| Revision as of 21:03, 5 May 2009 editSmilingFace (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,451 edits →POV question← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:37, 24 March 2011 edit undoMiamosa (talk | contribs)37 edits →what I find hard to take: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| The image is relevant. The largest number of refugees admitted anywhere were the children depicted who were taken in by Britain. ] (]) 12:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | The image is relevant. The largest number of refugees admitted anywhere were the children depicted who were taken in by Britain. ] (]) 12:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == what I find hard to take == | |||
| What I find hard to swallow is the table with the list of all the delegates and their flags and so forth. All so fine official & important-looking. They did ''nothing''. In part because of their inaction, some six million Jews were allowed to be murdered in the most brutal and degrading fashion. I have made some changes and hope to make more, but that damned fancy list takes up 3/4 of the article. It kind of sickens to look at it. Bloody bunch of ], all of them - except possibly for the ], though nothing ultimately came of that offer either. ] (]) 06:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:37, 24 March 2011
 | France Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
I will expand the list, and other information, later, it takes some time. Kraxler 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's done. Anybody who could contribute with more information, feel free to edit. Kraxler 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
List of attendees
I have rearranged this into alphabetical order as I think it makes it easier to scan for a particular country. I listed the Republic of Ireland as beginning with "I" rather than "R" as this generally seems to be the accepted convention. Hope you agree otherwise feel free to change it back to how it was before. I would like to add that I found it to be an interesting article and not something that I've seen mentioned before for some reason. IrishPete 23:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In the article it is stated that the AUSTRIAN delegate said, that his country would not like to import a racial problem by leting German Jews immigrate. I think this is a misprint: it should mean AUSTRALIAN delegate as far as I know. By the time of the conference July 1938 there was no Austria as an independent state anymore: it had been annexed by Germany 5 months earlier and had gone through a very violent perod of submission under Nazi-German law and proceedings. Certainly there was no independent AUSTRIAN delegate allowed to take part. And it would just not make sense to let German Jews "emigrate" to another part of Nazi-Germany. The new masters of Austria had set up an office in Vienna which issued "J" branded passports(J for Jude = Jew) for those who were willing to leave all their property to the Nazis. But only those who could get visas were able to emigrate. So it just does not make sense that an Austian delegate said that. banhdaya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banhdaya (talk • contribs) 10:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
POV question
I'm just wondering whether the use of the word problem in the lead sentence is completely NPOV. It currently reads:
- The Évian Conference was convened at the initiative of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in July, 1938 to discuss the problem of Jewish refugees.
If others feel the same and don't want to rewrite it, I'd be happy to give it a try. Changing problem to question might be a simple solution.
This webpage puts the word in quotation marks, suggesting that they have a concern over it, although that doesn't necessarily mean it's out of place here.
Sidefall (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not use that modern and more neutral word "issue"?89.240.108.230 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting - I thought I changed this last year! Have replaced it with "issue" and also made the sentence more general as the refugees weren't just leaving Germany. Sidefall (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Representative from Palestine"
Golda Meir attended the conference with the title of the "representative from Palestine." She describes (in her autobiography My Life) how she was not allowed to speak or vote, but only to observe. Yet the press conference which she delivered afterwards was one of the most covered events of the conference, since Palestine was the hot-button aspect to the whole Jewish refugee issue even then. I'm not sure which list she fits into, anybody have any ideas? Rudy Breteler (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Allegation removed
I have removed the following allegation from the article:
Before the Conference, the United States and Great Britain made an agreement: the British promised not to bring up the fact that the U.S. was not filling its immigration quotas, and the Americans refrained from mentioning Palestine as a possible destination for the refugees.
If this is true, and not simply a "fact" of conventional understanding, it's quite a serious allegation, and therefore requires a reference to support it. Please do not restore it to the article without providing a citation. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's been restored, with a citation. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Removing Image
The main image for this article is irrelevant to the conference and somewhat pov in that it tries to evoke sympathy for refugees. Are there any more pertinent images out there? 144.118.58.174 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The image is relevant. The largest number of refugees admitted anywhere were the children depicted who were taken in by Britain. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
what I find hard to take
What I find hard to swallow is the table with the list of all the delegates and their flags and so forth. All so fine official & important-looking. They did nothing. In part because of their inaction, some six million Jews were allowed to be murdered in the most brutal and degrading fashion. I have made some changes and hope to make more, but that damned fancy list takes up 3/4 of the article. It kind of sickens to look at it. Bloody bunch of hypocrites, all of them - except possibly for the Dominican Republic, though nothing ultimately came of that offer either. Miamosa (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Categories: