Talk:Emilie Schindler

message: i noticed that on Emilie Schindler's wikipedia page it says she and her husband, Oskar Schindler, saved 1,200 Jews whilst on Oskar's page it says they saved 1,100.
I found a source that said they saved 1,300 Jews.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.32.151 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet I found another site saying its 1700 Jews. And maybe you are going to find 10 other sites, some saying 900, some 1000 and some 1364. Nobody knows the exact number, so its just an estimation. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is funny example how the journalists are working when they're creating "the Story". There is a traditional claim that Oskar Schindler saved more than 1200 Jews, in spite of the fact that the highest proven number of people detained in Brněnec is 1098 (let's say around 1100). When Emilie Schindler died in 2001, her admirer and biographer Erika Rosenberg claimed that the proportion of the Jews saved by Emilie Schindler was at least 300 (of the total number 1200). Which in turn was recounted by German tabloid Der Spiegel as 1700, because at least 300 (Emilie) plus at least 1300 (Oskar, as per Bild) equals around 1700. So the only relevant number or estimation is 1100, everything else is just the play with numbers by the journalists. --Honzula (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: No. of jews saved

message: The opening paragraphs struck me as somewhat odd in that they seem to minimise Oskar Schindler's efforts in favour of Emilie's. "Her efforts were THE inspiration" for Schindler's Ark and Schindler's List? I wouldn't say she was "the" (only) inspiration. The first paragraph also makes it sound like she was the sole saviour of the Schindler Jews. The second one just makes Oskar sound like a bad guy who was along for the ride.
This is how the intro reads to me anyway. Maybe the wording could be altered to be more clear and correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatttK (talk • contribs) 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the beginning a bit. I hope it no longer looks biased. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening few paragraphs

message: I saw your post requesting reassessment. It's well down on the list, but I thought I'd offer you some comments, not specifically (formally) reassessment.
First, let me say that your interest and enthusiasm for the subject is clear from the way you've worked this article.  It's always good, when taking on a project, to have a love for it.  That said, however, you have some problems to overcome.
The foremost of these is your overly familiar style.  Encyclopedic style probably would use the subject's last names, not their first, unless you were quoting something that your subject said about her husband, Oskar.  To refer to them throughout with their first names is probably too familiar.  I agree with the unsigned (MatttK) above -- your wording in the intro is quite ambiguous.  The titles of the books would be best in italics (by surrounding the title with two  ... one on each end of the title)  so that you get a text like this  Plus you need the dates of the books, so there is no confusion over which ones you mean.  Rosenberg wrote Ich, Oskar, and Ich, Emilie, and it needs distinguishing.  
Second, you really need a good copy edit on this.  I suggest the guild of copy editors if you don't feel up to doing it yourself.  You might also print out the article (that's possible using the links on the left column) and mark it up, then make changes in edit mode.
Okay, so in summary, good things:  citations, very nice, although you should check the Wikipedia Manual of style for consistency.  Some pictures, also very nice, with captions, very nice also.  Problems: over familiarity in referring to subject, prose is awkward and hard to read.  
Nice work so far!  Good luck with this!  :)  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had some time so I gave this a copy edit.  Hope you don't mind.  I suggest you take this sentence out: In her book Ich, Emilie Schindler, (English: I, Emilie Schindler) Argentinian author Erika Rosenberg shows that she worked side-by-side with Oskar Schindler to shield the Jews from the Nazis.    It is disruptive where you have it.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No sir, I didn't mind that at all, it's an open Encyclopedia. Infact, I was about to ask you to help with it. And I guess You have already removed that sentence. Thanks. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Oskar&Emilie 1946.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion