person viewing Wikipedia is the fact of her intermarital relations with a married man who was publicly vilifying another man for the same action.

Adding "during his investigation of President Clinton for extramarital relations." to the edit. It's fair, it's balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.35.14 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussed already, and the compromise was noting Gingrich's married status at the time their relationship began. It is true that this is very well known about Newt Gingrich, and that Newt Gingrich is much better known than Callista Gingrich, but that's still not about her, specifically. It's adequately covered on Newt Gingrich's article. Stargat (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole article should be deleted until the wiki article includes her six year stint as the mistress of a married man who (1) left his second wife in the lurch after her diagnosis of multiple sclerosis; an 2) went after another married man for fooling around (not full fledged affair by any means) at the same time he was committing adultery. Who cares whether she plays the French horn in the Fairfax symphony. Was she singing in the choir when she was adulterating with Newt?FrancisDane (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Marriage

How did Callista and Newt manage to get married in the Catholic Church given his 2 prior marriages? Where these 2 prior marriages somehow secretly "annulled" by the Catholic Church before the marriage to Gingrich? FrancisDane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Because the Catholic Church (capital "C") both Eastern and Roman Rites believe they are the ONE and ONLY true Christian church, founded by Peter the Apostle, the Roman Catholic Church, into which Ms. Callista was baptized, does not recognize marriage, or any other religious ceremony from another sect of Christianity, society does and, hence, because Newton Leroy was not a member of the Catholic Church, Roman Rite, when he married his first wife nor his second wife. In the parochial view of the Roman Catholic Church, Newton Leroy had never been "officially" married, he was committing fornication, sexually active with his first two wives, and adultery with wives two and three in Christian sects other than Catholicism. He was able to marry in the Roman Catholic Church, most probably with a proviso that he raise any child, issued from this union, as a Roman Catholic.Now, should he cheat on Ms. Callista, Leroy Newton would be committing a sin. Should they divorce in court, it will not be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Should either wish to remarry, their marriage would have to be annulled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Freeze (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Were her parents immigrants?

With old-world names like Alphonse Emil and Bernita, I'm wondering about her parents' or grandparents' background. Were they born in Germany or perhaps Bohemia? I'm just genuinely curious. If anyone can cite a reliable source, I hope you add the information here. I will also look myself. Moncrief (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit: No and no. That didn't take long. They were both born in the Midwest. See [1]. I'll leave my original question here in case it comes up again. Moncrief (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Belinda father was born in Poland. Bisek is a pure Polish lastname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.227.57 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

POV in "Personal life"

Hello, I'm Joe DeSantis, the communications director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. I believe a recent edit to this article in the "Personal life" section introduces POV, reduces clarity, and makes it a run-on sentence. I refer to the following sentence, with the passage in question in boldface:

Callista, who is a lifelong Catholic, who attended a college of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was instrumental in her husband's conversion to Catholicism in 2009.

This appears as if it is intended to highlight a contradiction that doesn't actually exist. Moreover, her college is not relevant to the sentence, nor to her faith. It is also duplicative: her attendance at Luther College is previously mentioned in the "Early life, education and early career" section. Due to my relationship to Mr. Gingrich, I prefer not to make this edit myself, but would ask that other editors consider removing this statement from the article. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I will remove that phrase from that sentence, which is not a model of clarity. Luther College is already mentioned, and it's fairly obvious from the name that it has a Lutheran affiliation. Jonathunder (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

Callista Gingrich is notable only in relationship to her husband. All of the material about her production business is from a self-published site with no third-party references and virtually all of the other content comes from articles about her and Newt Gingritch. This can be summarized into a few sentences in the Gingritch article with no loss of notable content.Mattnad (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Callista Gingrich has received specific coverage in numerous independent sources, by ABC News and the Washington Post and The Daily Beast for her role in the campaign. She was also recently the subject of an in-depth profile in The New Yorker this month. I believe her notability is well-established. Joedesantis (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reinforcing my point. She is notable for being Newt's wife and participating in his campaign. There, you see? One sentence which can be easily contained in his article. If Newt were not on the campaign trail, she would not receive coverage. Similarly, I don't see you creating an article about his second wife who has also been the subject of recent news coverage. Why is that?Mattnad (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is fine where it is. This article has existed for almost 3 years and nobody bothered with it. Perversely when it becomes more notable then there is a move to merge it? ! The mind boggles. SFC9394 (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

SUPPORT MERGE. Callista Gingrich fails all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This article exists only because she is married to Newt Gingrich, who is campaigning for president of the United States. Should Mr Gingrich eventually become President, then she will undoubtedly become notable on her own right as a supporter of one or more causes as all First Ladies do. At that point, she can have her own article. Until then, the information about her is non-notable on its own, and should be included in her husband's article. Truthanado (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And then recreate the article after all the information has been lost? Makes no sense to me. What is the rush here? This question can be revisited at the end of the year.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a fine discussion, but it might be ignored. The controlling discussion is on the mergee talk page. Any objections to me moving it over?--Nowa (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me.Mattnad (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor Nowa asked for objections, not approvals. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect end date for Ag Committee

I've noticed that this article currently lists the incorrect year for Callista Gingrich's departure from the staff of the House Agriculture Committee. The correct year is 2007. Citations for this include GingrichProductions.com and Time.com. Because of my COI as Newt's campaign communications director, I would ask that someone else make this change to improve this article's accuracy. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Time article is good enough for me. Done. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Factual error and semi-protection

In recent edits to the article, it has been added that Callista joined the Alpha Delta Alpha sorority, which is incorrect. Her sorority was Delta Alpha Delta. This is correct in the referenced New Yorker article. Can someone else make the edit to fix this?

 Done Tvoz/talk 07:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to request that the semi-protection be re-added to the article. Since the Gingriches are very much in the news, and the article about Newt is semi-protected, it seems likely that without any protection in place this article will become subject to vandalism. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As a rule we only add protection in response to repetitive vandalism that editors aren't able to keep up with, not proactively. Tvoz/talk 07:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the protection was removed last week, there have been numerous instances of vandalism, some of which is currently visible on the page. Specifically, the last sentence of the introduction, "third wife" in the introduction, and the current "known for" section were added by unregistered and new editor accounts. I'd like to ask again that this vandalism undone and the semi-protection please be added back. Thanks. Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Third wife" is not vandalism in my opinion. It is factual, well-sourced and the subject of a great deal of attention. The editors here can discuss this, but whatever we decide, it is not vandalism. The actual vandalism is now removed. As for the protection, the majority of the vandalism was caught within a couple of minutes of its insertion, so normally that is considered sufficient. I'll raise the question in the appropriate place, but I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even here on Talk. Tvoz/talk 06:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with Tvoz that anyone's "input" on Talk pages is subject to restrictions. Joe's Talk page input is more on-topic and soundly reasoned than average. He should be free to have his say just as fellow editors are free to reject his views and his suggestions. Wikipedia's biggest problem is anonymity, which reduces accountability and in my opinion increases the hostility amongst editors. Editors who give their real names and affiliations should be welcomed.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Brian, I don't completely disagree, but I think that some suggestions, like claiming that "third wife" is vandalism, for instance, is over the line, as is actually writing a paragraph, however neutral, like this. Soon enough I'm quite sure the editors on that page would have written a paragraph about the caucuses/primaries, but I am not comfortable with it being directed quite as hands-on as that one was, even though it was neutral. These articles even more than most should be allowed to develop organically, and since we're not the news, there need be no rush to get campaign-approved material in there. I want the articles to be accurate and current and of course well-sourced, but the direction they take should come from the editors here. Joe has been respectful, and I appreciate that, and of course we are free to agree or disagree with his views - but I have faith in our process, don't think we need such micro-managing, and would prefer that we be left to write and edit as the community sees fit. I do agree about the problems of anonymity, and have said that Joe's identifying himself now is good and I'd like to see it emulated by other campaign staff, but I think we're quite capable of deciding how to shape our articles, when to protect them, etc. Tvoz/talk 23:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The same edit that introduced "third wife" to the lede changed her party affiliation to "Reptilian". That's vandalism (and partisan vandalism at that). "Third wife"' was already evident from the "Personal life" section and is a fact about Newt, not Callista. Joe asked for a review and reasonably so, whatever the reason Joe happened to offer. As I noted over at Talk:Newt_Gingrich_presidential_campaign,_2012#Wikipedia_in_the_news, I think your priorities are misplaced. Here, you appear to be more concerned with editors, like the possibility a vandal may be mischaracterized because the vandal's editing is not 100% vandalism, or who Joe DeSantis is, than with what the relative contributions of these two editors have been on their merits. I think your "faith in our process" is quite misplaced. Why was WP:BLP developed if there wasn't a problem? In any case, my primary issue here is that you define "we" and "the community" so as to exclude people like Joe. This exclusionary attitude will just encourage people to edit anonymously and make it that much harder to be alert to POV pushing.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like your implication. Have you read my comments here and anywhere else? Looked at my edits? Do you know so little about my work that you think I saw that an IP inserted "reptilian" at the same time as "third wife" and I chose to ignore the reptilian? Seriously? I looked back a few edits at the time that I responded to Joe and saw this and this . I edited this way, taking out the part about Newt's overseeing the Clinton impeachment for having an affair while he himself was doing so - one of the Gingrich campaign operation's favorite bugaboos - but keeping the "third" which I continue to think is appropriate despite their objections, removing some real vandalism about being a robot, clarifying the personal life section, and adding or fixing some references. That is a NPOV edit. And I looked back into the Talk archives and saw the 2010 discussion with the recommendation from a third, outside opinion to include "third" and the affair. The reasons the campaign doesn't want this in are obvious, and they have nothing to do with what is best for a neutral, comprehensive article. Tvoz/talk 07:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that noting that Ms Gingrich is the third wife is not a partisan comment or vandalism, but a factual statement. It has been edited out previously, but it should be left in. To support the idea that calling her a third wife is not somehow partisan or unfair, please note that the Wikipedia article about John Warner states: "Warner was also the sixth husband to actress Elizabeth Taylor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgilm (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection at the proper board last night - it was granted for 6 months. Edit requests by new accts and IPs can be made by copying this {{edit semi-protected}} template here and posting a specific edit request. Tvoz/talk 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet, as the campaign director, no matter how pure your motives may be, you have to allow for the facts to be the case here, not a re-written version of the facts. As Ms. Dowd states in her article, the following sentence is true and relevant and should be re-inserted: "She met her husband while he was in the House, and had an affair while he was conducting the impeachment investigation for President Bill Clinton." It is factual, something that Wikipedia stands behind. Thank you. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahharrison (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And Dowd does not make the claim that the sentence was accurate, nor that it was factual - only that it had been in the article. Wikipedia being used as a source for Wikipedia does not fly. Collect (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you, Collect - are you saying that we just need a better source than Dowd's reference to this article for the fact that the affair was going on while Gingrich was conducting the impeachment hearings for the offenses coming out of Clinton's affair with a staffer? Absolutely right, Dowd's piece would not be an appropriate source for the factual statement "She met her husband while he was in the House, and had an affair while he was conducting the impeachment investigation for President Bill Clinton." But I believe it would not be difficult to find reliable sources to confirm these facts, and therefore reinsert it into the article. i don't think Ahharrison was saying it should be sourced to Dowd. Tvoz/talk 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Life-long Catholic

