Talk:World Jewish Congress lawsuit against Swiss banks

message: umm..  why flag this and leave no message?
Bababoef 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag?

message: deleted expressindia link.  this is a secondary source which relies exclusively on the eisenstat report (compiled by the US goverment from internal sources only), which was seen as politically motivated and highly disputed by historians in academia.  this link is especially not necessary because the primary source (the Eisenstat report) is already included directly as a link.
Bababoef  7 May 07
title was changed.  the beneficiaries of the lawsuit were not all "jews" and the depositors were not all "murdered".  the only requirement to enter the class action was to claim to be the owner or be the heir of an owner of a dormant wartime account.  this included many victims of nazi persecution who fled and lived through the holocaust.
Bababoef  7 May 07
::and who evidently made no effort, in a span of fifty years, to recover their alleged deposits.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted link

message: The article states that the deposits were made before and during the Second World War.  By the time this lawsuit was filed in 1995, the war had been over, and Nazi Germany destroyed, for 50 years.  The author needs to explain why, in 50 years time, the owners of the accounts could not have demanded the return of their money and received, and why, since they did not, the money should not have escheated to the government.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Information and Explanation Needed

message: So, without a death certificate, how is the bank supposed to know the depositor is dead?  Just because someone shows up and demands the money?  And how did the victims' families deal with real estate, insurance, and other property in other countries, for which proof of death was required?John Paul Parks (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: No Death Certificates

message: I've reverted the move of this article from "World Jewish Congress lawsuit against Swiss banks" to "In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation" because the move was made unilaterally, without discussion, and therefore without consensus.  I feel that the name it was moved to is not as appropriate, and somewhat "buries" the article in a non-obvious title, whereas the original name is straight-forward.
Since I've reverted a non-consensus move, it should not be moved back without a full RM discussion on this talk page, which can be initiated by the editor who made the unilateral move at any time.  It cannot be moved via a simple request at WP:Requested moves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor moved it back without discussion, so I've reverted, and will be requesting move protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to propose a move discussion, and I no longer want to work on this article. Moving an article for a law case to the actual name of the law case does not "bury" it in a non-obvious title. I really want this editor Beyond My Ken to respect that I keep switching articles to avoid him and give me some space.Seraphim System (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part, readers of Wikipedia are not lawyers, they are people from every walk of life.  Lawyers may find the titles of law cases to be the best title for our articles, but real people will look for something more intuitive. I do not consider the title of this article to be sacrosanct, there probably is a better one-- perhaps even the one that Seraphim System prefers -- but that decision, to move the title of an article about a controversial subject, needs to be determined by an RM discussion, and not by a unilateral decision by a single editor.As for my giving Seraphim System "space" and his "switching articles" to avoid me, I would point out that our areas of interest appear to overlap considerably, and would also note that I currently have 1,992 article on my watchlist, so it seems inevitable that we will cross paths again.  I am not dogging Seraphim System's footsteps, I have not purused their contributions looking for a confrontation, but I will say that their recent comments on Talk:Holocaust denial#Use of primary sources in this article -- in which they called the respected Holocaust research institute Yad Vashem "disreputable" -- and their edits on The Holocaust Industry and comments on Talk:The Holocaust Industry#Reparations -- in which they removed all criticism of a very controversial book, and then tried to justify the edits -- certainly have given me pause to consider whether Seraphim System might not be pursuing an agenda.  I do not have the time at this moment to look into that, but if I see more indications that their editing is motivated by a POV, then I will be looking into their contribution list to see if there is anything of concern there - that's the whole reason that contribution lists are open to everyone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest if you have a complaint you post it in an appropriate forum, instead of reverting non-controversial page moves. And do strike your vague comment  — if you are not willing to say what you think that agenda is, equivocation does not really improve the comment. Either articulate the accusation clearly and post the evidence that you have for it, or stop. I posted numerous sources that show well-respected scholars consider Yad Vashem to be an agency of the Israeli government with a limited legal mandate — the fact that you keep referring to it as a "respected Holocaust research institute" is opinion, the fact that it is a state agency is a fact. Pretty much every state institution should be attributed, if not clearly identified as a state institution, but editors have POV about this so I left that article to do something else. And that is no excuse for your conduct here. This is a really important article about Holocaust survivors, and I hope you are planning to improve it, because I am not going to. If you think you have a legitimate complaint, make it, but do not sabotage improvement of articles you have never even worked on.Seraphim System (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: {Response to the original version of SS's comment , before they changed it )You see, it was not "non-controversial" move, because an editor -- me -- disputed it, and you therefore knew it was controvsersial, when you moved it back again.As for the rest of what you say: you chose this public forum to make the claim that I was causing you to "switch articles" to "avoid me" and find "some space". (You were more straight-forward on my talk page, where you right out called it "WP:HOUNDING" ) so I have every right to defend myself from that accusation, right here, where you made those remarks.If I do come across evidence that you are editing with a POV agenda, you can rest assured that I will report it at a more public place, such as AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and for the record: in that discussion on Talk:Holocaust denial, you started off talking serious trash about Yad Vashem (and the Anti-Defamation League), but every single response you got -- except one editor -- pointed out how utterly wrong you were, then you backed way off, and basically claimed you never said any of the things you clearly had said.  You weren't driven off that article, you sulked away with your tail between your legs because you were wrong, and had been shown to be wrong, but you couldn't admit you were wrong.  Instead, you ascribed it all to other editors having "strong opinions" about Yad Vashem, just as you're trying to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Either post diffs of this or stop. I don't want to talk about Yad Vashem. Please stop following me to new articles and ranting about Yad Vashem. Please. I don't think moving this page to the name of the case was POV. So while it is true that  I actually do keep that in mind when editing, but in this case I also think "Holocaust victim asset litigation" is more descriptive than "World Jewish Congress" by a factor of magnitude...Please honor my request and allow me to edit, I am really trying to end this dispute...yes I  and then you followed me here to tell me I . I am really trying to be civil by switching articles because I largely do not want to be berated by you, Please leave me be.Seraphim System (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Holocaust victim asset litigation" might be a better title, but that's not what you moved it to.  You moved it to In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, which is not a better title, as it won't show up in the dropdown search box results if you put in "Holocaust victim asset litigation" in the search box.You do what you have to do, but don't expect brownie points because you created a huge controversy out of thin air with thousands of bytes and hours of people's time utterly wasted, and then said "Well, never mind" and went somewhere else to create the same kind of controversy there.  That's not being "civil" that's sucking all the air our of consecutive rooms and leaving the editors there exhausted, while you go merrily on your way.Here's a tip, free of charge, one that I think you'll find really useful: If you don't want to talk about a subject, stop posting about the subject.  Juat drop it and go away, don't keep trying to get in the last word so you can continue to pat yourself on the back for how "civil" you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some facts about me: I think long opinion quotes make articles less engaging, less interesting and less readable. I think citations should be precise, and dead links maintained and updated. I am more interested in working on and reading articles where high quality academic references are used, that cite their sources, because I think this is an important measure of a high-quality source. That is my editing style, you have your own. But, removing UNDUE long quotes that don't add anything to the article is not a "POV agenda" (even if you invoke Yad Vashem over and over again). Please do not use article talk pages to make public announcements about me in the third person, as in where you said  — it is both strange and not what article talk pages are for. I know from your talk page that you feel  but I happen to think MOS:QUOTE is a good guideline and should be followed, that it reflects a community consensus and is correct regarding . I also consider it a solid justification for removal. This "discussion" is over.Seraphim System (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the discussion between you and I is over -- for the moment -- but other editors might want to join in, so your ex cathedra proclamation is rather rhetorically empty.You do know that simply claiming "I don't like it" is really not sufficient reason to remove something, and, factually, the "long quote" you removed from The Holocaust Industry was a middling-sized paragraph, not long at all, and certainly not a candidate for UNDUE.As for the other, I was simply giving you fair warning.  I hope that you are an editor with no agenda except to improve Wikipedia, but if I do run across any other evidence that you aren't, I will bring it to the community's attention.  That's nobody's fault but your own, you created the situation on Talk:Holocaust denial, continued it on Talk:The Holocaust Industry, and are even exacerbating it here a bit, by continuing to deny that your behavior concerning Yad Vashem was a concern, when it was a significant concern to a good number of editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I moved it to the correct name of the case, this article had not been edited since 2016 so I don't think anyone else is going to join in, but I guess it is possible. I don't really care about Yad Vashem, that is why this is wearing me out — you are insisting there is some connection between Yad Vashem and moving a law article to its correct title, or trying to remove a long standing POV section template that was added by other editors, saying  — what behavior? Do you know how many times HRW is challenged as a source for being "biased" or any number of other organizations, every day? There is nothing wrong with that, editors are free to express these types of concerns — The other discussions I've had about Yad Vashem on other articles have resolved amicably — check out Talk:Bricha#Yad_Vashem_as_a_source — and I don't see any other editors following me around to revert my edits, just you, it seems that everyone but you is done with the Holocaust denial discussion.Seraphim System (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They certainly weren't "resolved amicably" on Talk: Holocaust denial.  In fact, you were rather pilloried, a lesson that seems not to have reached you.  Incidentally, if I ever do start "following you around to revert your edits" -- which I haven't, you can repeat that claim until you're blue in the face, and it still won't be true, see WP:HARASSMENT -- it will only be for a damn good reason, and I won't do it privately, my reasons will be announced on the noticeboards, and you will have to answer for them.  I hope it never comes to that, and you can see your way clear to editing without the bias that I am starting to see hints of at the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of title