Jump to content

Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Epigram or aphorism or proverb?

I'm not really sure whether it is an epigram or aphorism or proverb, and there aren't enough sources to really establish one way or the other. My sense is maybe it evolved over time from the extended rhyming Latin epigram to the shorter aphorism or proverb in the vernacular languages.--Pharos (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

German language journal article

[1].--Pharos (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Załuski 1760 French language manuscript

Józef Andrzej Załuski's "Las Pologne, ditte Paradis des Juifs" was discussed in a Polish journal in 1913, but the English summary from this 1966 paper is ambiguous.[2].--Pharos (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Polish origin and form in Polish

It is very unclear whether this actually has a Polish origin or not, as none of the three early writers are Polish. It seems possible that the Latin witticism may come from another European country. Also, is there a common form of this in modern Polish language? I've seen all sorts of variations used in different languages.--Pharos (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Some sources even suggest it is an anti-Polish proverb of Prussian/German origin, though that may be more how it was used in the 19th century or something.--Pharos (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Per sources added, it seems it had a Polish origin. At least the earliest version we have is in Polish, from 1606, and the speculation on the author suggests they were a townsperson. Now, a lot of townspeople of that time in Poland did speak German, but... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, all evidence now points to a Polish origin in 1606. Surprisingly, a number of Polish sources attributed it to Križanić or Krman though. By the way, would you consider the Adalberg version of the proverb the canonical one in modern Polish?--Pharos (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Paradise section

We should probably expand to a dedicated section on the Jewish Paradise concept, and also find historiographical sources on when this was first used with a positive connotation.--Pharos (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree this part could use its own expansion, through I am not sure if I have time/will for that. I will ping a few users I know are interested in Polish-Jewish history: User:Nihil novi, User:MShabazz, User:Poeticbent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Over the next week or so, I'll see what I can find. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The Polin and Esterka articles might also be relevant, though they're both kind of flawed articles.--Pharos (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

the term "paradisus Judeorum" is used by Poles who deny Polish antisemitism

User:Icewhiz, you sourced this to [3]. I am afraid you misread the source, it does not make this claim. It states "as far as [most Poles] are concerned, there has been no such phenomenon as Polish anti-Semitism, for Poland has always been a true paradisus Judeorum." This does not mean that they actually use this particular phrase. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrobel explicitly says that these people consider Poland a "true paradisus Judeorum".Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a metaphor. He doesn't explicitly say they use this phrase, which is what you wrote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

OR

The entire section of Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews#History and versions is filled with WP:OR. While one can (though use of such sources is generally discouraged - PRIMARY and BIAS concenrs) quote an 18th or 19th century for an example of a use, one can not use such a primary source to claim that - "It has been repeated in numerous works since" or "It was also used outside Poland; for example by the 20th century German novelist" (who in fact is not using this - but merely saying this is a proverb that circulated in Poland, the writer himself was born in Szczecin) or "Less common is a five-part version version including a non-Biblical reference to Poland as a goldmine for foreigners" - these are observations are simply unsupported by the cited sources and are OR. Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are common-sensical observations, not editorial judgement. It's like saying that you cannot claim that a book was translated from Polish to English, because all we get is an amazon link to the book, but there's no reliable source saying it is a translation. It is not OR to say the phrase has been used in some sources, because well, it had. We have sources for that, and we can list them. Anyway, we have a reliable source that states that the phrase has been quite popular anyway, so it's hardly OR. The phrase has been used by cited non-Polish writers, again, what is OR here? Saying they are non-Polish? C'mon. We are not using primary sources to draw OR conclusions, we are simply saying that there are primary sources for the usage and listing them, without any judgement or analysis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
This is OR. Even worse - it is using borderline primary sources as opposed to using bona fida secondary sources on the topic - which do exist.Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
And you again refuse to engage in discussion, just keep repeating yourself. Ice: It's OR. Me: It's not, because... Ice: It's OR. Sigh. Address my points or stop making statements unbacked by arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Please provide exact quotes, from sources, for the following non-trivial quotations in our article:
  1. "It has been repeated in numerous works since"
  2. "It was also used outside Poland; for example by the 20th century German novelist"
  3. "Less common is a five-part version version including a non-Biblical reference to Poland as a goldmine for foreigners"
All of these should have a source. That this was a common saying by Poles in the 17th century is known (and sourceable - e.g. Joanna Tokarska-Bakir) - this does not mean it was "used in numerous works" (my personal observation of the not so many works cited in a PRIMARY manner in the article, is that it is mainly mentioned as a phrase that was in common use - but is not used by the cited sources themselves (use vs. mention). Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the claim about it being less common, simply stating where it was used is sufficient. Numerous is a common sense conclusion, and soureablle to Takarska-Bakir, who calls it popular and cites examples of its usage. Usage outside Poland is also common sense, as it has been used by non-Polish authors. It's not OR, it's a statement of referenced fact. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is both unreferenfed and (to me, at least), unclear. Can we get this expanded and referenced? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to say that the concept of a Jewish Paradise was aired at the start of the Second Republic, and became popular in the Third Republic, which is drawn from the article by Janicka, though perhaps not stated very directly (there is lot of use of phrases like "Polin trope"). My impression is that the concept was not much discussed as a proud period of Polish history by the government before 1989, but I could be wrong.--Pharos (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • confusing. Is the assertion that the postcommunist period was a "paradise for the Jews" or that in the postcommunist period it was popular to talk about the 17th century using this term?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    It is unsupported by the source (culture.pl - not a source I would consider remotely reliable for such material - this is a Polish culture ministry sponsored institute whose goal is to promote the Polish image - an advocacy organization) it is citing - or at least I can't find it in the linked article. It is perhaps a roundabout way of saying antisemitic sentiment is on the rise in Poland - "down with the landlords and Jews!" was a popular rallying cry in pogroms at the beginning of the second Polish republic.[4] Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    I am still not convinced the source allows us to make the claim about 'popular civic sentiment in postwar Poland', and here I agree with Icewhiz and would support removing this. Further, I think it was also relatively popular before WWII, and is still now, so the claim is doubly confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    I should clarify that the intention was never to cite this to culture.pl. If anything, it would come from Janicka, though I can see why that may not be strongly enough supported.--Pharos (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

16th century?