I know I will be considered a "hater" but I'll take the risk for the good of our readers/visitors. Having myself been a Catholic for 1/2 my life, I think the Catholic Church might have a problem with portraying Mrs Gingrich in a nun-like state in consideration of pre-marital relations with a married man. And don't even try to defend along the lines of "let he without sin....". This is about clarity of the facts and the words used to descibe a Living Person. I make no suggestion as to a solution. I merely point out that the article gives the impression of "pure as the driven snow" when that status as a life-long Catholic would have required daily Confession. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the Catholic Church was considering Callista for beatification! --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My parents were devout Catholics. Devout Catholics have been life-long friends and are in my family. And devout Catholics do not have premarital sex, fornicate with married men, practice birth control, or commit adultery. Since these are all Mortal Sins there might be a delay in her beatification. BTW, does anyone know if Callista's husbands annulment request (from his second wife) was ever granted by the Catholic Church? I can't seem to find confirmation anywhere.```Buster Seven Talk 04:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Callista's Mom says the annulment was granted! --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

from CatholicVoteBlog -----"The Marriage Tribunal in his Diocese reviewed his and Callista's applications for annulment. And .....-- the Tribunal found that for both of them, their previous marriages were invalid due to impediments that existed in their previous "marriages"." I wouldn't include this without verification but I"m satisfied. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you're confusing me, Buster. Our ref #4 from the NYT says Callista's marriage to Newt is her first. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I didnt notice that it implied a previous Callista marriage. I dont know. Maybe the blogger was making it up. Not so satisfied anymore. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

(If they didn't teach you the difference between fornication and adultery, you were poorly catechized indeed.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Buster, you seem to have two complaints. The first is that the article doesn't read like an article in the National Enquirer, detailing all of Callista's private sins. Well, it's not supposed to, and those of us who understand that will be here to keep the negative, irrelevant, unencyclopedic content out of the article (no matter how many times it appears in the media). Everything that's printed isn't news and doesn't necessarily fit, here. Your second issue seems to be a misunderstanding of what "lifelong Catholic" means. All it means is that the person was baptized Catholic at birth and never left the Faith. It is not equated with sanctity. It's not that you're a hater, it's that your understanding of Catholicism is faulty. This is proven by your comment about "the Church may have a problem with portraying Mrs. Gingrich..." The Catholic Church isn't portraying Mrs. Gingrich, period. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Catholic Church isn't portraying Mrs. Gingrich, period." No, but the campaign is. We, on the other hand, are not here to keep negative (or positive) material out of the article, if that material is reliably sourced and considered notable. And "notable" doesn't mean portraying the subject in as positive (or negative) light as possible. It does have something to do with "how many times it appears in the media" - when there is a lot of (reliable) media attention on a subject it usually is deemed to be notable by our standards, although not necessarily the only criterion. Please note that I am not commenting here on the lifelong Catholic matter so don't misunderstand - I'm talking just about the issue of notability and negativity, and who should be deciding what goes in. Not the Church, and not the campaign. Tvoz/talk 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Kentipo. There are Catholice that may disagree. When a Catholic commits a mortal sin many would say the person is outside the Church and cannot in good conscience receive Communion, for instance, until those sins are forgiven by a Priest. So...there are large stretches of time when a baptized-at-birth is not under the protective umbrella of the faith. That was my point and I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough so you, or anyone else, would understand. All life-long Catholics go to heaven except those with the stain of Mortal Sin. There is a bit of a problem if a life-long Catholic dies with the stain of a Mortal sin on their ever-lasting soul. I also know that one party in a relationship can be fornicating and the other adds the additional sin of Adultery (capitalized since it is one of the seven Capital Sins. I know what a life-long Catholic is. My RL is full of them.

But, I've made no controversial edits to this article so don't get your shorts up in a bunch. I'm not complaining...just pointing something out. If you hadn't responded my observation would have gone away. When I started this thread I stated that I didn't have a suggested course of action. I know what a life-long Catholic is. I feel the nuns and brothers and priests that educated me in the Faith did a good job. I don't expect or desire anyone to make a changing edit based on the discussions on this talk page. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. Like any editor, I see something ascew in an article and I comment on it. MY sarcastic comment about the Church and beatification was in response to YOUR sarcastic comment to me about beatification. We both should know that sarcasm is dishonest languaging and doesn't work here. So now you've chastised me. But I did not remove "life-long". ```Buster Seven Talk 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Buster, based on your opening remark in this thread, you and I have a fundamental disagreement about what a BLP is supposed to be. In my opinion, it is not supposed to be a catalog of a person's private sexual sins or a speculation on whether the person is, in fact, in a state of sanctifying grace. For your penance, please memorize the definition of Fornication on this page (#2353), and, find and memorize #2380 which defines Adultery. Then, go forth and sin no more! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Forgive me Father for I have sinned".```Buster Seven Talk 00:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@oldsoandso: your absolution is conditional on your performance of the penance I ordered. (and it's "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned"). --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I did the penance. It's been 33 years since I confessed anything to anyone. So...I forgot the words. Crucify me why don't you. Mea copa, mea copa, mea maxima copa.```Buster Seven Talk 01:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You learned your Latin from a Spanish priest? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Page discussed by Dowd

Maureen mentioned Callista's Wikipedia page today: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-great-mans-wife.html. - 173.24.245.10 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Her statement was about what the sentence had been in the article - and has nothing to do with her stating it as a fact. Since the affair appears to have started before he was Speaker, that date is what counts - not the fact that Down cites what was not reliably sourced as a claim per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the timespan and length of the affair would also "count" - just wouldn't be sourced to Dowd, which I don't think is what was being suggested anyway. Tvoz/talk 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

POV edits in "Personal life" section

Several recent changes to this article concern me, and there are two in particular from the "Personal life" section. Recently, someone has added this sentence:

In 2002, Newt Gingrich asked the Catholic Arch Diocese in Atlanta to annul the 19-year marriage to Marianne on the basis that she had been previously divorced.

This detail is not about Callista Gingrich and does not belong here. I would respectfully like to ask for another editor to remove it from this page.

