User talk:GabrielF/Archives/2014/August

Council on Foreign Relations
I'm not sure what your comment about "not being a reliable source" means. This organization is well known to be controversial. I expected the Wikipedia page to present numerous points of view, for and against. Instead it seems that there is no controversy surrounding the Council of Foreign Relations. How do we decide what is a reliable source? Do we not allow for differing viewpoints? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.68.3 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does Perloff's book fail the test? The document you cite says that non-neutral sources can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.68.3 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip
Hi, this is the fellow who was changing the Gaza Tunnel page the past few days. A few hours ago I again edited the page again. After the edit I clicked the reference (#9) I had disputed. Previously when clicked I came to a page that contained no information, tonight when I clicked I came to a page that was clearly not the page the #9 referenced when I was making the edits over the last few days.

This was the link #9 lead to previous to the recent change - http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=11424&jid=1&href=fulltext if clicked this is the message displayed in the page - The requested page "/journals.aspx?id=11424&jid=1&href=fulltext" could not be found." --- Clearly I was correct to want to edit the page as the link was not leading to information the link and claims referenced. The report about children dying in Gaza tunnels is titled "Gaza's Tunnel Phenomenon: The Unintended Dynamics of Israel's Siege" but that report is not found anywhere on the internet.

Tonight #9 leads to a completely new and different page - so apparently someone changed the #9 reference between my edit from yesterday and my edit a few hours ago. Now the #9 reference links to a subscription only page. When I made the last edit I did not check the reference before editing. Once I edited this last time and then re-clicked the #9 reference link and saw a new and supposedly valid reference (supposedly valid as anyone without a subscription cannot verify the source) I undid my edit.

I still dispute the accuracy of the page as there is NO free source that can verify the claims about Palestinian children dying and as already said the report "Gaza's Tunnel Phenomenon: The Unintended Dynamics of Israel's Siege" is found nowhere on the internet. ''

I still dispute source #4 because it relies on the previously linked source and the report " Gaza's Tunnel Phenomenon: The Unintended Dynamics of Israel's Siege"- source #4 refers to this study, the study from the link above that is non-existent. Now the only proof for source #9 is a subscription based site and all the claims within #4 refer to the "Gaza's Tunnel Phenomenon: The Unintended Dynamics of Israel's Siege" study. There is no way to corroborate the information claimed by either #4 or #9 source.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. While Im not completely pleased, for reasons stated above, it is good to know people on Wiki are working to ensure edits, concerns, etc are looked into.

I am "BobIsntHere" on Reddit fwiw. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.32.104 (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the link in the citation from a dead link to the journal's website to a stable JSTOR link. In this case there was enough information in the citation (journal name, issue and volume number, title, author and page numbers) to allow readers to identify the source even with a dead link. Wikipedia often uses academic journal articles that are not free to the public, and Wikipedia policy explicitly permits this (see WP:PAYWALL) for the specific policy. In fact many articles, particularly in areas like medicine, rely heavily on academic journal articles that are behind paywalls. GabrielF (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Resource request.
Hi

I wonder if you can help and locate the resource for the quote "all Jews are Zionists and enemies of the state". Following this discussion. I have found that according to this the source should be "New York World Telegram November 26 and 29 1956" do you library have this newspaper archive?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Moore
You wrote:

"I explained the reasons why your edits are problematic at length"

And I just refuted them. Now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"editors are not supposed to come up with their own reasons why a source is wrong"

I did not "come up with my own reasons." I presented facts that directly refute Moore's assertions.

"You have to cite a reliable source that explicitly disagrees with Moore"

I have now provided three: Mark Zandi, Aparna Mathur/Sita Slavov and official BLS data. And yet you still chose to delete the edit in its entirety.

"You're looking at the two sources (Moore and AEI) and drawing a conclusion that neither source explicitly states (that Moore is wrong because of the volatility in part-time employment)."

Moore in fact did say "clearly Obamacare." I have now provided two sources, Mark Zandi and Aparna Mathur/Sita Slavov, both of which specifically mention Obamacare or ACA

"your contributions give undue weight to one or a few op-ed pieces"

This is patently false.

"Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize a subject, not to go into exhaustive detail on relatively minor aspects of that subject"

In fact, countless thousands of WP articles go into exhaustive details because that is often necessary to sufficiently expound on a matter. My edits are not verbose, they are succinct and use only as many words as necessary to sufficiently explain the matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis"

My editing is not disruptive. It is 100% factual and non-prejudicial. I provided factual data to support my edits. You may find the edits "disruptive" simply because you do not like the facts they present.

By contrast, you engaged in wholesale, indiscriminate deletions of my edits. Moreover, you changed one of my edits to fundamentally alter its meaning in a misleading way, by changing what had been a clear determination of fact into a mere "disagreement" between parties. People are free to disagree on opinions or beliefs, but they are not free to disagree on facts.

Kindly refrain from any more wholesale, indiscriminate deletions of my edits and fundamentally changing the meaning of my edits in misleading ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with much of what you're writing. The problem is that it's original synthesis and it isn't something that Wikipedia publishes. I explained the reasons why your edits are problematic at length. Please address these concerns. GabrielF (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to post a response to my comment, please post it under my comment and indent it using colons. If you just modify your original post it's very difficult for me to keep track of what's new. GabrielF (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote:

"Zuckerman wrote a July 15, 2013 Wall Street Journal opinion piece, 'A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery'. Despite the title of that piece, as of the date of that article, 7.2 million private sector jobs had been created over the preceding 40 consecutive months of positive private sector growth"
 * That is original research and it's unacceptable. Even if you can cite the number of private jobs created you cannot make a claim that Moore is wrong in the voice of Wikipedia. You have to use a source that explicitly addresses Moore's op-ed. GabrielF (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am providing actual data to refute Zuckerman's assertion of purported fact. I suppose I could instead cite a blog post (I know of one) that also refutes his assertion, but that would be merely "he said/he said" and it is decidedly inferior to actual data that refutes him, provided directly from the authoritative source, the BLS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * do you believe that this article would be better to refute Zuckerman, in which it states:

"It's impossible to briefly sum up Zuckerman's argument — "The Full-Time Scandal of Part-Time America" — which is a collage of bad stats and randomly drawn lines of causality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow contributors to refute arguments using their own interpretation of data. Please read WP:NOR carefully, specifically the section on original synthesis. While the BLS is an authoritative source, you are (quite frankly) just an anonymous person on the Internet. Presumably others could look at BLS data and draw different conclusions. What Wikipedia does is provide a neutral summary of how different sources describe a topic. The post from the Atlantic is an ok source, although you need to attribute the opinion to the author.GabrielF (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not using "my own interpretation of data." The BLS data I provided are, in every case, clear, unambiguous and not subject to alternative interpretations. The data are plainly factual. Perhaps you are not personally familiar with this type of data, so you wonder if it might be subject to manipulation, but professional economic data analysts know that these data are clear, unambiguous and not subject to alternative interpretations. They are simply facts.

I submit that the actual factual data is vastly superior to an Atlantic blog post. If users simply relied on blog posts, WP would become nothing more than an aggregation site of blog citations, and this would be of little value in determining facts and reality. The raw data I provide is vastly superior. Do not knock it simply because you personally do not understand it, as the regular readers of Moore's and Zuckerman's work are likely to understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for helping rein things in over at Stephen Moore. Cheers. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the fact that you created the Club for Growth Action article (Moore founded CFG), there is good reason to suspect that you do not have fair and noble motivations for making wholesale deletions of my edits to Moore's article, so I once again say to you: I must insist that you immediately cease and desist making wholesale deletes of my edits simply because they pose inconvenient facts to you. rather, you should provide your own edits to show that Moore's statements are factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs)
 * Around here we assume editors are acting in good faith. GabrielF (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That assumption might be justified for users who do not repeatedly make wholesale, indiscriminate deletions of another user's edits, as well as altering another user's edit to fundamentally change its meaning in a misleading manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Safehaven86, immediately cease and desist your wholesale deletions of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)