Talk:Claims Conference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)