Second, in this edit the clause "a lifelong Roman Catholic" referring to Callista was moved from the end of the paragraph to the beginning. This previously was included in a sentence about her role in Newt's version to Catholicism, where it is relevant. It is now used in a sentence about Newt's divorce proceedings, where it seems intented to depict her in an unfavorable light. I would like to ask that the previous version be restored. Thank you. Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The annulment is directly related to her personal life. Without it, according to Catholic religious doctrine, she would be still be committing adultery. The annulment was required for her marriage to be valid in the catholic church. And, how precisely is the second edit putting her in an unfavorable light? Mattnad (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll focus on just the first point for now. The sentence does not describe any action by Callista Gingrich, and it seems inappropriate to discuss details of Newt's previous marriage here. If it belongs anywhere, it is the article about Newt, not this one. Consider this section from the WP:HARM#TEST page:

If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it.

This is sourced to a very short story in a local newspaper. On account of WP:BLP, this article should take more care with how it covers Callista Gingrich's personal life. Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

Its been covered extensively [2] Mattnad (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mattnad, when I search back to 2002 when the event occurred, I can only find the AP article that Joe DeSantis linked to, which was shortened in some other newspapers. Did anyone besides AP cover the event? If not, we may have to re-think including that sentence. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few that came up from the link that I (and not Mr. Desantis) supplied [3], [4], [5]. But I have to ask.... since there's no disputing the fact, and it's been covered by reputable sources and is publicly known, what exactly is Mr. Desantis afraid of? I'll add, if it's something endorsed by the Catholic Archdiocese, how can it possibly harm Mrs. Gingrich. Also, if we have to abide by a new rule that an older source is disqualified, that would mean much of Mrs. Gingrich's early history in this article would have to go too. It's much older, and less notable. Mattnad (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The first and best reason for taking this fact out is that it's a fact about Newt, not Callista. So, why is it in her BLP? The links you just provided are all from 2011 or 2012. When the event occurred in 2002, it occasioned (as far as I can tell) ONE anonymous short article by the Associated Press. Is that what you're calling "extensive coverage"? It happened in Georgia, in 2002. Did the AJC cover it? The NYT? The WaPo? If they did, the results aren't jumping out at me from a Google search! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If an article on Newt mentioned he divorced his wife so he could marry Callista, would we say it does not apply to her personal life? Likewise, if an article notes the annulment of his past marriage so his marriage to Callista would be recognized by the Catholic church, one can readily say it's relevant. Without an annulment, her marriage to Newt would not be recognized by the Catholic church. That's a pretty big deal to her, "a life-long Catholic". Finally I don't understand why less coverage in 2002 is more important than significant coverage from 2011-2012. Is that a new WP:RS rule I missed? If reliable sources think it's notable today, why can't you or Joe? This article already contains material of very dated and limited sourcing on her, but it received the Joe stamp of approval. Mattnad (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And I will quote Maureen Dowd "After his annulment from his second wife came through, he and Callista renewed their marriage vows in the House chapel with the Catholic House chaplain, Father Daniel Coughlin." Still not sure how it applies to Callista?Mattnad (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Maureen Dowd a reliable source for anything besides her own bigoted opinion? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, Callista's mother is the only person to say that the Archdiocese of Atlanta granted Newt's request for a decree of nullity. We haven't heard it from the Archdiocese, or Newt or Callista or Father Coughlin or Marianne (not sure about Marianne). --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

seems like we have a case of ididnthearthat. Putting aside you feelings about Dowd which say more about you than her,, you seem to have ignored all of the points I've made. You've created a pretty high bar here - only put things in if Newt or Callista said it for the record. It doesn't matter if it's been reported by reliable sources? Dowd is an award winning columnist for a major newspaper. What she wrote is not opinion (unless you believe that she lied about the annulment for some "bigoted" reason). I'd expect you to back that up. Mattnad (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What we seem to be trying to do here, Mattnad, is determine and report whether Newt and Callista measure up to the rules of the Catholic Church. That should never be the goal in writing a Wikipedia BLP. What about their right to privacy? Does it not tell you anything that none of the principals are discussing the annulment? Perhaps they feel that it's nobody's business. Getting back to sourcing: the best you could say is that "Callista's mother told a reporter that the annulment had been granted", and although that kind of tortured attribution may be OK for the National Enquirer and The New York Times, it has no business in an encyclopedia article. (I guess I just don't understand your fascination with snooping around in other peoples drawers!) Regarding my semi-rhetorical question about your "award winning" bigot, the answer is: Maureen Dowd is a reliable source for Maureen Dowd's opinion only—she's not a news reporter. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. I think your equating the NYTimes (not to mention the Washington Post, the Associated Press and NPR who also covered this) with the National Enquirer is a bit of hyperbole. Callista also did not discuss her affair except in court and we have it in the article. A biography is not puff piece about the subject. As for my personal interest, I am disturbed by how this article has been shaped by political operatives and their proxies. I have no other interest than actually representing a balanced and properly sourced article. But you have not provided ANY point that this violates WP:BLP. If you disagree, take it up with the BLP notice board. Mattnad (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A biography is also not a catalog of every negative item published by what we laughingly refer to as Reliable Sources. (You're right—I shouldn't have insulted the National Enquirer like that by mentioning that other publication in the same sentence.) Another thing a BLP shouldn't do is try and gauge the holiness of its subject by comparing her behavior with her Church's rules. And, if the BLP subject saw her article headed in these directions and came to her page to fix the problem, whether in person, by an employee, or by a "proxy", I would support her. Getting back to the reason for this thread: Newt's request for an annulment is about Newt, and it possibly belongs in his article (except of course that it was not extensively covered when it happened), but it does not belong in Callista's bio and should be removed. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich campaign alters this article

This bad publicity is embarassing to us. Therefore, this page must be completely protected for the foreseeable future. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Absurd. The "COI editor" has not acted improperly in any way here, and to assert that he must have done because some article asserts it is inane at best. See Jimbo's talk page for other discussions, as well as COI/N etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This has already been reviewed at the COI Noticeboard here and found that he has been following the guidelines. Location (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually want to tip my hat to Joe for requesting edits in talk pages instead of trying to sneak them in. If every publicist followed his lead, Wikipedia would be a better place. Asarkees (talk) 15:39, 7 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) 21:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that the page should be fully protected. But as I said above, and was quoted here, for example, I am concerned about micro-managing by a campaign operative during a campaign regarding the shape of articles - what goes in or doesn't. See, for instance, Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012#Suggesting a new section - factual corrections are welcome, as long as they are properly sourced, but the campaign's providing actual wording for a section makes me uncomfortable even though it was neutrally worded. And here, weighing in on whether or not the truthful statement that Callista is Newt's third wife, for example, seems to me to not be appropriate for a campaign operative, even though he identifies himself. As an experienced editor of these politics-related articles in the hot times of campaigns, I think the encyclopedia is better served by the usual organic development of articles, based on how the active editors think they should be shaped. Editors here can of course discuss everything, including whether Callista should be referred to as Newt's third wife, and the editors will come to some consensus about it if there are questions about its appropriateness, but I think the campaign should stay completely out of such substantive discussions and decisions. I recognize that Joe is now clearly identifying himself, and unless I hear otherwise I will accept that he and his staff are not also editing under pseudonyms in contravention of COI policy - and that's good and should be commended as Jimbo did and emulated. But what goes into an article or comes out of it, short of factual errors, seems to me to be better left out of the hands of any political campaign. Tvoz/talk 22:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