A number of sources refer to this as a 16th century work, but the earliest date given for printed version is 1606 (so, 17th century). This is a bit confusing (through sourced). I think the 16th century is an error, but it is not our place to say so. Would be nice to see the original research by Kot, but it may be hard. TB cites him as "S. Kot, Polska rajem dla Żydów, piekłem dla chłopów, niebem dla szlachty, Warszawa 1937, odbitka z pracy zbiorowej Kultura i nauka, ofiarowanej S. Michalskiemu, oraz Notium proprietates, „Oxford Slavonic Papers”, vol. 7, 1957, s. 107." Can't seem to find this digitized anywhere.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is an error or at best a speculation, probably the reasoning is the 16th century was seen as a peak of the Golden Liberty system, or just that the expression is proverbial and thus must originate some time before the first recorded version. I would include it as speculation of earlier origin alongside the 1606 date. I haven't seen the original research by Kot, but I have seen a secondary source (can't find it now) that makes it clear he originated the Catholic townsman hypothesis, and even that Kot detected anti-Protestant tones in the work.--Pharos (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Per this by Joanna Tokarska-Bakir - there is an earlier 14th century Austrian use of this. Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
What she discovered was a sentence calling Austria a paradise from Jews. Not much relations to the proverb here, through I wouldn't object if you someone wanted to mention it in the relevant section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree the Austria quote is not particularly relevant.--Pharos (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

1606 verse was in Latin too

This is an interview about it, though it's hosted on an odd spammy commercial site (better link!). The 1606 verse seems to mention a goldmine, though I'm not sure if it does in the same way.--Pharos (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This was also the subject of research by Stanisław Kot. [5] (also has some other citable information).--Pharos (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this may be a scan of the 1606 original in Latin.--Pharos (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
See here for the Nussbaum newspaper quote [6].--Pharos (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Here are two Polish publications that apparently quote the 1606 original: [7] and [8]--Pharos (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
From my very limited Latin and Polish and what I can get of machine translation, the 1636 Latin version by Szymon Starowolski and the 1606 version look identical. Since several sources say the 1606 version was originally in Latin, I can only presume the current Polish version is a modern translation of the same text that is in Starowolski, which is also shared by the handrwitten scan whose scan I've now included in the article. I'd suggest either getting rid of the modern Polish text, or setting up a bilingual or trilingual version table for each of the Latin poems.--Pharos (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, it is possible the original was in Latin after all. Interestingly, in the first link Polonsky states the 1606 original was in Latin, but gives the title of it in Polish. I went back and double checked the Tokarska-Bakir article and yes, she also mentions the 1606 original was in Latin. I corrected the text entry. As for translations, yes, I think it would be best to have Latin translation accompanied by Polish and English if possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Are you sure that the 1606 original was in Polish, rather than Latin? The English language sources suggest Latin, and the handwritten manuscript is dated to the reign of Sigismund III. Does the Polish text you posted read as modern or archaic?--Pharos (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You are right, sources do suggest Latin origin. Text corrected. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you tell, are the Polish title/text of the 1606 archaic or modern? If the title was archaic, that would perhaps suggest it was original, while the body of the poem may be different. I can find the body of the poem in publications going back to 1968, but no idea if it is 20th century, 17th century or somewhere in between.--Pharos (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Can you clarify the modern vs archaic text issue? I would like to clean up the 'Early verses' section, and to remove the Polish text there if it is indeed just a modern translation.--Pharos (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pharos: The text of the poem from 1606 (which incidentally I am still unable to locate anywhere in its original Latin form) from Tokarska is attributed to Kot, but it is not implied Kot translated it from Latin, just that he quoted it. A 1968 source ([9]) attributes this (or similar?) translation of this poem (as in, the very first verse is identical) to pl:Julian Krzyżanowski (so, modern), however all of those works are generally offline. I cannot, with certainty, conclude that the translation we quote is modern and done by Krzyżanowski, nor I was able to verify when and in what work did he translate this poem. I will note that as my personal opinion, the translation we quote seems modern, and does not have any archaisms that would not be understood by the modern reader, but I am not prepared to say whether the translation was done by a 20th or 19th century writer (IMHO the Polish language hasn't changed much in that period). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Heaven for the nobles

While it does seem that the "Paradise for Jews" is the most often discussed part of this proverb, it seems that Trzy centurie przysłów Polskich. Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. 1960. is not just a list of proverbs, but provides a more in-depth analysis of some. Unfortunately, GBooks only provides poor snippets, and this work doesn't appear online anywhere, but I was able to access the ToC, and it is discussing 3 pages to the discussion of the proverb, under the heading of "polska niebem dla szlachty" ("Heaven for the nobles"). This should help illustrate further that the topic of academic interest (and notability) is broader than just the "Jewish Paradise" fragment.

If I have time and will, in early 2019 I may be able to visit a Polish library which has this book, and maybe even the even more difficult to find Kot's monograph. If someone else is able to visit a Polish library earlier and check those texts (perhaps scan them for interested editors?) it would be much appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What the full proverb means

The article treats the topic as if the saying is meant to be taken literally to describe a political system. In contrast, the Polish article lead says "sarcastically describing the society of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth". Basically the proverb can be read two ways. Jews were prospering and held in respect during this period, but the proverb is also saying that in this period the nobility, along with their agents the Jews, were making life miserable for the rest of the population. The article should reflect this.

The feudal system was being extended at this time in Poland, with the nobility exerting control over towns and taking ownership of the land. Jews were educated and could take on roles not allowed to Christians such as lending money. While many Jews were very poor, others became administrators of landlords' property and leased the right to collect taxes and customs duties. They ran the mills and the taverns for the landowners they worked for. One of the references in the article, A History of East European Jews[1], goes into the economic role of the Polish Jews in detail on pages 4-18 and 27-29.

In a section titled "A golden age for Jews in Poland?" (page 30)[1], in the sentence immediately following the proverb, the source mentions Rabbi Saul Wahl, a customs duties and tax-farmer who became very influential. On the previous page the source says: "Furthermore, the Jews, when they collected taxes or served schnapps, were readily regarded as instruments of the lord of the manor. In this way they became involved in the social tensions between the peasants and the feudal lords." (page 29)[1] StarryGrandma (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Heiko Haumann (2002). A History of East European Jews. Central European University Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN 978-963-9241-26-8.
@StarryGrandma: Thank you for the point raised, I've rewritten the article to make things more clear. Do let me know what you think. As I said above, trying to frame this saying as 'anti-semitic' is a fringe view. I agree that is usually used in a wider context, and it's association with the Jewry is not anti-semitic, but a simple reference to their Golden Age in Poland period (which should not imply they were the most privileged caste in Poland, just that it was, well a comparatively good time for them, as in, better than in most other European countries). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Piotrus, a proverb can have many uses. It was not created by friends of the Jews, and this period of Jewish history in Poland was ended by the massacres of tens of thousands of Jews in the Khmelnytsky Uprising. The lives of ordinary Poles in this feudalistic system was difficult. They often did not interact directly with the nobility who took so much of their resources away, but with the Jews who served as their agents. Non-Jews are often unaware of the history of the Jews in Eastern Europe and how difficult it was to make a living in a Christian society where they were not allowed to farm or to engage in many occupations. It is worthwhile to read the source I gave above. Much of it is readable at the Google books link. Yes, the situation in Poland at the time was different from that in the countries that were actively persecuting and expelling Jews. But the proverb was also fuel for rising anti-semitism. And may be fuel for it today. The proverb points out that the Jews were doing well in Poland, but it also links them to the oppressors of the Polish people. This makes the proverb as potent a tool for anti-semitism now as it was then. There is nothing "fringe" about that. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
When used today, it is usually a positive reference to the Golden Age in Poland period. In the original context of the 1606 poem, it meant something more negative, though I see zero evidence associating it with blood libel, etc..--Pharos (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Per Wrobel, when used today, it is a denial of Polish antisemitism. As for historic context - this was used in pogroms, and Tokarska-Bakir discusses this alongside various other Polish blood libel sayings.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
This is like saying that Lincoln nostalgia is merely a denial of racism in the Republican Party. It certainly can be, and that's even a notable phenomenon, but it's far from the entirety of it. Also, being mentioned in the same paper doesn't mean it's the same thing, and I don't see any evidence this was used in pogroms.--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

