|WikiProject Switzerland||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Non-free content concerns
Copyright concerns about this article were raised at the talk page of the Wikipedia copyright problems board. I have susbtantiated that at least some content has been copied directly. For example, the article says:
To summarise, it is apparent that the claims of surviving Holocaust victims were usually rejected under the pretext of banking secrecy and a clear preference for continuity in private law.
All in all, the investigations by the ICE,..., have made two things clear: first, the volume of the assets of Holocaust victims was much larger than the banks maintained or believed immediately after the war and after the Registration Decree of 1962.
Second, however, it should also be stated that the pace of growth in the Swiss financial sector was in no way dependent on the unclaimed assets that it retained. The amounts involved were too small for this. The image of a banking system that built its wealth on assets expropriated from victims of the Nazi regime is not based on the facts.
The source says:
To summarise, it is apparent that the claims of surviving Holocaust victims were usually rejected under the pretext of banking secrecy and a clear preference for continuity in private law ...All in all, the investigations by the ICE, which are borne out by the findings of the «Volcker Committee», have made two things clear: first, the volume of the assets of Holocaust victims was much larger than the banks maintained or believed immediately after the war and after the Registration Decree of 1962. ...Second, however, it should also be stated that the pace of growth in the Swiss financial sector was in no way dependent on the unclaimed assets that it retained. The amounts involved were too small for this. The image of a banking system that built its wealth on assets expropriated from victims of the Nazi regime is not based on the facts.[456-457]
The information is cited, but citation is insufficient to address plagiarism of directly duplicated content and, as this content is copyrighted © Pendo Verlag GmbH, Zürich 2002, it is also violation of our policy regarding non-free content to duplicate without acknowledging duplication either by quotation marks or blockquote. Moreover, quotations must be used transformatively; if we simply abridge their report, we are creating a derivative work.
I do not know if this is the only instance of this. This unmarked quote should be brought in line with policy, preferably by proper paraphrase. The rest of the article should be reviewed by contributors familiar with its contents to see if other quotations have been used out of keeping with our policies and guidelines or if close paraphrasing exists that may cross the line into abridgment.
If in spite of the copyright notice the content can be verified to be public domain or compatibly licensed, we can use their text directly, but only if we acknowledge the copying as set out at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is just a short note to indicate that I am noting the issue. I will look more carefully at it during the next couple of days when I have a little more time. I am aware that there are special issues when an article in effect is about a single report which has been little commented on.Joel Mc (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This article does not at all address the large amount of criticism that this report has recieved. It reads very much like a very uncritical reproduction of the main findings / summary of the report. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that the article gives a fair account of the report. But I do agree that critical views of the report should be included. The problem is that it is difficult to find what you indicate to be "a large amount". Five years after the publication of the report, Bergier expressed his disappointment as follows: "We believed we had done honourable work. We were expecting more discussion or even unfair criticism, which was not the case apart from a few hardliners. But this remained marginal." A google search confirms this. It is hard to take seriously, let alone provide a forum for, the statement from the nationalist People's Party (SVP) which described the report as a whitewash, with the SVP's Oskar Freysinger describing it as "a pseudo-historical work ordered up by the World Jewish Congress". Peoples Party criticism Serious criticism can be found in a article by Lambelet which was based on interim reports and was published in January 2001 before the Final Report was issued in March 2002.Lambelet The final report included responses to some of Lambelet's criticisms. Lambelet could be included under criticism.Joel Mc (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bergier commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130628135551/http://www.sgg-ssh.ch/material/intern/Fivaz_Referat.pdf to http://www.sgg-ssh.ch/material/intern/Fivaz_Referat.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527113731/http://www.pcha.gov/PlunderRestitution.html/html/Home_Contents.html to http://www.pcha.gov/PlunderRestitution.html/html/Home_Contents.html
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.