Talk:Clearstream

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This page need correction, but I'm not a Wikipedia expert and I don't really the limit of POV. If someone more experimented can take a look.

Balanced article?[edit]

This article is extremely biased and should be deleted and a new page started. There a number of topics related to Clearstream beyond a completely skewed list of every rumor associated with Cleartsream for the past 30 years. The current article should essentially be the "controversies" section of a new article, a brief description of the more substantative allegations should be sufficient. I note I did not see any convictions or finding by a court of law or other arbiter referenced in any of the allegations.38.108.103.194 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)JB38.108.103.194 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article now seems a personal litany against Clearstream, based on the findings of some investigative journalists, and ATTAC. The descriptions of the workings of a clearing bank show how little the writer of about 40 amendments to this article understands about finance. The author of the amendments has also added the 'Clearstream equals corruption' theme to many articles (see his/her contributions). Wikipedia is not a forum to publish original research, or to copy allegations of just one publication. There are already enough other forums on the internet for conspiracy theories. Alast0r 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve it, do so. However, Clearstream is a clearing company, and there aren't much in the world. Furthermore, sources are there to show you that the "findings of some investigative journalists, and ATTAC" have been supported by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and that various juridical investigations, some of whom continue to this day, have been started. André Lussi, CEO of Clearstream, was fired after the publication of the book. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research, but this is no original research. It is not either a forum to copy allegations of "just one publication": if you look carefully at the well-referenced list, you will see, as already stated, that apart of reporter Denis Robert who wrote his book with Ernest Backes, former #3 of Clearstream, ATTAC, three MEPs and a pool of "anti-corruption" judges, among whom Eva Joly and Renaud van Ruymbeke have supported these allegations... and, oh, I forgot, conservative newspaper Le Figaro, which started its first article about it a few days before the publication of Robert's book. Conspiracy theory??? What is this silly word? Has somebody talken about a covert plan by a little group to take control over the planet? There is no conspiracy, simply a clearing house which had unpublished bank accounts (which it has recognized), and this is illegal and was used by various banks & firms, some of whom unfamous for other stories. My "lack of understanding about finance" is worth your lack of understanding of money laundering and tax evasion. Tazmaniacs 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you say yourself: various judicial investigations have been started. Where are the convictions? Basing an entire article on allegations and accusations (yes, even from as much as 3 MEP's), just doesn't add up to a balanced article. Furthermore, if certain dodgy banks (BCCI for instance) only had accounts at Cedel/Clearstream and not at Euroclear or other clearing systems, then this says something about Clearstream. If they had accounts everywhere, then this should either be mentioned everywhere or nowhere. The same goes for your adding of links to Clearstream in the article for Argentine Debt Restructuring etc. If clearing and settlement was specific to Clearstream, there might be a case for adding these links. If Argentine debt was cleared through many clearing systems, then the only reason I see for you singling out Clearstream is malicious. Alast0r 21:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the NPOV tag. Please refer to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." In other words, could you specify exactly which part of the article is POV and suggest eventual modifications? The article cites all its sources, and putting a POV tag & then trying to erase these sources is no way to proceed on Wikipedia. The article explains exactly where each information comes from, who says it, in which cases, what are the juridical proceedings. It is a bit more than "allegation" taken out of thin air as you would have it, & they are backed by sources. Concerning your point about the link in the Argentine debt, I'll be pleased to justify it on the Argentine debt talk page. Tazmaniacs 18:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put the NPOV tag back. I'm glad you mentioned the Wikipedia:Citing sources link. Considering the links to blogs that you've added, you clearly fail to understand that adding non verifiable sources is not necessarily NPOV. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and indeed Wikipedia:Libel. Alast0r 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Denis Robert is the investigative report who started all of this, I doubt that refering to his blog, when it is said, goes against Wikipedia. Tazmaniacs 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS:Again, could you please point out exactly which part you consider POV? If not, I don't see how I may help you? Tazmaniacs 02:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Denis Robert's blog is used only two times in the article as a source, and it is explicited as such. Since he played a major role in this affair, it is totally legitimate to use his source. You have accused me in the past of having "malicious" purposes - as if I had any interest in this affair!!!! -- while your accusations are all without any grounding nor sourcing! You put NPOV tag without expliciting which part is concerned, as if the whole article was bullshit, to speak clearly. I don't know who you are, neither do I want to no: this is Wikipedia, and is irrelevant. Now, this affair is of course well known, as indicated above, and as sourced in the article. The current developments concerning the second affair have even forced the media to speak about Denis Robert & the first affair!!! Since I am so "malicious", I will take the pleasure to indicate you this lovely link from this lovely TV, which, as you well know since you seem to know the context, has as main objective "to sell disponible brain time", as did Patrick Le Lay, its CEO, declared: "Les trois niveaux de l'affaire Clearstream". TF1 (tv). May 4, 2006. Retrieved May 5, 2006.. Maybe that source is biased too? Tazmaniacs 15:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article is not a personnal attack against Clearstream. It is a (badly written) summary of many accusations held against Clearstream in the French media. I am afraid they will have a hard time getting out of this controversy, and documenting this episode befits the purpose of an Encyclopedia. However it is clearly out of proportion to the factual information about the firm, mostly due to the French bias of the main contributor to the article. I would not support removing all - but maybe move most of the content to a new Clearstream Affair article. (Because this affair is a separate entity to the firm - largely external to its own doings.) François 12:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support the creation of a Second Clearstream Affair article. I agree that the article is not very clear, this is because it has accumulated lot of information and the thing is quite complex. I think that we may be able to do better if we start the Second Clearstream Affair on the model of the fr:Affaire Clearstream 1 (I purposely directs to the "First Affair", because I don't agree with the way fr:Affaire Clearstream 2 is written; if this English article is a bit too obscure, the French Second Affair is also obscure, with its "heavy" chronology - chronology is important but can't replace an article). I'd like to point out that the vast majority of this article was written before the January events and that each statement is sourced (which is not the case in all Wikipedia articles). Tazmaniacs 13:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Balanced or not, and frankly NPOV or not, the article is very much needed here on eng:Wikipedia, I think. The Clearstream scandal is in the process, this week, not only of bringing down the current French government, but perhaps even ruining its Presidency and its 5th Republic. Understanding all of this from a distance, as any English-speaker has to, is very difficult: particularly the complex bank-clearing background of it -- eng:Wikipedia is performing an invaluable service in hosting it. I encourage AlastOr and other critics here not to let this article founder on the nitpicking of Wikipedia bureaucracy & policy & detail.

