User talk:GabrielF: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2010/December; 2011/January; 2011/February; 2011/March; 2011/April; 2011/May; 2011/June; 2011/July; 2011/August; 2011/September; 2011/October; 2011/November; 2011/December; 2012/January; 2012/February; 2012/March; 2012/April; 2012/May; 2012/June; 2012/July; 2012/August; 2012/September; 2012/October; 2012/November; 2012/December; 2013/January; 2013/February; 2013/March; 2013/April; 2013/May; 2013/June; 2013/July; 2013/August; 2013/September; 2013/October; 2013/November; 2013/December; 2014/January; 2014/February; 2014/March; 2014/April; 2014/May; 2014/June; 2014/July; 2014/August; 2014/October; 2014/November; 2014/December; 2015/January; 2015/February; 2015/March; 2015/July; 2015/September; 2015/November; 2016/January; 2016/February; 2016/April; 2016/June; 2016/July; 2016/November; 2016/December; 2017/February; 2017/May; 2017/June; 2017/November; 2017/December; 2018/March; 2018/April; 2018/May; 2018/June; 2018/August; 2018/November; 2018/December; 2019/January; 2019/March; 2019/April; 2019/June; 2019/August; 2019/October; 2019/November; 2019/December; 2020/August; 2020/November; 2021/February; 2021/June; 2021/November; 2022/May; 2022/November; 2023/March; 2023/June; 2023/July; 2023/November; 2023/December; 2024/March;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:33, 9 August 2014

Please create a new section at the bottom so that your comments can be picked up by the archive bot.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, this is the fellow who was changing the Gaza Tunnel page the passed few days. Earlier I edited the page again and after the edit I clicked the reference I had disputed. Previously when click I came to a page that was clearly not the page the #9 references - so apparently someone changed the #9 to now reference the subsription only page. For 3 days when I clicked the original link it took me to a completely different website and the page (if I remember right) had been not totally deleted but the information had been removed.

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 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 I still dispute source #4 because it relied on the previous link for source #9 and that previous source to #9 does not exist.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. While Im not completely please, 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.