After I commented at DYK [10], I looked up Paradisus Judaeorum further. I did not find that When used today, it is usually a positive reference to the Golden Age in Poland period. Rather, it can also be used as an derogatory meme. For example, I came across a video from E. Michael Jones who is apparently best known for his antisemitism. I also found an article about stigmatisation of Jews under the Nazi regime. Under a section "Anti-Semites, Collaborators, Street Mob", the following was included:

Alas, other voices were also heard. In an article under an amazing title Gubernia Generalna — Paradisus Judaeorum (The Generalgouvemement — Paradisus Judaeorum), published on 16 June 1940 in “Walka”, the underground organ of the National Party, we read: ‘The Jews are clearly overprivileged by the German anti-Semitic racists. The armband with the Star of David has become a badge that protects them from being caught and forced to slave labour. The Jews are not kidnapped from thestreets, or transported to the Reich. — The Jewish Ghetto has no reason to complain about the occupation”. Source

-- K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It is both true that it mostly has a positive if sometimes saccharine meaning today, and also that it has been used in a derogatory way by antisemites. These are not mutually exclusive at all. I don't see why this all shouldn't be mentioned in the article.--Pharos (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Both [11] and [12] seem to make it clear that this term is used for the Golden Age of Jews in Poland, and neither suggests links with antisemitic views. The "Jewish Paradise" term has two meanings - one neutral and used in good faith to refer to said Golden Age (which is a fact), and another, less neutral and indeed antisemitic, related to exaggerating the position of Jews. Whether the term is used neutrally or not depends on who uses it and with what intent. After all, even Janicka herself noted that the term was used by Jewish assimilationist press in the interwar period, is someone going to argue that the pro-assimiliation Jews were antisemites? Or that pl:Moshe Rosman who designed the POLIN exhibition including the usage of the "Jewish Paradise" proverb there is one? I strongly recommend reading [13], page 12 and around it, for a more neutral take on this issue. Jewish history in Poland and elsewhere is more than just being victims of antisemitism, and we should not unduly focus on that darker aspect of the rich and vibrant Jewish culture and history, or try to stifle content creation and discussion for fear it can be abused by antisemites. (On that note, I encourage everyone to visit the wonderful POLIN museum, one of the best Jewish culture museums in the world). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Poniatowski quote

This is the quote as given in the source, I gave a brief description before because was unsure of best way to summarize: ...it is clear to everyone how this nation, numerous in the entire kingdom, is happier than our burghers and our subjects, and that someone has written aptly 'Polonia Paradisus Iudaeorum '. How they find protection everywhere, how through their tricks [and] swindles...they have deprived the Christians of all trade and means of livelihood, and how little they pay to the Commonwealth.--Pharos (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Interpreting a quote, however, is OR. We would be better of finding an academic source that discusses it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thid is from an academic source, the Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies. Apparently, it connects his attitudes to "calculations of self-interest on the part of the hereditary owners of the towns" and his town privilege rules about Jews in Jazłowiec, which were in part about preventing outmigration [14].--Pharos (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
What I mean is that we can certainly use the snippet to say that Poniatowski used part of the proverb, but it would be OR to interpret his original quote ourselves and say that he was an antisemite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I think perhaps you are using a different definition than the ways these words are used in contemporary discourse, at least in the United States. It normally means any group prejudice, just as most American historians would say that Abraham Lincoln had racist attitudes for at least most of his life and political career, even if his overall effect was positive. I don't think it's necessary to use the word "antisemite" all the time if that has other violent connotations, but we should discuss relevant attitudes toward the Jewish population. For example, elsewhere in that source it speaks about Poniatowski and others: Derogatory opinions about the Jews were expressed in their writings, but they did not affect the practical steps taken by their authors. which I think supports more or less my original formulation.--Pharos (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional reference in English

This is Gershon Hundert's use of the proverb and discussion of the related topic Paradisus Judaeorum.

A central theme of this paper will be my attempt to diffuse some of the darkness, lachrymosity and sense that the experience of Jews in Poland was of unending pogrom and persecution. I shall argue that this is a story characterized by light and not darkness, by life and not death. If one had to choose a single word to reflect the experience of Jews in Poland, it would be vitality. That and an indomitably positive sense of self. The Polish Jewish community was vibrant, creative, proud and self-confident: sevurim hem deyabashta hava veleika galuta, they thought they were on dry land and not in exile. Their neighbours knew this as well, referring to Poland as Paradisus Judaeorum, rajem dla Zyd6w. The full expression went: 'Poland is heaven for the nobility, hell for the peasants and paradise for Jews'.[4] This is hyperbole of course, but I am emphasizing the brighter side as a corrective to the predominant popular image of the Jewish experience in Polish lands, which seems to me altogether too dismal and to be profoundly coloured by events in the twentieth century. This is my primary goal; my secondary purpose is to complicate your perception.