Even if it is an imperfect article, that is... I'm going through some English grammar edits of it now. And although it offers good cites already, no such "controversy" piece ever can offer enough: I hope others will add more, as I and I'm sure other readers would like to read them all.

As for shifting the emphasis from "picking on Clearstream" to "neutral reporting" well, yes, I'd like less opinion in this too, but not at the cost of the current article detail: dumbing-down this thing to "facts only" will be pretty difficult for anyone to achieve, as this is a fast-changing news story and all facts in it are hotly-contested by someone involved or in the press. I'm for removing any NPOV tag but definitely leaving it Disputed.

Rather than someone else here imposing her/his own "neutrality" version on the article, then, I'd simply like to see more cites. Let the readers judge. The initial version author has tried his best to be objective -- not too well, but it's still a good report -- yes the world needs bank clearing, but Clearstream is a monopoly or at least part of an oligopoly which has gone too far, maybe, financially and politically -- more cites and info will let the rest of us make our own minds up, rather than simply accept some other author's "neutrality" version.

--Kessler 16:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am going through the article now doing a basic copyedit, slowly -- and section-by-section, in case I hit something controversial and others want to comment/discuss here.

One problem I'm having is repetition in the original text, which is tough to correct on a mere copyedit. Would the original writer pls. tighten this up, for repetition: I think a rewrite in strict chronological order might help -- begin with a "summary", but then do a "history" -- otherwise things get mentioned twice or in some cases 3 times. If you are French and uncomfortable with the English pls don't worry we can clean that up with simple copyediting. But the chronology is something you would know better than the rest of us do.

--Kessler 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK I've finished my copyedit, plus a little re-translation and NPOV work, hopefully without re-writing or distorting meanings. Original author and French experts on all these complex politics etc. please have a look and make corrections as needed, as my own intention really was simply to copyedit. I personally doubt this controversial topic ever can be rendered really "neutral", but I suggest real opinion and bias be confined to the notes -- this already has been done in several places -- rather than put into the text itself. We need to explain the controversies, but we need to get the facts out there too. And there is too much repetition, still (see above), so I hope folks will cut a lot of that back. Lemme know if it needs another copyedit: happy to re-do. This is important stuff, and very difficult to understand: and France is rising or falling on this, at the moment...

