Talk:Jewish Care

lord levy is one of the most powerful men in the uk -- his links w/ jewish care and comments on the fundraising skills he honed there r obviously worthy of note. Jamaissur

Sorry, I can't understand what you're saying here. Please try English. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Levy clearly constitutes poisoning the well regardless of how powerfull the man is.

or in your language: Levy Jew plague big no matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

not quite: it's 'lvy jw plgue bg no mttr'. Jamaissur 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

inevitable development

sadly, people, the inevitable has happened: one of britain's most notorious far-right publications has pounced on the trivial link between patrons of jewish care and the 'cash for peerages' contretemps:

The scandal has also thrown a rare shaft of light on to the private world of Lord Levy and his web of connections with business and charities. They show that many of the Labour lenders had initially been donors to Lord Levy's favourite charities, such as the Community Service Volunteers, Jewish Care and the NSPCC. Three of the 12 who gave Labour loans -- Andrew Rosenfield, Barry Townsley and Sir David Garrard -- are also patrons of Jewish Care. The Aryan Advertiser

typical 'conspiracy theory' drivel, but all the same it's touching that three goyim should feel such concern for the british-jewish community, am i right? jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

That doesn't need to be mentioned on this page, unless Jewish Care itself has been involved, e.g. its offices used as meeting places or its bank accounts for transferring money. Stop your sickening campaign. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian and other british papers, read by millions of people, thought the link worth mentioning despite the absence of those factors. is that sickening? jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

The Guardian wasn't writing an article about Jewish Care. This is an article about Jewish Care. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

plea

can i plead with those whose only special interest is to maintain the highest possible standards at wikipedia not to restore blatant errors by thoughtless reversion? this did not meet the h.p.s.:

"In the 2004/2005 financial year Jewish Care's expenditure was £55 million, employing 1060 full-time equivalent staff."

jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

"Three notable patrons of the charity"

Why on earth would this belong in the article? I'm sure tens of thousands of people have contributed in some way to Jewish Care; are we now going to list every one who was also involved in a scandal? Has a criminal record? Picked his nose? Please leave smearing trivia out of articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read the "inevitable development" section above. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

They were described as "patrons" which indicates much more notability than any minor donor so is notable. I am sure you wouldn't mind adding any other notable patrons to other charities articles so please don't make special rules for this one. Arniep 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact I am not sure patrons of charities have necessarily made large donations, it seems to be an official position within a charity reserved for celebrities/businesspeople/politicians etc. Arniep 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

question for jay et al

excuse me please: with my goyishe kop i have difficulty understanding why e.g. sir david garrard can be mentioned as a notable patron on this page AND by jewish care itself, but not on his own page. pls explain, typing slowly. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

excuse me please: with my goyishe kop i still have difficulty understanding why e.g. sir david garrard can be mentioned as a notable patron on this page AND by jewish care itself, but not on his own page. pls explain. (i do have a goyishe kop, so what's uncivil about saying so?). jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}