User:Dasmi1929/sandbox

Request regarding Iran
In the last few days a new section on Iran has been added to the article, which contains biased or misleading wording and material not included in sources.


 * Specifically, I'd like to draw attention to biased wording such "admitted" and material that is represented as Newt's comments when it is actually the source's interpretation, such as the first line of the section.


 * The first sentence, sourced to Whiteout Press, presents their interpretation of Newt's comments at the Spartanburg GOP debate as a report of his actual comments.


 * The "full deniability" quote given in the second sentence does not appear in the source at all.

I suggest that the wording relating to regime change be amended to provide a more accurate summary based on these reports.
 * Newt's topline position is to bring about regime change in Iran, but this does not appear until late in the section. In numerous sources, Newt has been quoted as calling for a regime change. The following sources provide more detail on his comments, placing them into greater context:
 * Wall Street Journal, November 24, 2011
 * New York Times, November 7, 2011
 * Reuters, December 7, 2011
 * KTQV.com December 12, 2011


 * The section currently includes a sentence that implies Newt's comments regarding regime change were solely focused on "cyber warfare", although this was just one aspect of the activities to promote regime change that he mentioned. This sentence also appears to be taken, almost word-for-word from The Hill's report, and the quote marks that are necessary to show what Newt actually said and what The Hill infers him to mean have been lost in the version in the article.

I would like to ask editors to consider rewording this section to improve its neutrality, and provide a more accurate summary of Newt's position on Iran. Thanks, Joe DeSantis  Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ by Kenatipo.  Joe, I reviewed your request and found all the suggestions reasonable.  I've made several changes to the Iran section.  The sentences attributed to WhiteOutPress.com have been replaced.  WhiteOutPress is not likely to be a Reliable Source—the "article" used is written like an editorial and made me distrust their transcription of the debate.  The Iran section as I've re-written it now begins with Newt's position: regime change.  There is one sentence in the middle that's sort of redundant, but I'll work it out.  The quote about "collateral civilian casualties" appears to be from an editorial and perhaps unreliable source, but my sense tells me the quote is correct so I used it.  To the best of my knowledge and belief, the edits I've made here at your suggestion are "well cited, neutral, and follow other Wikipedia guidelines and policies".  --  Kenatipo    speak! 16:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks much to Joe DeSantis and Kenatipo for proposing and then updating this section. In creating this section (my first Wikipedia entry), I did not want to introduce conflict but simply add a section similar to  Mitt Romney's Political Position on Iran and remove a section titled "Assassinations" that I thought was biased by the title but actually referred to Iran policy. Thanks again; I have learned more about citations and sources. -Dasmi1929 (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)