StarryGrandma (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

    • Thank you for finding another reference that helps to show the topics notability. Also, it doesn't seem like Hundert is under the impression that this is an antisemitic saying. Hyperbole, of course - in other words, like virtually all scholars, he sees this an an exaggeration related to the Golden Age, but not an antisemitic saying. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Hundert referas to the Jewish Paradise sub phrase (which some use in a context that is not antisemitic) and not to the full multipart antisemitic phrase.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • He clearly cites the full proverb. Well, three out of five segments, at least. And btw, your only source for this being an anti-semitic phrase is Janicka, and she specifically talks about the Jewish Paradise only ("anti-Semitic phantasms (like the Paradisus Iudaerum..."). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • anti-Jewish is the same as antisemitic - multiple sources have been presented showing this is anti-Jewish, antisemitic, or a polemic directed towards Jews. This article, which promotes 17th century hate speech in an unbalanced manner, is a shame.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

POV issue - presenting an antisemitic phantasm as factual

Beyond OR issues (evident in the second paragraph of "History and versions" which relies on 19th century sources and in the title of the article - the COMMONNAME clearly being "Paradisus Iudaeorum" and not the particular cited version)), notability (unclear whether this antisemitic saying is notable at all), and misrepresentations of those sources it does cite (e.g. Heiko, Modras - which stress the relative aspects of this "paradise" - saying that it was still wretched) - the article at present presents an antisemitic phantasm,[15] as factual reality. While the POLIN museum did choose this highly controversial and provoking title for an exhibit - it never adopted this as anything factual - to the contrary - this is what the museum curator had to say in an interview: The quota-tions here play on the ambiguity of “Paradisus Iudaeorum,” a formulation from a pasquinade critical of everything in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—for-eigners, immigrants, “heretics,” peasants, burgers, and servants, and also Jews. To characterize the Commonwealth as a Jewish paradise is a way of saying that Jews had it “too good.” .[16] Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tellingly - one of the few reasonable sources in the article - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (Rzeczy mgliste: eseje i studia. Fundacja Pogranicze. - in Polish - [17]) - discusses this proverb as part of a collection of antisemtic proverbs (e.g. the "bleeding host") - it is presented as a lampoon and is presented together with Judas/Jews conflations ("Judas and his sack") and the famous blood libel of kidnapping children for the matzah. However - this context is utterly omitted by our present article - which merely cites Tokarska-Bakir for etymology. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You are exaggerating; the proverb is hardly anti-semitic, this is just one of the interpetations, through I grant you, a reasonable common, as certain scholars like to call everything anti-semitic these days. Feel free to rewrite this so their POV is more visible, if you think it is not, right now I will withhold my judgement until I see content backed up by sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Sourced statements by scholars generally carry more weight than editorial opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think the article is pretty well cited. What is an editorial opinion? I've added a bit more about the exaggeration of Jewish position to the lead. Do note that why sources in general agree this is an exaggerated statement, it is not commonly referred to as anti-semitic. At least I don't see others saying that, outside Janicka. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Joanna Tokarska-Bakir refers to it as part of a corpus of antisemtic proverbs - together with blood for Matzah.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)
I am afraid that's your OR. Let's set aside that this article of her doesn't seem to have published in an academic press, so as far as I can tell it's her essay (if she was younger we could call it a blog I guess?). In either way, I've just re-read it and she never calls the proverb anti-semtic. All she says it that is was very influential in creating a view of Polish Jewry. Then she goes on a digression on another anti-semitic (and much less famous) poem (pl:Worek Judaszów), and concludes, IMHO not very convincingly, that the proverb may have echoes of xenophobia ("sarkazm człowieka bezsilnego, przerażonego bezkarnością przybyszów, którzy są nosicielami wszelkiego zła). And oh, she doesn't use the word xenophobia, so maybe it's OR for me to say that, eh? Further, however, not sure if her conclusion is reliable enough to be included here in either case, as, I repeat, I don't see any indication her article was subject to a proper peer review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've cited published sources. Your opinion on the matter - is OR. Tokarska-Bakir, who is used throughout the article, covers this "proverb" along side other anti-Jewish "proverbs" and as part of a corpus of such "proverbs". Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Please quote a part of her article where she draws a comparison, and specifically, where she lists it as an anti-Jewish proverb. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll note a few more points. While Janicka does called this proverb an anti-semitic "phantasm", she is the only scholar who makes a clear connection between this proverb and anti-semitism. She also notes that the idea of Poland as a "Jewish paradise" was popularized by the assimilation faction of the Polish Jewry themselves during the interwar period (so, errr, it's an anti-semitic slogan popularized by the Jews themselves...? Don't look at me, that's what she is saying in her paper). To cite her: in the paper abstract she says: "...affirmation of

anti-Semitic phantasms (like the Paradisus Iudaerum..."). This is because her paper is a vocal critique of the POLIN Museum, later she says "The MHPJ’s core exhibition not only does not challenge, but downright perpetuates and transmits, and therefore legitimizes and consolidates, constructions which are at home in a museum of anti-Semitism. Two such constructs are the figure of Esterka (Esterke) and the category of Paradisus Iudaeorum". I will not quote more on POLIN, but she discusses this phrase in the POLIN's context again and again in her paper. The legend of Esterka and the literary character [:pl:[Jankiel]] are also described as anti-semitism, and she expresses a preference that all such stereotypical constructs should be best removed from the museum. I have to say it is a bit hard to take this essay (because it is hardly a research paper, just an expression of her POV) seriously, particularly when among the items she wants to see removed from the museum is the " pornographic-sized garlic" (because, it is implied, association of Jews with garlic is also anti-semitic...). Bottom line, the only claim of this proverb as anti-semitic comes from a minor scholar, publishing in a minor journal ([18]), first issue published in 2012, not indexed in any serious academic databases - prove me wrong by stubbing this with reliable reference per WP:NJOURNAL...), and let's face it, her arguments are not the most convincing. I am not saying she cannot be cited, but her view is pretty fringe.

On the fringe note, again, no other scholar makes a clear association of this proverb with anti-semitism. On another hand, Marcin Moskalewicz in his book [19] published by Springer (and therefore subject to much more serious peer review and recognition that the obscure Polish outlet Janicka published in) writes that the term as used in Polish histiography is simply an equivalent to the term Golden Age of Polish Jewry used in Jewish historiography. The implication is clear - it is hardly an anti-semitic term. The saying is cited in the Golden Age context by German historian de:Heiko Haumann, who also takes it face value (as in, doesn't suggest it is pejorative). Of course, all of those scholars do note that it somewhat satirical/exaggerated, particularly when it comes to comparing nobility and Jewry (heaven=paradise implies equality, and of course this is wrong). But aside from the equating the status of Jews with nobility, the saying is generally used as an nice metaphor for the Golden Age of Jews in Poland, and there is nothing anti-semitic about that. (Or is someone going to say now that to say that to talk about Golden Age of Polish Jews in the pre-Chmielnicky Uprising PLC is actually another anti-semitic trope?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
When editors - remove the anti-semitic (yes - anti-Jewish == antisemitic) context of this saying - The term Paradisus Judaeorum [Paradise for Jews] has been present in Polish culture since the 17th century. It comes from an anonymous text expressing anti-gentry and anti-Jewish sentiments, which was published in Latin in 1606 and titled Paskwiliusze na królewskim weselu podrzucone [Lampoons planted at the royal wedding party]. The anonymous writer uses the phrase Paradisus Judaeorum to express his conviction that Poland is ruled by Jews and that they enjoy excessive privileges - from a cited reference [20]supporting the stmt (in a passage filled with 17th, 18th, and 19th century references) - we are repeating hate speech in Wikipedia's voice without context. Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
It is not removed, you just duplicated it. There's no need to quote that reference twice. Btw, if this was an considered an anti-semitic saying, you'd think that [21] Polin Museum would have commented on it more. Treating any part of this proverb as anti-semitic is a fringe view, Janicka is pretty much the only scholar to have made that claim (and if you want to dispute this, quote scholars here - saying, directly, this is an anti-semitic phrase). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Golden Age of Jews in Poland

