Talk:Bergier commission

message: 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:
The source says:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Non-free content concerns

message: 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. -- 188.155.1.133 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The lemma fails to state, that the refugee policy wasn't constant over time. No word about the time before 1941. How many Jews harbored Switzerland in total and how many were sent back? From my understanding it were more Jews than any other nation.--178.193.39.223 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified