User talk:GabrielF

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

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.

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.32.104 (talk) 09:33, 9 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)