... so it can remain in the hands of unofficial, unaccountable political campaigners. I dare say I am also an experienced editor and I don't believe that the "organic development of articles" is any less subject to POV pushing when the editors involved are anonymous than when their affiliations are disclosed. If a politician is both obscure and has low negatives then, yes, direct editing by non-arm's length persons associated with that politician might well not be subject to enough critical review by the editing community. But there is no shortage of Wikipedia editors ready and willing to ensure that Newt Gingrich gets the criticism he's due, even if his Communications man were directly editing. Joe DeSantis joins Wikipedia and his every move is a potential CNN story. If all our editors were subject to such scrutiny we'd probably have a more conscientious editing community.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that Joedesantis intended to remove a fact. Perhaps Joedesantis believed that placing "third" in the introduction gave it undue weight. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael, he specifically mentioned "third wife" as part of the "vandalism" he wanted reversed when requesting protection, and said nothing about "undue weight", nor did he correct himself when I pointed out a few days ago that it is not vandalism. This is surely not a crime, but it is, to me, too close to interfering with the normal editing process, and I think we'd be better off without it. And Brian, sure there is e ntirely too much POV pushing, particularly in these articles, and I'm very interested in accountability too so have often said I would be happy to see IP editing, for example, go by the wayside. But still, what the campaign officially thinks should or should not be in an article should not be in any way a consideration and it is, as I say, a matter of concern to me that I think we should keep in mind. I haven't edited the campaign article yet, so had not read the talk pages until now, and I was - again - uncomfortable with Joe's laying out a section that the campaign thought should be added complete with wording and, to make it easy, markup. I see that editors, including you, had no problem amending it which is the failsafe, and I realize that, but nonetheless I'd rather see a section be added, or wording changed, or citations located, by independent editors rather than by a campaign. As you say, we have plenty of editors ready and willing to criticize all candidates - and to promote them - so I don't think the best thing is to have the campaign doing so. Tvoz/talk 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So even if the campaign makes a brilliant, irrefutable case for including or excluding something you don't think that should "in any way" be considered? The name for the logical fallacy at the root of your thinking here is Poisoning the well. A good suggestion is a good suggestion regardless of who makes it. Professional advocates are usually doing a job and often have a reputation to protect unlike the drive-by vandal you continue to defend because part of his or her edit wasn't vandalism. At the same time you express "faith" in Wikipedia's "process", you express your lack of faith in the capacity of Wikipedia editors to not be so bamboozled by Joe's input that they don't jump to execute his every suggestion to the letter. Perhaps you could show us an instance where this happened if your lack of faith on this point is well founded.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Brian, first, I am not defending a drive-by vandal when I say that I don't consider "third" to be vandalism, and I object to your saying I am. This has been in and out of the article for ages, going back at least as far as September 2010 if not earlier, and in fact was included then after an outside third opinion was sought and given (to include). It isn't vandalism - some people may legitimately think it doesn't belong, but they need a better argument than that it is vandalism - which is what I said to him, without looking at who recently included it. Also, following your overall argument to its logical end, we may as well let Joe and his compatriots edit directly. But we ask them not to because they are paid to spin things positively about their candidates. Ain't nothin' wrong with that - but not in an encyclopedia. I've been accused of being on one or another payroll over the years editing these kinds of articles, but I'm not and even if I have my biases as we all do, at least no one is now or ever has been paying me to promote them. I have confidence that we'll come up with things to include or exclude all on our own as we've been doing for 10 years, and I think we're better off not having our articles be an extension of anyone's PR machine. Maybe if they made any suggestions to include negative information about their people I'd feel differently, but I doubt it and that's of course not what they do, understandably. I wouldn't use the word "bamboozled" here, but I think you or any other legit editor over there would have added a section on the caucuses and primaries on your own that would not have been written with the campaign's slant and I note that Joe's suggested text went up within 15 minutes of his suggestion and wasn't edited until something like 7 hours later. I agree that there was not any harm done, but again in the interests of NPOV I think our text should not come out of any campaign's mouth. Tvoz/talk 06:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit Joe mischaracterized as vandalism (since only part was vandalism) was nonetheless added by a vandal. If you are not weighing in on the vandal and instead just opining on (part of) his or her edit I would ask you to be consistent by restricting your objections re "Joe's suggested text" to what was in the suggested text instead of who suggested it. It was critically reviewed and put up by an editor (Screwball23) who has been on Wikipedia longer than you have (something that would not be relevant if you were not making editor identity an issue). This was allowed to stand for "something like 7 hours" until I (who has the same "journeyman editor" status that Screwball has) made the pro-Gingrich case even stronger (and added a qualifier to it). Besides having never been paid to advocate for anything, I am ineligible to vote for Gingrich and do not reside in his country. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia process you have such faith in allowed the whole project to be hijacked for 24 hours on January 18 so Sue Gardner could shill for Google's interests, making highly POV uncited claims on the site that critical editors like myself were locked out from correcting. Screwball, I, and the rest of the editing community can handle the likes of both Joe and Joe's counterparts in opposing campaigns (whom I would equally welcome) and if we can't, the problem is more with us than with these pros. What we can't handle as easily are the anonymous, fanatical amateurs who can't be held accountable off-Wiki for their on-Wiki behaviour.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to attack another editor, but holding up the record of one who is currently blocked for socking and edit warring, not at all for the first time, doesn't seem like such a good idea. This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with your problems with Wikipedia's decision to go dark on January 18, so your bringing that in is peculiar. In any case I've already said that I don't think unaccountable IP editing should be allowed. But that doesn't mean I think it is ok for paid operatives to be here directing our articles. Their presence can have a chilling effect on discussion, and it's a bad precedent. Tvoz/talk 07:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing "chills" a discussion more than demanding that someone not be allowed to participate. You basically want Joe at least partially blocked indefinitely simply for who he is instead of for what he's done. That would set a bad precedent.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Brian, I don't want Joe blocked partially, fully or indefinitely. Self-deportation would be more along the lines I'm looking for. You might notice I addressed my concerns directly and respectfully to Joe, who has not responded to me. Tvoz/talk 05:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? We shouldn't be afraid of words. If you disagree with something that's said, then simply disagree and present a counter-argument; don't advocate "self-deportation". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To also reply to Tvoz, I'd call attention to this useful essay which notes that "Wikipedia doesn’t have anything against marketers, just against marketing content." If someone wants to go hound someone else off Wikipedia, they should go do so on the target's personal Talk page, not on this Talk page which is concerned with a Wikipedia article (as opposed to a Wikipedia editor).--Brian Dell (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[To go back to my first objection --Dell edit of Bearian's comment], my point is that it looks bad, or in the parlance of political science, is "bad optics". Bearian (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor:Dell should stop his incivil claim that editors with a logical concern about edits into political articles are Poisoning the well. On the contrary. We are protecting the well from poisoning by inputing of edits that "hew to the party line" one way or the other. see Defensive walls```Buster Seven Talk 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Luckily, trolling is still a bad thing; however, it's not clear that being a shill is now O.K. or is still looked down upon. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Buster7: I don't believe that we should rob someone of their freedom to speak just because we fear what they might say something convincing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech? I don't hear anyone speaking. Maybe you mean Freedom to Type which last time I checked is not guaranteed by The Constitution. I'm sure User:joedesantis is a wonderful guy. I'd like to sit and chat with him over dinner. But here at Wikipedia he has a conflict of interest. He has been cheered from the rooftops for being reputable. But he still has a conflict of interest. ((From WP:COI..A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups.)) (Italics mine) His freedom to speak (type) has not been robbed. He just has to do it within the confines of WP rules, like all editors do. He seems to be earnest in his efforts to abide by those rules. And your right. He is convincing, which is revealed by how quickly his requests are implemented. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

At least now we don't have a paid shill editing. I'm O.K. with volunteers editing, as long as they don't edit-war. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of edit warring, before reverting me again would you first be willing to comment on my observations earlier on this page that 1) this article is about Callista Gingrich's marriages or the lack thereof, not someone else's 2) to the extent that Newt's marriage count is relevant to Callista, that's already in this article. Just why is this detail so important to Callista that it needs repeating in the introduction?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(groan) at least, if it is semiprotected then we can keep a much clearer track of who added what when and keep everyone responsible for their edits. Be good to really get the sourcing and content down-pat on this one so it is weighted appropriately etc. I know little about the person so can't comment on whether this is the case already. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Editor Dell. I'm old. Can you do me a favor? Can you put an "@ User:soandso" before you begin scolding another editor? Most of the time I'm not sure who you are talking to. Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Misstatement in former job title

I'd like to point out a misstatement in this article, if I may. Several days ago an editor changed the wording of Callista's job title in the Agriculture Committee from "clerk" to "scheduler and assistant hearing clerk". While she held this title briefly, the title for the majority of her employment was "chief clerk", as Legistorm records show. If it's helpful, Newt was recently quoted as referring to her as "chief clerk" in the Boston Globe. I would appreciate it if someone would change the wording to reflect this fact.

I put all her AgComm job titles in, per Legistorm. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, thank you to the editors who are willing to review my suggestions with an open mind. As many of you noted, I have been open about my affiliation for years and since May have been posting requests on the Talk page instead of posting direct edits so as to be fully compliant with COI. Our campaign made the decision to adopt this transparent process out of respect for Wikipedia’s rules and spirit and we are determined not to let this temporary bad press change that. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Early life, education and early career

In this section the article notes that Ms. Gingrich was accepted into a graduate program in broadcast journalism after graduating from Luther College. It seems to me that acceptances at colleges and graduate schools that are declined are not important. I suggest that this line be deleted. Jbgilm (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is worth including. Not everyone applies to grad school and not everyone who does apply gets accepted. That she applied and was accepted tells us something about her intelligence, her ambition, her achievements and what her goals were at that point in her life. That she was interested in broadcast journalism explains, in some way, her later work in running a multi-media production company. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not worth including. I will look into the fact, and get citations, that many people who apply and get into graduated school (master's programs) end up not going. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it's not notable.Mattnad (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOMONOGAMO-CENTRISM

Jbgilm, doesn't it occur to you that the expression "third wife" could be mis-leading to some of our Muslim and Mormon readers? We're supposed to take an international perspective on these things! --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Muslim and Mormon readers are not stupid nor illiterate. They might be able to understand when they see "catholic" and "3rd wife". International should not mean under 5 years old ! Thanks and sorry for intruding 83.157.124.76 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Francois

