Talk:Thomas Peterffy/Archives/2013

Citation overkill
This article is an example of Citation overkill. Can someone please clean it up? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Television ad

 * Thomas Peterffy YouTube channel
 * Thomas Peterffy - Freedom To Succeed

Automate This → How Algorithms Came to Rule Our World
ISBN 978-1-59184-492-1 has a nice profile on how Peterffy made his money, in chapter one – "Wall Street, The First Domino" – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of Peterffy's views
In the section titled "Regulatory influence and political views", a couple of paragraphs are dedicated to analyse differences between socialism and the current economic and political situation of the United States. Maybe some citations are needed to reinforce certainty on the statements described there or it could be that a biographical article is not an appropriate place to discuss the authors' views, whether they're right or not. In any case, I think this article needs some attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.191.13.53 (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your job is to define Peterffy. You spent 7 paragraphs rebutting his views and beliefs. Your bias is unwanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.237.185 (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This section definitely needs references for us to be able to include it - a link to the Socialism article is not enough. The reason it is not enough is that the Wikipedia policy No original research requires that the sources we cite in articles directly back up the claims we make. The specific problem is that the passage claims that "Most democracies today include some elements of socialism, without engendering the crushing effects on personal initiative described by Peterffy", but we do not have a source that directly makes this claim. If we are to include this text we need to have a source that specifically refutes Peterffy's claims, not one that provides general information about socialism. If we can find such a source, then I think it would be a good idea to include criticism of Peterffy's claims, but we should probably name the source of the claim in the article. (E.g. "XX Newspaper said that Peterffy's claims were inaccurate" rather than "Peterffy's claims were inaccurate".) Let me know if this comment makes sense or not. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 03:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the expanded sections on "Peterffy's Hungary" and "Criticism of Peterffy's political ad". The sources used in these sections are very respectable, and perhaps we can include some material about the Hungary in which Peterffy grew up in in the "Early life and career" section. (This section is pretty small considering the amount of time it covers, and it could do with expanding.) The problem is that none of the sources, I assume, directly mention Petterfy at all. In particular, there is no source to back up the central claim that these two paragraphs seek to outline - "The countries enjoy relatively high standards of living, political stability, and social contentment in contrast to Peterffy's warning of increasing impoverishment from socialism." (My emphasis.) The no original research policy really does require that we can directly cite this claim. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012
"who's" should be "whose"

65.25.119.191 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, amended as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenwg (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg quote
I have extended the quote found in this diff. The full quote in the Bloomberg article is "Grim as things may look, he couldn’t really think that the U.S. was turning into socialist Hungary, could he? The government isn’t suppressing speech and throwing political opponents in jail. No, he conceded, it wasn’t. But it sure feels like that’s the path we’re on." I don't think that we are representing the source properly if we stop at "No, he conceded, it wasn't". The last sentence is the one that best represents Peterffy's views, and per WP:QUOTE: "The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source." I also think that putting a large part of the quote in there (as it is now) creates a balance problem in that paragraph, and that it might be better to paraphrase the material instead. What would others think about using a paraphrase instead of a quote here? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 05:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The extensive quote appears to be WP:UNDUE; a brief paraphrase, at most, beyond the ample reference provided seems appropriate. Vttor (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, the paraphrase reads better and is more balanced and representative of Peterffy's view.Kenwg (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)