--Kessler 00:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transactions[edit]

I find it interesting, Alastor, that you modified Lucy Komisar's claim that ""Clearstream handles more than 100 million transactions and claims to have securities on deposit valued at $10 trillion" (it was sourced, but because of deprecation of cite news, I can't find just now which text from Komisar it refered to) and replaced it by: "It handled 50.0 million transactions and was custodian of securities worth € 7,593 trillion." While I have no particular reason to disbelieve you, a source indicating where this number comes from would be, as always, interesting. Thanks, Tazmaniacs 15:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I just quoted Deutsche Boerse's latest annual report. But I assume Lucy Kosimar, an 'investigative journalist' knows better than audited reports (feel free to implicate the auditors too in any 'wrongdoing' - this seems to be your strategy about anyone who disagree). All 'facts' that you provide on Clearstream eventually come from three sources: Backes, Robert and Kosimar (even your links to the Assemblee Nationale refer back to these). In your edits, Clearstream as an organisation is apparently criminal and the world needs to know. If anyone disagrees (such as the courts) then you suggest they are part of the conspiracy. Pity. What is much more interesting about this very French affaire, is how one part of the political spectrum cynically exploits the French inbred fear of scary, global financial markets, to try to destroy another part. But little word of that. Dommage. I would suggest starting a new page about the Clearstream affair, and describe step by step which accusations were made, and how it was perceived be the public, the courts, politicians, etc. Alast0r 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information Provided[edit]

This article seems to me to be biased indeed : no general history of the company and its managers, no summary of financial numbers, just sections entitled "Accusations", "Clearing" (which contains more accusations), and "Controversy". However, the information that is provided is quite interesting. Perhaps the author, whose English shows unmistakable signs of his/her being a francophone, would be so good as to contribute his/her knowledge to the French version of this article, which seems to have considerably less content. Skaltavista 23:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this need to be scaled back, and POV reduced, when people have time to cull through it. --Epeefleche 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the topic and/or point of this article?[edit]

What's the point of this article? There is no real information about the company, nor the company’s history, nor its founder, no facts regarding its various operations, no reliable figures, nothing!

Instead the article spotlights two supposed affairs of which the company was cleared in both cases. In the first case the supposed affair turned out to be libellous nonsense, but libellous nonetheless. And in the second case, no less libellous, it has been established that the whole case was a French, false flag, political operation. In both cases, as much as the primary bibliographic reference for this article, Denis Robert played a central yet no less dubious role.

Perhaps this article ought to be incorporated in the Denis Robert entry, under libellous affairs involving Denis Robert. Or how about an entry under conspiracy theories involving Clearstream?

This article doesn’t merit being here in its present form unless it is meant to be one more example of how unreliable and nonsensical Wikipedia can be. It certainly doesn't give any idea of what kind of company Clearstream is; but then, luckily, there is link to the company's website for those interested in Clearstream.

(divinus divinum divinat 12:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

I for one would have no problem with you or anyone else shortening the mention of these litigations, or moving them out of the article, but do think that the article should remain, as Clearstream is a company worth noting. --Epeefleche 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

bibliography : ISBN number duplication?[edit]

UPDATE:

What happened to the section on US$1.5 trillion in false assets?

avaiki (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kia orana, greetings all,

just discovered what appears to be an English language version by Denis Roberts on Clearstream. However the ISBN number is the same as the German language version. Searches under that number only return German language versions of the book, so it seems the number has been mistakenly copied ?

ISBN 3-85842-546-X


Alternatively, there is no English language version of the book, and the line should probably be removed or changed to refer to the French original.

jason brown

avaiki 08:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this figure correct? "custodian of securities worth €7,593 trillion." Is there even this much money in the world? -gs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.45.188 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The greatest financial scandal in Luxembourg is a flop"[edit]

. . . .

Could someone please explain why the above section head, in quotes, appears completely without source?

There is no such quote that appears anywhere online, apart from here.

A link to a France2 article goes nowhere.

Curious.

avaiki (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

. . . .

Further to the above, seeing no response to the point I raised, I propose to delete this section if no one comes forward to claim it and verify it.

avaiki (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

. . . .

As per above, I have removed the quote "The greatest financial scandal in Luxembourg is a flop" because there the quote is not linked to anywhere else, and indeed, a google search does not show anything online.

avaiki (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC) . . . .[reply]

References[edit]

This article needs a lot more accessible English references! Chendy (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could not agree more Chendy! An extremely curious feature of this rather vast and ever evolving story is that there is almost no reporting on the real Clearstream story, just the so-called "fake list" side-story. avaiki (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, clarification the paragraph immediately above should have read - there is almost no ENGLISH reporting on the real Clearstream story ... avaiki (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undo deletions by media relations head at clearstream[edit]

. . .

As previously raised, the section dealing with US$1.5 trillion in "false assets" remains missing. A review of the history shows that a number of changes and deletions were made by an editor with the user name Brunorossignol.