De rien, M. François, de rien. Acceptance of polygamy has nothing to do with intelligence or literacy; it's a "cultural thing". --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

if there any any chance of misconception that can be avoided by simple and clear language, simple clear language wins. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about Callista, not Newt or Joe

So, don't be adding paragraphs about Joe DeSantis. They will be removed. So will idle speculation about Callista by journalists—speculation is not encyclopedic. Please try to stick to relevant facts about Callista. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I added amply covered material on the Gingrich campaign reworking her biography which is part of her participation in the campaign. The articles directly cite her and her role. There's a lot space in wikipedias servers. What's the problem here? I thought is was pretty measured and didnt include the messy details that were included in the article. Mattnad (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You Boldly added stuff that doesn't belong here. I Reverted. Now we Discuss. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Callista, not Joe. Why Callista acts the way she does is pure speculation, not fact, so it doesn't belong in the article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I have no real stake in this, I feel obliged to point out that Joe DeSantis has actually participated in this discussion. Granted, talking about him in the article is probably silly, but talking about him in the talk page seems legit to me. Jorgath (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kenatipo that Joe DeSantis is, at least at this tine, completely irrelevant to the article. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Killer B. (maybe you're not so bad after all!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Joe DeSantis is irrelevant to this article, and, after reflection, that a "third marriage" reference is appropriate to Newt's BLP, not Callista's. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cullen, are you going to !vote in Casliber's "third wife" poll? See above on this page. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request - incorrect citation

the last sentence in this section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callista_Gingrich#Multimedia_productions

has two citations for the claim the book is a NYT best seller. However, the book is NOT listed in the 12/4 list (cite 14)

it could be replaced with this http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3DC123EF933A05753C1A9679D8B63&scp=5&sq=%22Sweet+Land+of+Liberty%22+Gingrich&st=nyt

which i think covers the span of its best seller status. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 75.73... I fixed it. Thanks! --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Third wife"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

with the votes at a 13/13 deadlock, and other wikipedia pages of nth wives evenly split, the decision is a tough one. What no-one has mentioned though is what newspapers etc. use. Having looked though the New York Times, Washington Post, USAToday etc. the preponderance appears to be using "married" rather than "third wife" in the first few sentences. In the interests of settling this, will close as "married" for the time being. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

---

There seems to be an ongoing edit war over this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=474515174&oldid=474330700
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=474525380&oldid=474524814
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=474648543&oldid=474525380
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=474692565&oldid=474692240
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=474692764&oldid=474692565
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=474841413&oldid=474771461
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=474912858&oldid=474911319
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=475087507&oldid=474943090
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=475481596&oldid=475346294
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=475624069&oldid=475616972
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=475650017&oldid=475624069
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=475696001&oldid=475653687
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=475839286&oldid=475705089
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callista_Gingrich&diff=475980628&oldid=475839286 (yet another. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC))

Let's discuss the merits of including "third wife" and the merits of excluding "third wife". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing it; where have you been? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The other discussion is a mess. I'm hoping that this thread, with its concise, clear heading and premise, won't go off on a tangent about the SOPA blackout, CNN, or who's allowed to participate in discussions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I support a re-start. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An’ here I sit so patiently Waiting to find out what price You have to pay to get out of Going through all these things twice. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Suarez, your "concise, clear heading" said "THIRD WIDE" until I fixed it a minute ago! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The argument for inclusion is that "it is an undisputed fact" and is therefore required to be included.

The counter-argument is that there is no such requirement—there are many undisputed facts that are not in the article, e.g. that Callista has blond hair and blue eyes.

An argument for inclusion is that the lead of Senator John Warner's article mentions that he was the sixth husband of Elizabeth Taylor. The counter-arguments are that Liz Taylor is dead and that no one requested that the expression be removed on behalf of the former senator. Also, in the lead of Nancy Reagan's article it is not mentioned that she was the second wife of Ronald Reagan.

One argument against inclusion is that it is a fact primarily about Newt, not Callista the subject of this article. That Newt had been married before is mentioned in the article body.

Another argument against inclusion is that it is not a neutral expression in that it highlights the fact that although Newt is now a member of a church that disapproves of divorce, he has been divorced twice (and is therefore hypocritical). --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

support "third wife" in lead

1. Buster Seven Talk 07:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Marriage is the most important relationship decision a person can make. Callista chose to be the third wife of Newt. I would suggest the choice was a major decision for her. It deserves to be in a lead position. Hiding the fact in the body of the article seems disingenuous.
2. Mattnad (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC) It's a simple question to me - why is she notable? Her affair with and subsequent marriage to Newt is in the context of his efforts to present himself as the defender of conservative Republican values. Significant news coverage has included issues of his fidelity (or lack thereof) to his former wives and it would be unrepresentative to remove mention of this. She is now on the campaign trail with her husband and is an active part of the political process. Let's not forget Joe DeSantis's active editing of this article (and more recent work on the talk page). In summary, most of what she's really known for is her affair with, and marriage to Newt. That demands context.
3. She is notable in large part because she is his third wife. If she becomes First Lady, that will be a notable first. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
4. It's simply more informative and not excessively wordy or obtrusive. — goethean ॐ 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Mrs Gingrich is only notable for being the third wife of Newt Gingrich. The lead should include wording such as best known for being the third wife of Newt Gingrich, or at the very least noted as the third wife of Newt Gingrich. (Cf. Larry Fortensky, David Gest, Jack Ryan, Herbert Hutner.) On another talk page a Gingrich campaign operative argues in effect for special dispensation in this respect for politicians' wives. There is none that I know of in policy or guidelines. Writegeist (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

   If "Mrs Gingrich is only notable for being the third wife of Newt Gingrich" then presumably we shouldn't have an article on her at all (do we have an article on the previous two? I've not checked). Actually, this seems to be a valid question. Why are politician's wives (or occasionally husbands) assumed to be notable? They may well be of passing interest to the media, but what exactly are they doing on Wikipedia? I strongly suspect that were it not for the US-centric bias of our contributor base, and the peculiar obsession with 'family' that seems to curse US politics, we wouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

   Totally. Writegeist (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC) But this British one is also notably non-notable except as a politician's wife - indeed it's her wifeness that kicks off the lead. Writegeist (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

6. Support "third wife" in lead. A prime reason for any notability that she has - much media attention, and this fact is about her, not just Newt. You want precedent? See John Warner and Mike Todd. Tvoz/talk 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

   If Mike is really odd, he should probably have his own article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

   Ok, fixed, thanks - was busy screwing up the numbering, didn't see that. Tvoz/talk 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

   (I almost fixed it myself, Tvoz, but some editors would take it the wrong way so I held back). --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

7. Whats wrong with being a third wife. My Dad introduces my Mom as the third Mrs. Mette. Is there some stigma with calling her third wife?Will Mette (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

   Being on his third wife is in tension with the socially-conservative ideology of Gingrich's Republican supporters. Thus the outrage. — goethean ॐ 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   You've also explained why the lefties are so insistent on adding it to the lead, Goethean. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

8. Support "third wife" in lead. as far as I can see that is her only reason for notability.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Cindy McCain is not identified as a second wife, nor is Nancy Reagan. Katherine Howard is identified as Henry the Eighth's sixth wife, and John Warner is identified as Liz Taylor's xth husband. The theme here is that the spouses of people who get married a lot have their spousal number included in their article. People want to know where in the series of spouses someone resides. A second marriage does not seem to qualify. Does a third? Probably. Newt Gingrich is now famous as a serial marrier. Third wife should be in the article because that is what people will want to know about her.Jbgilm (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

   So readers come to Callista's article to learn facts about Newt! I'd say they're reading the wrong article. I also notice that Jbgilm's response doesn't mention the lead. No one is saying "third wife" doesn't belong in the article. It also sounds like Jbgilm's criterion here is "Third time's the charm!" Not very solid; not very solid at all. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

10. Per Jbgilm Raul654 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Indisputable fact. No reason to hide this from the reader anymore than we should bury the fact that Larry Fortensky was the eighth wife husband of Elizabeth Taylor. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    He was her eighth wife? That's certainly news to me ;) Raul654 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Facepalm I am tempted to make some lame "legal in California" joke, but I'll just strike my error and silently crawl away. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    no one is disputing the "fact". no one can dispute the "fact" that my dog's name is Sparky, either, but that "fact" doesnt belong in the lead of this encyclopedia article and neither does the number of Newts previous marriages.75.73.44.170 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    So I assume you object to numbering Elizabeth Taylor's husbands in the leads of their articles as well? Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    Articles about entertainers are not my expertise. However, the fact that other articles, in whatever genre, may be in need of clean up does not make a good argument for allowing poor content in this article. But, Taylor's husbands articles do not carry this "Being on his third wife is in tension with the socially-conservative ideology of Gingrich's Republican supporters. " additional POV commentary weight. Being a biography of a living person THIS article certainly needs to take careful measures NOT to be making political comments through WP:COATRACKing. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

