Talk:Claims Conference

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

To the anon who say (s)he is Communications Director for the Claims Conference: If you think that there is misleading and/or incomplete information in this article, then please tell us what it is. But please do not just remove properly sourced informantion; that is not the way Wikipedia works. Thank you. Huldra 00:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism is entirely out of context. An organization that has accomplished, and continues to accomplish, as much as the Claims Conference inevitably will be criticized. Just because a criticism appears in a newspaper does not mean it is balanced or well-researched. I am not interested in prolonging this issue, but just in having the Claims Conference represented fairly. This is the last time I plan to engage in this issue. User hillkess, Aug. 9, 2006.

The offending paragraph only takes up a small portion of this article, so, contrary to your claim, the article does seem to put the criticism in the context you claim you want. Your idea of 'balanced' coverage seems to be the complete eradication of any and all critical content.

Your only other apparent complaint appears to be that this claim *could* be false, but you seem to shy away from actually claiming that it *is*. For starters, the article doesn't claim that the Jewish Chronicle article is true, it merely reports on what the Chronicle said about the Claims Conference. If, say, the Claims Conference gave out a press release denying the allegations, that would no doubt belong in the article too.

Removing mention of a fact merely because it's sourced from a newspaper article is ludicrous. If Wikipedia was to do that, it might as well delete huge swathes of it's coverage. Most respectable print newspapers (and the Jewish Chronicle doesn't seem to have a worse reputation than any other similar journal) employ some sort of procedure for fact-checking which gives them some grounds for credibility. Newspapers do frequently get things wrong of course, but in that case, you should point us at sourced information that contradicts the report. If there was any real controvery over the facts stated in the article, I would expect the communications director of this organisation (who has apparently posted on Wikipedia, and may even be you) to be able to point at some form of refutation or rebuttal. The fact that no rebuttal of any substance at all has appeared, despite the obvious participation here of members of the Claims Conference, is highly suggestive. --Aim Here 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised that this article is so short; one would expect a much longer article about such a high-profile organization, and it is also surprising that there doesn't seem to be any controversy about it (the salaries of high-ranking officials of non-profit organizations are always criticized by someone), although thinking of what could be read in international newspapers and magazines over the past 10 years I would have thought that there have been prominent criticis of the activities of the Claims Conference, amongst others Finkelstein, of course. I would have expected that the article would try to discuss the critical allegations objectively, but now I find that they aren't even mentioned. Another point: doesn't the history section need to say something about the historico-political context of the foundation act? In my opinion it doesn't suffice to say that Nahum Goldmann was a prominent figure. To me it seems to be much more important to mention that it was upon the suggestion of the German government in 1951 (Konrad Adenauer) that an organization was created in order to serve as a partner in the negotiations with the German government about how to handle the Jewish international claims against Germany (the claims of the state of Israel were settled on a different level). It was an express wish of the German goverment to have to do with some sort of central agency instead of thousands of individuals and organizations.141.91.129.5 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if YOU can add to the article, please do so, although some of what you're saying above (the mention of Finkelstein or Adenhauer's suggestion) would need to be put in the context of this specific organization - you'd need to find something Finkelstein actually said about this particular organisation, not just that he's the kind of guy who'd badmouth it! As for the criticism, I think the article does neutrally discuss the few criticisms (or refutations thereof) that have been brought to wikipedia's attention - a member, or members, of the organization did come to this page, but after failing to delete sourced information, they just stormed off instead of pointing us at anything they, or others, have said in defence of it... --Aim Here 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since my mother tongue is not English (I only learnt English at school and spent a year as an exchange student in the U.S., but all that happened more than 30 years ago) I don't feel up to writing in the English Wikipedia. My comment/question was meant to exhort others who have both the knowledge and the linguistic ability to add some information to the article that would make it - in my view - more comprehensive.141.91.129.3 11:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.4 m Euro fraud by members of the JCC

The FBI arrested 7 members of the JCC lately because of manipulating CVs of Jews to claim refunds worth 1.4 m EUR. This is missing in the article. --77.4.56.203 (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fraud convictions

At least 31 convictions for fraud so far including two senior CC employees. See this and this and the articles they link to. Zero^talk 12:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Claims Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]