These changes are listed below.

Brunorossignol is no longer a Wikipedia editor. A simple Google search for other identities under the same user name includes this LinkedIn profile: http://lu.linkedin.com/pub/bruno-rossignol/10/739/804

The profile, for Bruno Rossignol, states he is:

"Poste actuel •Head of Media Relations at Clearstream "Postes précédents •Head of communication at Exane "•Head of corporate communication at Euronext "•reporter at AFP "voir moins... "Formation•Amherst College "•Institut d'Etudes politiques de Paris "Relations 59 relations Secteur Services financiers"

This appears to show a clear conflict of interest between information deleted here on Wikipedia and his role as PR for Clearstream. I would value guidance from more experienced editors about whether these changes and deletions should be put onto an Undo list. If, as previously, there is no response to my inquiry here on the Clearstream Talk Page, I will proceed with the undo myself.

LIST OF CHANGES BY Brunorossignol

  1. (cur | prev) 14:47, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (55,850 bytes) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 14:43, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (55,583 bytes) (→The Second Clearstream Affair) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 14:30, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (78,878 bytes) (→Nadhmi Auchi, largest private share-holder of BNP Paribas bank) (undo)
  4. (cur | prev) 14:28, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (78,932 bytes) (→Refusal of the European Commission to open an investigation: 20 Minutes ' revelations) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
  5. (cur | prev) 14:26, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (79,159 bytes) (→Judicial investigations & libel lawsuits) (undo)
  6. (cur | prev) 14:21, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (81,786 bytes) (→Secret accounts and the workings of 21st century economics) (undo)
  7. (cur | prev) 14:15, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (85,933 bytes) (→"The greatest financial scandal in Luxembourg") (undo)
  8. (cur | prev) 14:14, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (85,923 bytes) (→"The greatest financial scandal in Luxembourg") (undo)
  9. (cur | prev) 14:08, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (85,987 bytes) (→Daewoo shutdown inquiries) (undo)
  10. (cur | prev) 14:07, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (85,958 bytes) (→Clearstream's dominant position) (undo)
  11. (cur | prev) 14:05, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (85,826 bytes) (→Accusations) (undo)
  12. (cur | prev) 13:59, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (85,250 bytes) (→"$1.5 trillion math errors") (undo)
  13. (cur | prev) 13:55, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (85,745 bytes) (→Eurodollars) (undo)
  14. (cur | prev) 13:52, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (86,660 bytes) (→Clearing) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
  15. (cur | prev) 13:36, 12 May 2009 Brunorossignol (talk | contribs) (86,990 bytes) (→Accusations) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

Avaiki (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious. Regardless of whether the two people are in fact the same person, nobody should be allowed to remove sourced notable information from any article. If necessary, if there is excessive focus on certain aspects of an issue/company/person, then a sub article can be made, to ensure the main page doesn't get too big and remains a useful summary page. But although it is good to consult other WP editors about proposed changes, it is also valid to use your common sense and be bold! I vote you go forth and re-add the useful information. Chendy (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Chendy! As a new user/editor I am stepping very carefully, lest I blunder into areas about which "I know nothing" ... as has been my practice in years past, to my cost! I hear you on the sub articles and keeping articles to a "useful summary". This will become increasingly important as we digest the Cour de Cassation decision last week ending 10 years of defamation claims by Clearstream against Denis Robert, whose allegations are among those deleted. Thanks again for your time, be bold reminder - and vote! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaiki (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+ 1 for re-add relevant info. Chendy (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose move Clearstream Affair[edit]

I propose that the long section on the Clearstream Affair, which dominates this article, should be moved to a separate article (with a summary in this one). It takes up too much of this article. Ben Finn (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clearstream. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClearStream HD TV Antennas[edit]

  • www.antennasdirect.com/store/clearstream-tv-antennas.html
  • www.antennasdirect.com/clearstream-tv-wireless-tuner.html
"All ClearStream HD TV Antennas are designed and optimized for new digital television frequencies."
"Turn your TV antenna into a wireless antenna and record your network shows! Connect ClearStream TV to your home WiFi network to watch live, local broadcast TV with your favorite streaming media player and/or iOS and Android smartphones or tablets, anywhere in your home. Pause and rewind live TV for up to 1 hour, ..."

This article needs a longer title to disambiguate from other general uses of the word Clearstream. Should there be a disambig page? How to appropriately acknowledge in WP the existence of ClearStream HD TV Antennas?-73.61.15.248 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clearstream&oldid=1206717844"