Talk:KLM/Archives/2015

Controversy section

There is some debate about the controversy section that the KLM helped nazi war criminals escape. Whether or not this is true there are several issues with this section. First of all, even if it is were true, is this not undue weight to an issue long ago, note that many companies, had some dodgy dealing in the 1940's. Secondly, while the section lists 3 different sources, all these sources (early may 2007) are heavily based on a statement by Marc Dierikx; likely a press release by Dierikx, hence these sources are probably in reality based on the same information. Thirdly, besides these related sources based on a statement by another source there is no follow up, and no further evidence, making the undue weight, and reliability issues again relevant; and makign the header "controversy" overstated.
Based on all this, I suggest to remove the section. Arnoutf (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the events in question are claimed to have happened a long time ago, but i don't see that as a reason for them not to be included. KLM as a company today is, in part, a result of it's historical past, and previous crimes can perhaps be forgiven but should not be forgotten. Instead of removing this section, we should be adding more sections like this to other companies. History, good or bad, is relevant in an encyclopedia. If the sources are in question, or the section is deemed unbalanced, then extra sources should be added and more balance provided rather than removing the section altogether. Templetongore (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but than the ball is with the people who want this section to stay to provide sources that do not rely on Dierikx, note that KLM denies his report.

With regard to undue weight, which has not much to do with time past. Considering the (long) history of the KLM this relatively isolated episode is truly of little relevance. Taking this further each and any corporation that has ever done business with an evil and/or corrupt regime should then have a similar controversy section (which probably means every international company, and every local company that existed under such regimes). I hope you agree that would be undue weight. Arnoutf (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Listing all corporate crimes for all companies would be excessive, I agree, but ignoring all of them would be wrong also. It seems logical to me that decisions on what to include should be based on the perceived severity of the crime in question. Personally, I would deem giving aid to Nazi war criminals as quite severe. While I agree that this item could do with more sources, that fact that this claim against KLM has been made by just person does not automatically make it less valid or worthy of inclusion. If there are counter-claims, then these should be included here, but I have not seen anything in the press that discredits the Marc Dierikx statement.Templetongore (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you touched the core of our discussion. What is excessive (ie what is undue weight)????

It is interesting that you excusively list helping nazi-war criminals. Where are these worse then e.g. Red Khmer war criminals?? Or where is it worse to help war criminals of a defeited regime to fly (a crime no discussion) compared to helping and supporting the existence of a regime engaging in ongoing crimes against humanity (e.g. many military Central and Southern American regimes of the 1970's could only exist because of company support).

So while I agree that supporting any war crime is bad, my question remains whether the supposedly aid in escaping some nazi war criminals (if it is true) is of relevant weight, compared to support to other regimes or even other support to the nazi regime when it was still in power?

It may well be that we will have to agree we don't agree here, so I would welcome some 3rd party viewpoints Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at the times article used as a source, it appears to be certain that former nazis and other germans were transported to Argentina (although stangely it doesnt mention they were KLM flights!). The complicity of KLM appears to based on a certain Herr Frick and proof that he worked for KLM which has been denied by KLM. Quotes like document give the distinct impression that KLM was intensively involved, said to be a KLM representive and although we know are a all a bit vague. In my opinion on balance I would say that unless they Dutch hold an investigation or they are primary sources to reference that it should not be included due to NPOV. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would only like this section to stay if it is true. I have no interest in smearing a company. But I think an encyclopaedia page should cover all aspects, and a relatively big news story like this, I would argue, is relevant to the company as it stands today.

To respond to Arnoutf's comments, I exclusively mention helping Nazi-war criminals as this is the charge levelled at KLM. I can certainly think of worse crimes like, as you mentioned, supporting the Nazis while in power or equivalent crimes such as aiding the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. In fact, I have some other additions that are along these lines, for example, the Royal Bank of Scotland in Burma; Barclay's bank in Apartheid South Africa and, currently, Zimbabwe. But just because something is long in the past does not mean that it should be forgotten. If you look at the IBM page, that firm's involment with the Nazi regime is fully documented, and even has it's own page. I know there is less evidence in the case of KLM, but surely it is worth mentioning here? But if I am out-voted, then fair enough, take it down and I won't complain. Templetongore (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the doubts raised by MilborneOne on the cited references are reasonably strong, for it to stay I would applaud some more sources. On the other hand the article implies the KLM denies the charges (although the present would perhaps make the point clearer that they still do). All in all I have no very strong feelings about this. Arnoutf (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Racist or stereotype tweet? I changed this to stereotype. First off, because racist has a very negative connotation, while in my opinion the tweet was not intended to be like that. That is not all, racism has more to do with one's skin colour, religion, nationality, and making a clear distinction between one set of values and another set of values as one being bad and the other being good. Now about stereotyping, it is portraying a group of people as if they all have the same habits, point of view, etc. Talk about Mexicans and one (not familiar with their culture) might think of the sombrero hat first. It is even being sold to tourists as souvenirs, so this stereotype is also quite easy to understand and has not so much a negative association, since it also comes from the population itself as something you could recognize Mexicans for. A negative stereotype would be something like that Dutch are all on drugs, since light drugs are tolerated in the Netherlands, but it is not that the Netherlands has much of a drugs culture. Things portraying a Dutch stereotype would be the windmills, bicycles, tulips, clogs. These are actively portrayed as typical Dutch by the Dutch, so you cannot blame anyone for thinking of those things first or using those things in advertisement or anything, just like the Mexican stereotype. Now the tweet pointed out to the Mexican stereotype and it has nothing to do with actively proclaiming that their culture is bad and another culture was good. The tweet pointed out to the Mexicans had lost a match (factual) and what way would you portray the Mexicans in one picture? Exactly, the stereotype image. So it has nothing to do with racism, but more a misplaced stereotype. Misplaced, because some Mexicans did not take it so well. However, not supririsingly after losing an important match. Racism is much more hatred and stereotyping is more friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.204.180.119 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ENGVAR

By dint of this revision, I determine this article should use American English spelling conventions. When copy-editing, I found 'color', 'programme', 'travelled', and other mixed variants. The above diff adds 'airplane' (not BrEng 'aeroplane'), which is the first variant spelling I found in the history. If anyone wishes to change the article to BrEng or another variant, help yourself but please be consistent. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)