Should Golden Age of Jews in Poland be an article? Is it a well-defined time period, either just before or during the early PLC? Compare Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain. Polin might also overlap, though that is a very poor article currently.--Pharos (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of it was introduced here [22], but a dedicated article might be worthy. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Both of those topics are on my to-do list, through I am not sure I'll find time to work them as early as I'd like to, given all the ruckus here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
It would depend on periodization, and if there were defined start and end times in a reliable historical source. Although maybe it is more or less identical in period to the general Polish Golden Age?--Pharos (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

OR - New Babylon

Re this revert - absent a citation from a secondary source claiming this 1664 text is connected - connected it based on some (but not all) words being similar is the definition of OR. Use of 17th century PRIMARY works in Wikipedia is rather poor for in general - but one would expect some sort of secondary reference connecting this passage to the others. If other variants mentioned also rely on editorial interpretation (for some - the reference is available in snippet view only) - they should be removed as well. Icewhiz (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll highlight here the parts that are identical or near-identical to the 1606 version:

Polonia est Nova Babylonia, Tsiganorum, Germanorum, Armenorum et Scotorum colonia;
Paradisus Hebraeorum, infernus rusticorum;
aurifodina advenarum, sedes gentium vagabimdarum;
comitiatorum assidua hospitatio, populi perpetua inquietatio, alienigenarum dominatio.
Quam despuit omnis natio.

I did originally get this from a secondary source I think, but it was under a variant author spelling, and hard to recover now. This poem literally says "Paradise for the Jews, Hell for the peasants, a goldmine for foreigners", among other clear ties. For an example of a secondary work I've found just now, I think this French source connects it to the concept [23]. --Pharos (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hebrews, not Jews, though the two may mean the same they are not the same. Absent a secondary making the connection - assuming this 3 clause sentence in the midst of the primary passage with 2 of 3 clauses being somewhat similar to 2 of 4 clauses in the phrase this is about - is OR.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
If you are seriously claiming that "Hebrews" being a synonym for "Jews" in this context is OR, your are missing something major about Jewish history - namely, that Jewish history replaced Hebrew history about the time of the Babylonian captivity (arguably before). This work includes the whole proverb inside of the poem, it's not ambiguous at all. Also, please see the French source, though it's not really necessary.--Pharos (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Read Hebrews - they are not the same, though in the context of the 1664 passage one could assume Jews. Regardless - you have 2 of 3 clauses in the midst of a passage matching 2 of 4 clauses elsewhere - it is OR to claim they are the connected without a source saying so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This is almost at a point where it's WP:POINTless criticism. It's a text that uses Paradisus Hebraeorum, infernus rusticorum part of the proverb. Quite an interesting version, in fact, as it does not contain the praise of nobility as far as I can tell. I don't see why we cannot include it in our article, as an example of a public domain text using a part of the discussed proverb. I'd just clarify in text this text uses only a part of the proverb (two segments). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Calling this saying just or mainly anti-semitic is FRINGE and UNDUE. Also, distinguish between poem, proverb and a 2-word construct

Only Janicka says, directly, that "Paradise for the Jews" is an antisemitic "phantasm" or "myth" (note she explicitly refers only to this particular sub-phrase, NOT to the entire proverb). Her article got included in a book, and the book got reviewed. Piotr Wróbel, a more senior scholar (as in, notable, whereas Janicka still is not), in the review at [24] writes: "The book under review is a continuation of this debate and is based on the presentations delivered during the Princeton University Conference on Polish-Jewish Studies in April 2015. [...] One can easily observe that a majority of the submitted texts are critical of the Museum. Their authors offer many strong and convincing arguments, but frequently the critical voices are radical and exaggerated. [...] Elżbieta Janicka[...] is not shy about presenting risky historical interpretations and claims, for example, that Żegota “was established and exploited by the Polish Underground State for propaganda and financial purposes”. POLIN, concludes Janicka, “not only does not challenge, but downright perpetuates and transmits, and therefore legitimizes and consolidates constructions which are at home in a museum of anti-Semitism”"" So the best source for this claim is a conference presentation (and those are not as well peer reviewed, if at all, as journal papers) and the author certainly has an ax to grind.

Now, note that I am saying in the section heading here "Calling this saying just or mainly anti-semitic is FRINGE and UNDUE". Because I agree the original saying (poem) was, among others, antisemitic - also, as Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett noted, critical of "foreigners, immigrants, “heretics,” peasants, burgers, and servants, and also Jews". Kamil Kijek and Konrad Matyjaszek said so as well (through they say anti-Jewish, but that's a synomym for anti-semtic), but they refer to the original 1606 text, not to the proverb or the Jewish Paradise section (I want to stress this point, because we are dealing with three concepts here: the 1606 poem, the shorter proverb, and the very short Paradisus Judaeorum two-word construct). So the original poem was in general not just anti-semitic but overall xenophobic, through I couldn't find any source that would use this particular term (as much as I would like to add a referenced cite to this to the article). But that original, xenophobic intent is generally forgotten by all except nitpicking academics, plus this article is NOT about the poem, but about the more popular proverb. In common Polish discourse the proverb, IMHO, is generally used to contrast the top (nobility) and the lowest (peasant) classes, with the Jewish position somewhat exaggerated (as all scholars agree and as I hope the article makes clear). Paradisus Iudaeorum, the most widely cited part of the proverb, has interestingly undergone a framing change, as we would say in sociology. Whereas the original text was xenophobic, as ample quotes added to the article demonstrate, the phrase is now generally used to refer, in good faith, to the positive aspects of the Jewish life in Poland, the Golden Age of Jews in Poland period (see ex. Haumann, Moskalewicz, Hundert, Rosenfeld and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett/POLIN Museum website itself). It would make for a good hook if a source would discuss this transition, it's somewhat akin to the concept of reappropriation (through perhaps accidental?). The point is, neither the proverb, nor the expression "Jewish Paradise" is generally seen as anti-semitic (nobody made that claim about the proverb, and Janicka is the only person to make that particular claim about Paradisus Judaeorum two-word construct). The proverb and the two-word construct are generally used to refer to the Golden Age, with no reference to or discussion of antisemitism as inherent to the proverb/two-word construct present. So unless I missed something, and we find sources that state that the proverb/two-word construct are anti-semitic or controversial, the only remaining criticism of this is from Janicka, and her stand-alone claim is IMHO WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE. (To be clear, I have no problem with the article noting the original 1606 text was xenophobic in general, and anti-semitic in particular; my point is that the better known proverb/two-word phrase are neither). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

... with all due respect to Ms. Janicka, why an opinion of a hardly known person (even in Poland), an artist photograph [25], not a historian, (a grad of contemporary literature) is so significant here may I ask? GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Should we have the poem's translations?