    I would oppose any such POV statements in the article, but then no one is actually proposing that be placed in the article. What we are actually discussing is the innocuous, neutral, factual phrase "third wife", which we should not exclude from the article based on fears that someone, somewhere might use that phrase to conjure a negative thought about someone. Gamaliel (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

    "innocuous, neutral, factual " the only applicable term in that description is "factual". Context matters. There are many places where a number is "innocuous and neutral" but the very volume of words in the RfC indicates that in this particular instance, there is far more to this "three" than "I bought three apples at the store." 75.73.44.170 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is capable of producing millions of words on the minutest of policy topics. That is no indication that there is anything in those millions of words worth paying attention to. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

12. Per Jbgilm as well; pretty much the argument I was going to make. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
13. Compare Anne Boleyn. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

support "married" in lead

1. Collect (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Numeration might be proper in the body of the article, but the lede is supposed to be purely an overview of the BLP, and "third" is not a main or defining characteristic of the person. It is on the level of adding that NG is her second husband as well.
2. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Per Collect. Also: "third wife" is primarily a fact about Newt, not Callista and is mentioned in the article body; the motivation for "third wife" is agenda-driven and negative, intentionally attempting to portray Newt as a hypocrite (see 2. Mattnad's support for "third wife" if you don't believe me); and, the Gingriches (through the actions of Joe DeSantis) have repeatedly indicated that "married" is their preferred wording and this is a reasonable "request" that should be accommodated.

   See Anne of Cleves and the other wives for how it's used in other articles. Also, this may be a borderline meatpupperty request here. Should editors really be working on behalf of the Gingritch's wishes here?Mattnad (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

   Regarding Anne of Cleves: those folks are all dead; this is a BLP. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

3. Per above, 'third wife' in the lede looks undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
4. "Married" or just "wife"; as above, it's a fact more about Newt. Agree we shouldn't be here to make any politician look good, but neither should we be here to make them look bad specifically. So let's ignore the influence on the current campaign. The count is more important for Anne of Cleves not because she's dead, but because she was a wife of Henry VIII, who is rather famous not for having a wive but 8 of them, changing them often bloodily, and with political and religious repercussions that shook a continent and still reverberate centuries later. I somehow don't think the changing of the former speaker's wives is quite as important. It does need to be mentioned in the body in detail. --GRuban (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
5. The lede focus should be on her, not on the wife # of Newt. Married is accurate and keeps the focus better on her while retaining the detail in the body of the article. 72Dino (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
6. "...is married to..." because "third" in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. Marital history certainly belongs within this article's body, but because this article is about Callista, not Newt, opening with "third" would be a distraction. Having said that, I think independent notability (that is, notability that isn't WP:INHERITED) here is a giant question mark, which might explain why some consider being Newt's third wife particularly relevant. Cf. Marianne Ginther, redirected per AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
7. per WP:UNDUE. If Callista needs an article at all, the focus should be her life, not her status as Gingrich's third wife. The Interior (Talk) 04:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
8. WP:UNDUE. Karen Garver Santorum lived "in sin" with an abortionist 40 years (!) her senior before marrying Rick Santorum and Wikipedia makes no mention of Rick Santorum's choice of spouse never mind an issue. Callista Gingrich marries someone who has been married twice before and it isn't enough to note this just once in the article? WP:NPOV applies to how competing campaigns are covered. Were she to marry someone who had been married 5 times before that would be so unusual a fact it might be appropriate to call further attention to it, but that's not the case here. At bottom this is a fact about Newt's history, not Callista's. Finally, I don't generally appeal to WP:BLP because too many people try to veto things with a BLP appeal but if that policy has any meaning at all, then all else equal if the subject of a Wiki bio or his or her agent should object to something, that ought to count for at least some small amount towards not including. Joe Desantis' objection is instead being cited by those who want to to go the other way, as if there is a need to actively counter Joe's opinion, as opposed to just treating it like one more editor recommendation against inclusion.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   Joe Desantis' objection is instead being cited....... Not so. Not so at all. Any mention of User:Joe's opinion is because he holds a prominent place here and elsewhere. Your charge that opposing 'votes' are merely entered so as to counter User:Joe's 'vote' has no weight but is, sadly, another brick in the wall. Also. Are you now telling us that Joe De Santis is the agent for Callista too?```Buster Seven Talk 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   Mattnad seemed to be calling attention to Joe's opposition as a reason to support his view that "third wife" should be in both the body of the article and the short introduction. If not, what's his point? It also seemed to me that in the past you and others were objecting to Joe the Wikipedian's relationship to the Gingriches as opposed to him holding "a prominent place," whatever that means. If he's not an agent or similarly connected then what is the problem with him being "prominent"?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Again, not so. Editor Mattnad gives a precise four sentence reason for his vote for "third in the lead", none of which make any mention of Editor DeSantis. I, myself, have no problem with Joe (and have said so repeatedly here and elsewhere) or with his relationship with Callista and Newt. Never have, never will. I have a problem with Joe's relationship with Wikipedia. He is an agent, now, as you point out, of both Callista and Newt Gingrich and his prominence in the campaign gives him prominence here. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Who was the person whose "active editing" Mattnad complained about if not "Editor DeSantis"? Can we agree that the terms "Editor DeSantis", "User:Joe" (used by Editor Buster here) and "Joe the Wikipedian" (used by Editor Dell here) all mean the same thing? I recommend hatting this argument about semantics so readers can see the rationales of those supporting "'married' in the lead" and move on.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Agreed! Yes! Hat it quick before anyone sees it! ```Buster Seven Talk 01:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   • second choice - (prefer "Callista Louise Gingrich, née Bisek[1] (born March 4, 1966) is the President of Gingrich Productions, a multimedia production company which she founded with her husband Newt Gingrich.") but "is married to" is FAR better choice than the sexist and potentially misleading "third wife". 03:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.44.170 (talk)
9. "Third wife" definitely too much detail in the lede. Unnecessary. The lede is a summary. Completely within policy to summarize the relationship as "married" and elaborate and provide specifics in the relevant section in the body.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Support "married, but in the second sentence: "Callista Louise Gingrich, née Bisek (born March 4, 1966) is the President of Gingrich Productions, a multimedia production company based in Washington, D.C. She is married to the former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Support SlimVirgin's construction immediately above. 'Third wife' doesn't belong in the lead - it's excessive detail, it's really a fact about her husband, not her, and it's mentioned further down in the article anyway. Robofish (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
12. Support, and I also support Slim Virgin's wording of the first two sentences. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
13. SlimVirgin's wording. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

support "husband" in lead

1. The subject of the article is Callista. The possessive pronoun belongs to her. "Newt Gingrich is her husband." (Second choice is "married" as unambiguous phrasing. "third wife" could be misinterpreted as polygamy.) 75.73.44.170 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This actually has legs. Callista should not be condemned or limited due to the prior sins of her husband. And third wife could imply three concurrent wives. If this situation were in the Milt camp it would definitely be ambiguous. I still think it ("third wife") should be in the lead, but give credit to this opinion. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I too really like this. Gender-neutral, avoids concepts of ownership, focuses on the subject rather than the spouse. The Interior (Talk) 00:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

support "is married to former speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, with whom she was having an adulterous affair while he was still married to his second wife" in lead

• comment - this is just as "factual" as "third wife" and focuses on her actions as an adulteress in relationship to the previous marriages of Newt. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

yeah ok, everyone, this one's going nowhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"so Lt. Manion said 'you want some of this, too, Buster?', and you said 'No', because your name's not Buster" ANATOMY OF A MURDER Casliber, if Buster is gonna do that, then I claim several votes for "married": Joe DeSantis, Cullen328, Mr. Bergstrom, 75.73.44.170, Rpworth and I'm sure there are others. --Kenatipo speak! 04:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC) (Explanatory note: BusterSeven requested that a !vote be counted for an editor who had expressed a definite opinion but had not actually !voted. As great minds run on the same track, I had been counting similar votes on "my side" of the issue. I started this new subsection which was originally titled "'You want some of this too, Buster7'?" Not recognizing the allusion, Buster7 was offended. In the meantime, he removed his request that the yet-uncounted vote be counted, so, it's not there anymore. When he removed his request, I struck through my list of possible votes. This new subsection title was momentarily changed (not by me!) to something less offensive to Buster7. But then I made the subsection title into the longer version that you see now. If you really want to hear about it .... ) --Kenatipo speak! 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I think Buster has probably misunderstood how this works. I expect he'll strike. Writegeist (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I'll follow Editor Writegeists' advice. But, Kenatipo. This thread name sounds remarkably like a challenge to a steet fight. I find no humor in it. Your aggression and petty nit-picking is not helping maintain a working environment. In RL I would gladly accept. Here, I've decided to ignore your "throwdown" but would ask that you change the name. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Aggression? Are you the same BusterSeven that just started a WikiProject to make the working environment more hostile for Joe DeSantis? --Kenatipo speak! 05:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Not aggresive at all. Record keeping, at best. When the general election happens in the Fall, very few paid operatives (on either side) will be wearing nametags. The project is in preparation for that. Please assume good faith. I'm not your enemy. I just vote blue. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Additional thought....If User:Joe is going to be the official Jimbo sponsored template for future paid operatives, then there needs to be a record of what that "template" did. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC) (note) Buster is referring to WP:WEaPOn Collect (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

discussion

Vote away...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Callista_Gingrich&diff=475885102&oldid=475884141 – I wanted a thoughtful (and hopefully fruitful) discussion about the merits of each case, not a poll. I wanted to bring both sides to terms and to accept an agreeable outcome together; I didn't want a poll that'll make the lines between the sides even clearer and wider. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael, there are two alternatives, and I don't think we'll find any sort of middle word, hence it is a yes/no question. Discussion exists around it and now we get an idea of numbers before passers-by are driven off by a wall of text. We need some more numbers so will alert at BLP noticeboard. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: As I understand it, her Notability is substantially based on the fact of her marriage to Newt Gingrich, not Newt's past marital history. Therefore, including "third wife" in the introduction of this article implies an editorial viewpoint that isn't necessary.

