Talk:Philipp Hildebrand

Erroneous citation of documents presented by P.H.

"He issued a statement that included copies of E-Mails between his wife, himself, and his banker, showing that he was aware of the controversial trade and did request that it be immediately cancelled." The documents rather indicate that he DID NOT request that the transaction be immediately cancelled. At the second press conference on Jan 9 he actually stated that this was the only reproach he made himself: that he had not asked for the reversal of the transaction immediately. He requested, however, that in the future such transaction be not made without his prior consent. --Krol:k (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Smear campaign"

A running edit war on an intro line which says the whole reason for the resignation is such a campaign by Christoph Blocher is underway in the article. The line which keeps being inserted seems pure opinion, and is backed by no citation. Blocher's role had already been noted in the body of the article and will/can be expanded upon there. Hildebrand's accusation of a smear campaign also was already in the body of the article (and predates the resignation). Meanwhile, this post can be an alert that some IP-only editors (or the whole story) may have to be restricted while this story moves through its current moment. Swliv (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It actually was backed by a citation the first time it was inserted, but to me (and apparently some others too) it still seemed POV. 89.217.200.183 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, 89. I agree re: POV in a general sense; have it addressed it, with further thoughts, with one of the other parties. You were there already and I agreed with you there, too. Thanks again.

I wanted this here in case the warring kept going. Various admin steps can be taken if repeated non-responsive abuses seem to be overwhelming the article. Glad you found it. Swliv (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The warring ... continues. My effort linked to above now has to be accessed here. ... We shall see. Swliv (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The latest edit by 188..IP did provide a ref, per my request. [1] It's a reliable source, Die Zeit, but I'm worried it doesn't back up the edit (i.e. makes a declarative statement that Blocher set the subject up). I've added a request at WikiProject Germany for a German reader to verify the source. (Google translate gives me something resembling abstract poetry). This statement should probably stay out until the ref is verified. The Interior (Talk) 21:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That ref seems to say there is little case to answer - and that Christoph Blocher has on a "campaign" to remove him. Clearly there have been transactions by his wife and he has resigned, I would just say something simple in the lede and expands any opinions about it in the body. Technically he apparently has not broken any swiss bank rules but Mr Blocher has campaigned about it loudly and the subject has stepped down to preserve the integrity of the bank not because of any acceptance of illegality. The IP apparently and imo unduly in the lede wants to focus any responsibility for the resignation on to Blocher's campaign. Youreallycan (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Swiss relief over Hildebrand’s resignation - Financial times 10 Jan

• Currently as per sources, - There is no way that the smear campaign assertion should remain in the lede if replaced. Youreallycan (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see all this. I made only a quick scan of the article today; quite a bit brand new; but we're maybe "over the hump". Thanks to all. Swliv (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing image

I found the big, very red "Missing Image" with "Help find one"+- (imperative; in blue I think) in the box way too domineering on the page. I like the box but I took "Missing image.png" out of the "image=" line. Could it be made it smaller, at least, if it's still felt needed? I could live without anything. We know an image would be nice. Yes, I'm nursing a headache but that's my feeling of the moment. :-) Swliv (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to remove it on sight. Awful it looked, there is no evidence that they help either. Youreallycan 21:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I need your help regarding my stolen inheritance funds that was stolen by Thomas j Jordan

I need your help regarding my stolen inheritance funds 196.21.61.109 (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/three-trustees-appointed-to-the-british-museum. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)