It's great we found the original Latin version. Polish version was present but got removed; I'll provide it here (see discussion above re copyright, we are uncertain who translated it and if it is in PD): "Królestwo polskie to: Raj dla Żydów, piekło dla chłopów, czyściec dla mieszczan, panowanie dworzan, pomieszanie ról, zbytek kobiet, włóczęga po jarmarkach, kopalnia złota dla przybłędów, powolny ucisk kleru, oszukaństwo ewangelików, swoboda marnotrawców, zwady heretyków, nierząd obyczajów, częstowanie pijaków, ustawiczne wałęsanie się, natrętna gościna, prawa naruszanie, brak troski o przyszłość, ujawnianie obrad, niedbałość o nabyte, praw zmienność – co widzi każdy naród". It shouldn't be that hard to create an English translation that is in publid domain - Google Translate handles Latin, and we can of course use Polish version as a reference, even if it is copyrighted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, that's why I set up the tables. My Latin is a little rusty, but would be glad to collaborate on the different versions if you want to start.--Pharos (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Epigram?

I do wonder if we can call this an Epigram, since I can't find a single source that does that. Tokarska-Bakir ([28]) refers to it as a proverb, and it is included in this list of proverbs book ([29]), so the proverb part is well referenced. But calling it an epigram seems ORish. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Epigram is OR (as well as too positive). "Pasquinade" (similar but without the positive connotation) can be sourced - [30], as can "antisemitic phantasm",[31]. We should avoid non-English language sources (or sources older than a few decades) for "proverb" - as this raises issues of translation and POV (which vary across languages) - we have English language sources. This [32] (covering antisemitic writings by the Polish Catholic church in the early 20th century - mentioning this as earlier background) refers to this as a "saying" / "rhyme". I think I have also seen "lampoon" in English.Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
We have to distinguish the original 1606 poem from the later proverb. The first was an epigram or lampoon or pasquinade, the later is not one. I don't see how "epigram" is a positive term per se, it's just a literary form, and it is in a good source [33]. The Polish form of "Pasqinade" is actually used in the title of the 1606 poem, so I agree it should be mentioned.--Pharos (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Huh, seems we don't have a proper English entry for pl:Paszkwil (pasquinade?). Pasquinade seems to redirect to a different topic. Anyone here feels competent enough in literary theory to stub this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I hope we can add a reference for each and any term used like this to the article. Through I don't think that phantasm is anything but a metaphor (as in, I don't think it is a term for a type of literature or saying?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Słownik terminów literackich by Janusz Sławiński, which is a very respectful source, gives translations of the Polish word paszkwil: English pasquil, French pasquille, German Pasquill. Wiktionary confirms the existence of the word pasquil in English ([34]). Most (if not all) old Polish pasquils were epigrams (see [35]), but i wouldn't include this term in the article without sources. The word paszkwinada for pasquinade also exists in Polish, but the original paszkwiliusz is etymologically closer to pasquil. It surely can't be called epigram in the definition - it is simply not an epigram, but a citation taken from an epigram. Henryk Tannhäuser (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Proverb

While the original poem is a pasquinade (an article that someone really should properly split and stub at least), the "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" saying has been described as a proverb. In addition to 19th century or older sources which I won't bother to quote, we have the following post-WWII references to this as a proverb:

  • it is discussed in a book on Polish proverbs by reliable scholar of Polish language pl:Julian Krzyżanowski (1960) [36]
  • Tokarska-Bakir (2004, [37]) refers to it as a proverb, and she cites Krzyżanowski (a 1975 edition of his work).
  • in English: in a recent book co-edited by Antony Polonsky, "Poland is a Jewish Paradise" is referred to as a proverb: [38]
  • in English - Heiko Haumann: [39], another clear reference to this as a proverb "from the 16h century comes a proverb The Republic of Polandis a hell for the peasants... paradise for the Jew

I think this is sufficient to eliminate any concerns of calling this structure a proverb. Four academic references should suffice, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Using non-English language sources for terminology in English is not appropriate, as meaning varies between languages. Being contained in a 1960 collection by Krzyżanowski also requires an OR step. As for the English sources - Polonsky refers to this as a "saying", Haumann does use "proverb" (and would be a usable source - as opposed to what was in the article). Using "saying" is more fitting from a WP:NPOV perspective, and is used in English RSes, - e.g. Dziewanowski, M. K. "Polish Law Throughout the Ages: 1,000 Years of Legal Thought in Poland." (1972): 376-379., Weintraub, Wiktor. "Tolerance and Intolerance in old Poland." Canadian Slavonic Papers 13.1 (1971): 21-44.. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Saying is fine, as an occasional wider class synonym. Using foreign language sources, be they Polish or Herbrew or others, is perfectly acceptable, per WP:NOENG. Proverb is not a term that creates much ambiguity in translation. I've added Haumann as a ref to the lead, feel free to copy to the ref to any other part that you think may need it. I hope that satisfy that particular concern. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oxford History

Please verify if the book [40] discusses the subject.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

[41], chapter 1. I don't have the books.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide even a small citation that proves this proverb is discussed in those books? Feel free to add them to further reading section, if they do discuss this in more than just passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The Oxford History is an academic history of the period.
  • Klier, 1 Poland-Lithuania: "Paradise for Jews" [42] Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I tried, but sadly, Klier's book is not digitized anywhere I looked; even Google Books has no preview at all. That said, the link you found with the table of contents does confirm John Klier used this term for one of his chapters - yet another indication that it is generally used in a positive contest (unless someone wants to argue Klier was an antisemite and used an antisemitic saying as a heading for one of his books chapters...?). As for Oxford's history, it is available on GBooks in preview mode ([43]) but my search didn't get any hits for Jewish paradise, paradise for Jews or the latin version of this proverb, so I don't think it is relevant here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Not finding this academic paper?