More importantly, "third wife" represents a departure from the biographies of other political spouses. Nancy Reagan is mentioned above, but she is not the only example. The article about Teresa Heinz Kerry does not refer to her as the "second wife" of John Kerry, although that is true. The article about Cindy McCain also does not refer to her as the "second wife" of John McCain, although that is true as well. All I ask is Callista Gingrich receive equal treatment as would any prominent political spouse. Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should write "As I'd like people to understand it..." It's absolutely true that her notability surrounds her marriage to Newt Gingritch, but it's not limited to the day they said their vows. Otherwise, there would be no issue. This is not just my opinion, but has been a part of media coverage for years now.Mattnad (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you, Mattnad, should AGF. (Perhaps you should also learn how to spell GINGRICH). --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(sits back with feet on seat munching popcorn) wow, this is nailbiting stuff....7-5 sounds like a tiebreaker in tennis....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not room enough on this page for two wiseacres, Casliber, and I was here first!  :),  ; ), :D, (I never use these stupid things so I'm not good at them!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I just read Joe de Santis make the argument that would invoke WP:NOTINHERITED? Tvoz/talk 20:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The proposed merge failed because she is notable, for whatever reasons. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You missed my point. Joe said just above that Callista's "...Notability is substantially based on the fact of her marriage to Newt Gingrich," Well, that's an argument against the existence of this article. That's all I was pointing out. Tvoz/talk 04:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED? Excuse me, but are you the same Tvoz that started the article on Ann Dunham? Maybe that was before you were familiar with the Notability guidelines. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Kenatipo, clever, but you didn't look too carefully. Yes indeed, I created Ann Dunham on February 13, 2007, as a 26 byte redirect to Barack Obama. And then favored merge of text (that someone else posted) into Barack Obama. And again here, until it was agreed to merge back to Barack, which I did. Sometime later the situation changed and it was deemed appropriate for the separate article to exist, and I've edited it ever since. I was and am familiar with the notability guidelines and I;m tired of your sniping at me which you've been doing as your first interaction with me (unless you were editing under a different name during the last election) and ever since. Right, notability is not inherited, and I think Callista Gingrich's independent notability is marginal, even with her children's book, and I'd wait before setting up a separate article for her. But that's not how the decision went, so be it. But when the campaign's chief PR officer makes a comment that her notability is substantially based on the fact of her marriage, I think it was not out of line for me to point out that it is a classic explanation of "not inherited". So your snide comments are not helpful, they're not funny, and they are getting annoying. Can you please stop personalizing this and stick to policy and guidelines as your arguments instead? Tvoz/talk 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Further, Kenatipo says: "the Gingriches (through the actions of Joe DeSantis) have repeatedly indicated that "married" is their preferred wording and this is a reasonable "request" that should be accommodated." Are you serious? Now we are supposed to take into account how the Gingriches want us to describe their marriage? Wow. Casliber, pass the popcorn please, or shoot me now. Tvoz/talk 04:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Gee, imagine treating Callista Gingrich like a human being. What a concept! --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz, you're a woman. If this article was were about you, would you want to be described as the third wife of anybody? --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? What possible relevance is my gender or how I might want to be described? We're writing an encyclopedia, Kenatipo, not a press release or puff piece for anyone's ego-gratification or so their feelings aren't hurt. The train already left the station regarding whether Callista Gingrich is correctly referred to throughout the press as Newt Gingrich's third wife, whether we do it in the intro here or not. That's the reliably-sourced fact, not in contention, and how she would like to be known should not in any way be a consideration in our decision-making. Joe deSantis is trying to present an image - that is his job - he's not here for the enjoyment of it, he's here doing his job. But it's not our job. I know, you've said elsewhere that you're voting for Newt - good for you. But maybe you should try not having that affect your editing objectivity, as it seems to be doing. Tvoz/talk 07:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above - the "fact" is not the issue. The question here is whether that fact, which can surely be in the body of the article, is of sufficient importance to be in the lede. IMO, it is not of that importance. Atacking editors for not being "objective" as you seem to do is not helpful to this or any article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect, and it's ok with you to discuss this on the level of my being a woman and how would I feel if I were referred to as someone's third wife? That inappropriate comment what I was responding to - the argument that we should not include something because it might hurt her feelings, and I should know better because I'm a woman. Would have liked to see that comment chastised by you. Tvoz/talk 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Golden Rule doesn't have to go out the window just because we're editing an encyclopedia. And, if it were my BLP, I wouldn't appreciate being described as the fifth husband of anybody. I asked you the question, Tvoz, because I really am interested in your personal opinion. (I also know that women are different than men!). I think "third wife" is negative, and unnecessarily so in the lead. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Golden Rule has nothing to do with the editing of an encyclopedia. I'll say again, since you keep talking about personal feelings, that personal feelings aren't objective and perhaps your support of Gingrich is getting in the way of your objectivity. Collect, that's not an attack, it;s an observation. Tvoz/talk 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Two questions; 1. from saying she's Newt's 3rd wife, how do you extrapolate "the motivation for "third wife" is agenda-driven and negative, intentionally attempting to portray Newt as a hypocrite" (are you capable of reading the minds of the people wanting to add it or omniscient; if you're either, I'd like to know how you came to acquire such qualities) and 2 can you point me to the section of BLP which says that we take requests for these sorts of content issues? (Obviously we do for issues that could truly be defamatory, which this is clearly not) BLP is not a suicide pact which states we must remove anything that the subject deems is controversial even if it's readily verifiable, despite it being treated as such. And finally, why is it even such a big deal; people divorce and remarry all the time, and these days it's usually not seen as a major issue. The fact they're members of a church which formally discourages it doesn't change that; their perception of how it makes them look is their problem, not ours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Blade; I'm not a mind reader. 1) I'm speculating on what motivates an editor to insist on placing a negative and prejudicial fact about Newt in the lead of Callista's article. Political motivation makes the most sense to me, but I'm guessing. 2) does BLP say that we don't take this type of request into account? 3) I don't know that it's a bigger deal to me than it is to the editors who !voted for "third wife". What did they answer when you asked them why it's such a big deal? --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The "big deal" thing is a reference to the giant walls of text this has produced; it sort of speaks for itself. Speculating on other people's motives is a dangerous game, do sometime read what Lemony Snicket wrote about jumping to conclusions (it's on Wikiquote, but it's worth reading the whole series). The most important question, though, is regarding BLP; it doesn't explicitly say one way or another that we should/shouldn't take requests for this sort of thing. However, BLP is something which works in accordance with other policies such as NPOV, which requires us to write things according to reliable sources, not how the subject of the article (be it a company, a sports team, or anything else) wants themselves to be viewed. BLP isn't something subjects can use to bludgeon their personal preference into an article, as that's where NPOV (and COI) come into play. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

as the author of a best selling (albeit children's propaganda) book, her notability regardless of her husband is firmly established.75.73.44.170 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. Tvoz/talk 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is most certainly NOT a "matter of opinion"see WP:N75.73.44.170 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fact is, there are two sets of World Views here, and folks are going to have a near-impossible time 'converting' the other side, so folks trying to do so here I suspect will be doing so in vain. So keep it to earth-shatteringly new points is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Casliber, why don't we declare the editors on this article an anarcho-syndicalist commune, and just alternate the two phrases every 24 hours? --Kenatipo ^speak! 13:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Casliber. Most communes are established to share in the "good fortunes" and abilities of its members. ("From those.....To those"). If we did establish a commune would User:joedesantis need to distribute his wages amongst his fellow editors? Would only the wages earned for editing at or monitoring the edits at Wikipedia be included? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Casliber, and would editors with an overabundance of hypocrisy need to share it with the rest of us, too? --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your comment. Could you be more specific to clarify, please? Writegeist (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to put a smileyface after your post, Writegeist. They know who they are (and you probably do too). --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

<--- Bebo is thattaway. Writegeist (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Now now everybody, let's keep on topic...I don't want to have to get out a big stick. I've only had one coffee this morning so need to digest what's going on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

well, what now?

