Talk:Welfare fraud

Norwegian fraud example

I have boldly removed the following, because it makes clear the case is pending. To describe it as welfare fraud before the case is finalized is speculative. When I have a moment I will check if the case is resolved, or anyone else can do this in the mean time. if proven, it is worth reading, along with some broader text on the issue of welfare fraud in Scandinavia. Removed text was:

*Unnamed woman (60) of the Roma people illegally received in excess of $1,400,000 by deceiving the Norwegian welfare authorities for 23 years. Techniques used were claiming for 17 fictitious grandchildren, and claiming her son was autistic, nursing him through the age of 13 in meetings with welfare workers. Court case pending (Oct 2009).[1]

Happy to discuss as always. Euryalus (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

ArcAiN6's deletions

The motivations for ArcAiN6's deletions are baseless. Of the two sources removed in the first edit due to "linked source material either does not contain the alleged information, or was grossly inaccurate", both contained the exact information. The sources are federal government documents. Why are they "not credible"? (I agree with the removal of an unsourced, and vague, passage.)

Nor is it true that an other section, in the second edit, "did not provide adequate source material, but relied solely on OP-ED's published on personal blogs, and unverified third-party sites." Joel Cohen is a former prosecutor who practices white-collar criminal defense law. He has published extensively on law and religion.[2] His guest appearance on UOJ is an expert testimony, explicitly accepted by WP. It makes no sense to call Forward, New York Daily News, New York Jewish Week, Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Hella Winston's Unchosen "unverified third-party sources". The section is extremely well-sourced. --Jonund (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bidragsblankett.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV-dispute

I don't know if I'm doing this right but citation 33 links to an article which appears to be completely taken from a book called "Vem kastar första stenen : om stenkastning och utlänningar på Rosengård" written by a politican for the conservative party "Moderaterna". Getting your information about immigrants directly from a political party with a stance on immigration politics does not seem like an optimal trustworthy citation.

Also I don't know how else to say this but this just sounds fishy. "Welfare fraud is widespread in the immigrant-dominated Rosengård, where one is considered smart if he is able to work and claim unemployment benefits simultaneously, and one is considered strange if he does not take the opportunity." just sounds like a political narrative. Or propaganda. At least if you consider that the source for this information is a politician.

That being said I can't be sure. I don't have access to the book and the full article is paywalled. So just letting it be known that this citation could be somewhat problematic and so I'm putting this up there on the talk page.

(Sidenote: citation 8 doesn't go anywhere. The page no longer exists) Sad pee (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Big picture

The article is frankly a mess. I just went through and removed some variously unrelated, WP:POV, and WP:COATRACKy material and did some copyediting, but I can't help but wonder if there's simply a better way. We still mix official national reports with "some paper reported that 10 people committed fraud"-style content. We mention things like fraud by businesses in the lead, but it only comes up again in "explanations". The organization, in short, could be improved.

Let's talk about big picture structure.

It seems to me that most of the article should focus on a breakdown of types of welfare fraud, explanations, perceptions, attitudes, etc. This can draw from research from different countries, and wherever possible should note sources that highlight unique aspects of a country's situation. Then the list of countries should be limited to material found in official reports or the absolute highest quality sources about national statistics and trends. In none of these sections should we be including "this one family in Paris stole $500 a month!" (I can't believe that even needs to be said), and for any claim that singles out e.g. ethnic groups, we really need high standards for sourcing.

Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)