Wasn't sure if this had been looked at -- Irena Gross [44] valereee (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

She seems to be saying it's revisionist to say this wasn't antisemitism, and that the POLIN simply doesn't want to recognize that valereee (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Page number please? I have trouble finding the right page, TIA. PS. If she discuss the proverb, we should cite her, but please note that this source has been described as biased - see the review I discuss in my OP post here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Sources do not generally distinguish between "poems" in which this appears and the "saying"/proverb - they are treated together. The 2 word construct is discussed separately.Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, sources are quite clear what they refer to, and they are pretty explicit whether they talk about the longer poem or the shorter proverb. Anyway, the onus is on you to cite the sources that support your POV. And since you are not editing the article, just talking about generalities, I can only conclude you don't have sources to challenge anything in the current article (if you disagree, please list errors with sources that contradict what the article says - don't forget to quote, to avoid irrelevant generalities). TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews → Paradisus Judeorum – the present title (exact phrase) has all of 12 google hits (mostly Wikipedia clones) - none of which appear to be a RS (inlcudes 4chan, quora). Conversely, Paradisus Judeorum is used by some 40 academic sources ([45]) and the alternative "Paradisus Iudaeorum" (in use mainly since the opening of the musuem exhibit in 2014 - but not prior) is used by 36 academic sources([46]) - clearly being the WP:COMMONNAME used in academic literature Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Since the proverb exists under different variants, it's hard to get an exact count; not too mention an exact translation (since it's originally Latin, with various versions to boot). The Latin part you cite is pretty common, but it does not refer to the entire segment of 4-5 parts, but only to the single (if most widely discussed) part of the saying. I did consider using it as the name of the article, but I've decided that it wouldn't make sense to refer to this topic in such a way, because it would be confusing to discuss the entire saying. In other word, this article is about the entire saying, not just a part of it. FYI "infernus rusticorum" gets 17 hits... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    The present title is WP:OR - translations of the Latin to English do not seem to use our present translation, however of more serious concern - if this article is solely on the multi-part idiom - it is a Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:GNG fail and should be AfDed - the quote as a quote is far from meeting Wikipedia notability (it would probably merit inclusion in Wikiquote). Conversely, the wider concept of Paradisus Judeorum (of which various multi-part usages of the idiom are part of) is not a DICTDEF/GNG fail - as it is discussed as a topic in secondary literature. Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    This is silly and not what a dictionary definition is at all. Of course we have many articles in Category:Proverbs. Some of these it is awkward to find the right title for, but that does not make them non-notable. I am particularly proud of The Moon is made of green cheese.--Pharos (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The article is about a proverb, not a small part of it. I'll note that Kot's in-depth monograph dedicated to the entire proverb, not just the Jewish part of it, was titled Polska rajem dla Żydów, piekłem dla chłopów, niebem dla szlachty. I've added the 4th part because I think it is common enough, but I won't object if we want to move it back to the basic three-part version. Reducing it to a single part is however stupid; the article is about all parts, not just one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is about the full proverb, and there are sufficient sources about the full proverb. There is no reason not to have a separate article about Paradisus Judeorum, the Jewish Golden Age in Poland, rather than trying to cover it in this one. The phrase is after all not a proverb but a time period according to the references in this article. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -> The article is about the full saying, quite common at the time[1],"Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews," not about Paradisus Judeorum particularly.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I wonder if paradisus Judaeorum itself would be a good stand-alone article, but I think in the end it is better to discuss it here, in-context, as a section of the bigger proverb. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Center, PSNC, Poznan Supercomputer and Networking. "Digital Library of Wielkopolska". www.wbc.poznan.pl. Retrieved 2018-11-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

anti-semitic, anti-jew, antisemitic, etc., throughout article but not in lead?