Casliber, where do we go from here? Have you been weighing all the !votes in light of policies and guidelines? --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

These things generally stay open for a month. I'll post on village pump as well to see if some more indifferent people rather than strong advocates either side come in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A month? I didn't know that. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it'll end up a little clearer than this one (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Casliber, you're not from around here, are you? If I was a leftie, your little joke would make me even more rabid. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: we both know that it won't end up clearer. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible not to; I remember all of it unfolding when I was 10. Dave Barry wrote some hysterical pieces on it; they'll make your day no matter how you felt before. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat the conclusion I stated below - on reflection, I do not think that "third wife" belongs in the lead of this article, because that is a fact far more relevant to Newt's biography than Callista's. Newt is her first husband, and it is he, not her, who has had several marriages. Later in the body of the article, the marriage history of the two partners can be discussed briefly and with due weight. I am one of the editors quoted in the CNN piece that attracted some attention, though CNN "redacted" the first sentence of my comment to Joe DeSantis thanking him for disclosing his COI. I made that comment to Joe without thinking the specific issue through, which I have now done. I see here that Kenatipo's judgment in this matter has been questioned, because that editor identifies as a Gingrich supporter. I see that as most unfair, as Kenatipo is perfectly free to support any candidate that he or she wishes. I have a different political orientation, but agree with Kenatipo on this particular point. Off-Wikipedia I am completely opposed to Newt Gingrich's campaign, and off Wikipedia, I support Barack Obama's re-election as strongly as I supported his election in 2008. But I do not campaign for Obama or against Gingrich, Santorum, Paul or Romney on Wikipedia. I want us to have outstanding, NPOV articles about all of them, all of their campaigns and their allies and their notable family members. I don't want Wikipedia to be used to advance any campaign, but rather for neutral descriptions of the 2012 campaign and the people involved, exactly as we provide a neutral description of the fascinating 1948 presidential campaign. Let's keep the neutral point of view sacrosanct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Cullen. Thank you! "Let's keep the neutral point of view sacrosanct." That's a very important statement. If we could all follow it, all of the time, think of all the useless debate we could avoid (like on this very page). What embarrasses me about editing Wikipedia is the number of admins I run across who don't seem to grasp the concept (yes, on this very page). In my ideal Wikipedia, admins would be a sort of priesthood that indeed "kept the NPOV sacrosanct". After a successful RfA, they would be tested to ensure they were able to tell the difference between a statement or phrase that was NPOV and one that wasn't. If they failed the NPOV test, they wouldn't get the tools (not until they could pass a rigorous test showing that at least they understood the concept). As a reward for passing the NPOV exam, these admins would be given authority to decide little issues like the one we're !voting on here (just like an encyclopedia editor in the real world would). On the other hand, maybe my "NPOV priesthood" shouldn't come from the ranks of the admins at all, if their only task is to enforce NPOV. Beyond my disappointment at a few admins on this page, I just don't see how the "tie" here gets broken. It seems that a mechanism for deciding an outcome is missing. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not try and look at some other articles in the same situation. e.g. other notable people who happen to have been third wives? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That was a good suggestion, Casliber. Here's what I found when I searched for "is the third wife of": the search yields 12 BLP results. Three are polygamous marriages (an argument, imho, against the ambiguity of “third wife”): Satyabhama, Tshering Yangdon and Fatima bint Mubarak Al Ketbi. Three of the articles are very short and have no lead: Sunanda Pushkar’s “third wife” is in a one paragraph article; Barbara Minty is two short paragraphs and doesn’t have a lead; and Maggie Taylor’s “third wife” is in the fourth sentence of a five sentence article. Three have “third wife” in the lead: Graça Machel, Wendi Deng Murdoch and Marie-Josée Drouin. Three do not have “third wife” in the lead: Arielle Dombasle, Nicole Cornes and Sally Quinn. So, I would conclude that there is no weight of precedent or uniformity to help us decide the issue. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

other "third wifes": Emma Rabbe, no mention of number of husband's marriages in article; Dixie Carter, deceased, but "third wife" not in lead (which husband was she the third wife of?); Barbra Streisand, "third wife" not in lead (which husband was she the third wife of?); Nicole Cornes (already mentioned in previous comment); Alley Mills, "third wife" in article but not in lead; and Denise Richards, may not be "third wife", nothing about husband's marriages in lead. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)note that the above comment is a conglomeration of raw links I posted which Kenatipo formatted and added commentary 75.73.44.170 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Emma Rabbe third wifely attachment of Daniel Alvarado

Dixie Carter third wifely attachment of Hal Holbrook

Barbra Streisand third wifely attachment of James Brolin

Alley Mills third wifely attachment of Orson Bean

Denise Richards sorry, she is only the second wifely attachment of Charlie Sheen, Brooke Mueller is his third

Marjorie Flack fourth wifely attachment of William Rose Benét

Mia Farrow third wifely attachment of Frank Sinatra

Camille Grammer third wifely attachment of Kelsey Grammer

Louise Henriette Françoise de Lorraine fourth wifely attachment of Emmanuel Théodose de La Tour d'Auvergne (1668–1730) 75.73.44.170 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The next thing is how relatively notable it might be, either (a) how other profiles and biographical articles describe her, and (b) the relevance of the third-wifedness to any discussion. Indeed Maureen Dowd (who I'm not familiar with) has opined, although...err...you've removed it. Hmmmm. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We should probably avoid sourcing a BLP about a Catholic to an opinion piece written by a Catholic-hater like Maureen Dowd, no? Are opinion pieces a good source for facts? Let's keep the article focussed on Callista, not Newt. You bring up a good point, though, about having a model article to emulate, perhaps from another encyclopedia that doesn't mistake itself for a supermarket tabloid. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"catholic hater"? or simply someone who speaks the truth about their view that the Church holds some pretty untenable positions? and remember that BLP applies to talk page comments as well 206.55.180.8 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

pretty untenable positions! oh! you funny boy, make Kenatipo laugh, hahaha! --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In which case, source could possibly be aligned as "Maureen Dowd has hypothesised..." so it doesn't misrepresent a journalist's views as general. Looks like there's a bit of a kerfuffle about it, so better post below and discuss. I'll full-protect page in the meantime. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Prediction: same result as "third wife" vs "married to". It will break down pretty much on political lines, the Gingrich-haters voting "keep", the conservatives voting "remove". Why are we wasting our time? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(hopefully) not necessarily. At least in the second there can be some wiggle room and alternative editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 23 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.

keeping/removing Dowd quote

Ok folks, I've fully protected the page to prevent further edit-warring. The segment in question was written as thus (see removed segment)

Discuss below concerning keeping or removing, or some compromise such as phrasing it as journalist's position etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

keep

1. It's not the position of a journalist, it either happened or it didn't. A fact-checked Pulitzer winner is a reliable source for this fact. Gamaliel (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
2. It happened. It's a well known and discussed fact. And just about the only thing this person is really notable for. I'll even quote Joe DeSantis, Newt's communications director, "As I understand it, her Notability is substantially based on the fact of her marriage to Newt Gingrich". Her relationship to Newt is part and parcel of why anyone cares about her. This does not start when they married as anyone who reads a newspaper knows.Mattnad (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

remove

1. irrel to THIS article. to paraphrase an awesome band, "We don't need no stinkin' coatracks" 75.73.44.170 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Facts about Newt belong in Newt's article, not here. The source isn't the primary issue here. The fact that the affair began in 1993 is already in the article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

   Isn't this an elaboration on the context of the affair? Mattnad (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, but it's an elaboration about what Newt was doing, not Callista. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

other discussion

• Discuss away. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Callista Gingrich/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The introductory paragraph takes a biased tone through implication of hypocritical behavior. "She met her husband met while he was in the House, and had an affair while he was conducting an impeachment investigation for President Bill Clinton for his affair." First, it's not clear that this clause is biographically relevant to the subject of the article, as it pertains to the subject's spouse. Second, it's not clear that this clause is appropriate in this section of the article. Although it is reasonable to place events in time historically, the content and tone of the clause call the overall neutrality of the article into question. Third, this clause is factually inaccurate. None of the Articles in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton was for "his affair". The Clinton articles of impeachment that were upheld were for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the two that were not upheld were for a second instance of perjury and for abuse of power. Although the circumstances around the charges related to his affair, the charges were for specific crimes and not for having an affair. For these reasons I suggest that this comment be removed from this article, with the sentence in question ending with "while he was conducting the impeachment investigation for President Bill Clinton."

Last edited at 00:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)