There needs to be some mention of the antisemitic roots of this proverb in the lead. Simply saying it's 'satirical' is vague and insufficient to communicate that it was an anti-Jewish saying from its start. Saying it 'overstates' doesn't come anywhere near being the most important meaning of this proverb. It's like saying, "The proverb that 'a cat has nine lives' overstates the number of lives a cat has." Well, DUH, but that totally ignores the actual meaning of the proverb. OF COURSE Poland wasn't PARADISE for the Jews. DUH. The meaning of the proverb was that the Jews, like the nobility, have it much better than almost everyone else and are resented for it. This is clearly supported in the sections at length, but it's not even touched on in the lead. valereee (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the lead with sources. As noted above, I have considered using the word xenophobic in the text and the lead, but it is not used in any other cited work, and as such I am concerned it would be WP:OR for us to call it that. The lead already states "The proverb is based on a 1606 satirical pasquinade that has been described as "critical of everything in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—foreigners, immigrants, “heretics,” peasants, burgers, and servants, and also Jews".", with the end of the sentence linking to article on antisemitism. I am not sure what could be changed, while preserving the due balance of the sources (the proverb and the Jewish Paradise expression are used by majority of the sources to refer to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland, and not to any dimensions of antisemitism). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Pipe linking "also Jews" to antisemitism is more or less the definition of WP:EASTEREGG, which we avoid per MOS:EGG - and the pipe itself (from the group to its haters) is irregular beyond that. I've made a suggestion here before (I think!) - antisemitic (not hidden in a pipe) should be in the first sentence - not "is a satirical proverb", but "is an antisemtic pasquinade" (and if you wish - throw in sarcastic as well). I'm not sure if you are aware of this - but saying proverb (as would parable) in our own voice, in English, implies a positive connotation (i.e. words of wisdom) - the POV tone of this term in English, varies from other languages. Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC
Again, feel free to edit the lead. Just make sure not to confuse the antisemitic pasquinade (poem) with the latter proverb, which is not antisemitic. (Not a single source has described it as such, and many works, including academic sources and Israeli newspapers) use it in, indeed, positive contet to refer to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. The antisemitic pasquinade is only a minor 'history of' digression in this article (which focuses on the proverb). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If antisemitic then also anti-noble, even more anti-noble (first entry) than antisemitic (fourth entry). It's even written in the page it was created by a Catholic townsman, perhaps a priest, jealous of the nobility and the Jewry, but a biased editor sees antisemitism only. Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If English version is wrong, let's use the Latin one.Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I used to be indoctrinated by Marxism, everything was revolutionary or anti-revolutionary, Coca-Cola was wrong, imperialistic. Now I'm indoctrinated in a similar way, the whole Polish culture was wrong, dirty, antisemitic. Why so many Jews lived in the nasty Commonwealth? They were probably imprisoned in Polish concentration camps so they weren't able to emigrate to liberal Western Europe and friendly Russia. (It's irony). Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Xx236 We can't conclude that because 'paradise for the jews' is the final phrase that this means it's the least important one. I would argue the opposite -- that it's the punch line -- except that arguing either is opinion unless it's being analyzed that way by historians whom we can source. valereee (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, but lets focus on 'analyzed by historians'. Or other scholars. Said scholars agree that the original intent of the saying was exaggeration, but only one or two think it raises to the level of antisemitism. Majority use the proverb in the neutral context. It's quite clear that the original malicious intent of this saying is mostly forgotten, and it has gained a new, positive connotation. If it wasn't so, it wouldn't be used in in titles of academic chapters, museum galleries or in Israeli or Jewish-American newspapers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
article notes that the Polish POLIN museum's use of the phrase in a gellery name was the subject of heated debate. And saying it wouldn't be used positively now if it were antisemitic back them is original research and synthesis unless someone else is saying it. valereee (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
A few scholars criticized POLIN's gallery name, a few disagreed. Museum curator replied in one paper, museum didn't do anything, the discussion died out, mass media didn't pick on this. Seems pretty clear it was a minor criticism, minor debate, and it is WP:UNDUE to give it too much stress. Again, majority of sources use the phrase in non-antisemitic context. It is UNDUE and OR to claim otherwise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The much maligned Polish state sponsored memory policy (wider than the musuem) is discussed in sources extensively - generally in a very negative fashion. Unless you have a reasonable source, unaffiliated with the narrative advanced by the Polosh state, claiming that the phrase (not the 2 word construct) is not antisemitic - the above is OR, particularly given we have sources covering this as antisemitic well prior to the musuem (e.g Tokarska-Bakir's article covering this along side blood libel). Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
And again you return to your OR dislike of Polish sources (despite a few critical reviews, 99% of the sources about the POLIN museum are very supportive of it (ex. here's a recent 2018 academic article from prestigious The American Historical Review about the museum [48] which does not believe the museum has became a political tool), and that includes Jewish Israeli sources cited elsewhere), and ad nauseum repeat incorrect information - TB discusses the poem, not the proverb. And of course you keep ignoring inconvenient facts like the ongoing usage of this phrase in positive context by Western (including Jewish) academics and press. How about we stop using Yad Vashem as a source because an ISRAELI article in Haaretz alleged its exhibition has 'politically motivated errors' [49]? Of course YV is a reliable source despite a few critics, just as is true for POLIN museum. Relevant policy is WP:UNDUE. Stop pushing fringe views as mainstream, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Polin is financed by Polish taxpayers, including me. Some workers of the museum are politically active and some lectures and meeteings organised by the museum are controversial, described sometimes as anti-Polish.[50] So please Icewhiz, critzize Polin, I support you.Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a good indicator of being in the mainstream/center if you get criticized by both sides :P --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Of being in the center of PiS dominated memory politics in Poland - perhaps. This does not mean this is an accepted view on an academic level. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It will be decades before we know what is accepted. This is an ongoing historical debate, and it is not our job to say who is right, wrong, and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: If it wasn't so, it wouldn't be used in titles of academic chapters, museum galleries or in Israeli or Jewish-American newspapers. -- this apparently refers to the two-word phrase, not the entire saying (...hell for the peasants... etc). Editors insist that the article (and the DYK hook) is about the entire saying, which is not used as a name for "museum galleries" and so on. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, it would be nice if people would stop confusing three segments of this (poem, proverb and two-word phrase). As I have written on this in detail above, I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseum. If someone wants to argue that the PROVERB is antisemitic, please post a source here. There is no disagreement that the underlying poem was xenophobic (through sadly, no source says so explicit, hence I am not willing to say that in article due to WP:OR issues), and that makes it, among others, anti-semitic (it was also anti-noble, and anti-elite, and a few more things, so I think the current lead gives due weight to this issue). Majority of the discussion, including the only academic accusation of antisemitism, concern the two-word phrase, but per sources presented, only a minority of sources seem to see this two-word phrase as problematic. Regarding the proverb, I am not aware of any source calling it antisemitic, through as noted in the lead and more extensively in text, it is (doh) considered an exaggeration (and uh, not only for the Jews, any bible-related proverb is an exaggeration, as there's no hell, heaven, purgatory or hell on Earth...). Seriously, this is all a storm in a teacup due to some people not seeing a difference between an obscure poem forgotten shortly after it was written and a neutral, if not positive, use of the proverb/two-word phrase in the modern context. Any discussion of anti-semitism in this context is solely limited to people dredging out the origins of this term and arguing that it should be discussed (because, in the greater scheme of things, the POLIN Museum's critics are probably right that the museum is could do more to discuss antisemitism and is not doing so due to political pressure, hence for example it does not explain the darker origins of the 'Jewish Paradise', but this is really not relevant to the frigging proverb - neither it nor the saying are antisemitic, errr, because sources would say if it was, so, for the n-th time, people, cite your sources or stop OR criticism in vein of 'in my view this proverb/two word saying might be antisemitic'. No, it is frigging NOT - and that's not my personal view, this is based on review of dozen+ sources out of which none call the proverb such, and only one fringe view suggests the two-word phrase could be). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Order of phrases by version

There seems to be some confusion about the different versions, so I would like to point out here the different orderings -

Key

  • J = Jews
  • P = Peasants
  • T = Townspeople
  • N = Nobles
  • F = Foreigners

Latin poems:

  • 1606/1636: JPTN...F
  • 1664: JPF
  • 1685: NPJF
  • 1708-9: NJTP

Modern language proverbs:

  • Polish: NTPJ
  • German: PJTNF

--Pharos (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

And a few other phrases thrown in (e.g. the German goldmine) and/or different language. However - do you have a source tying all (or any) of these supposed variants together? Because at the moment, we're stringing them together by WP:OR - citing 17th-19th century sources that contain different supposed variants - based on editorial discretion that the phrase is "similar enough". Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONSENSE. Btw, do you have a source that clearly state that "Paradisus Iudaeorum" is an alt spelling of "Paradisus Judaeorum", and that "Jewish Paradise" and "Paradise for Jews" are related concepts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I could tie them in by pairs, yes. Both Latin->English and the Latin I/J variant. A source that contains all 4 - probably not (though it might exist via citations). But many sources in pairs - yes. Many of the variants above don't have a single source tying them to a single other variant.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Most of the variants are actually claimed by one source or another to be the source of the proverb, however incorrectly. This is why I thought it was important to give them all for historical context. By the way, "F" in my key does stand for "goldmine for foreigners", and it is also in the majority of the variants.--Pharos (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

war of attrition

Over 1/3 of the talk page edits and literally half the text is from the same editor making the same points, even when others -- some of whom have clearly taken significant time to actually look into the sources -- are disagreeing with those points. It's feeling like someone who knows that the way to get your way on Wikipedia is just to be willing to politely argue and put up walls of text forever because eventually everyone else will say fuck it, this isn't worth my time. valereee (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is how Wikipedia works in practice. WP:CONSENSUS etc. is nice, but in reality, well, doh. I am reasonably sure this is discussed somewhere in Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia, see also User:Volunteer Marek/gt or my User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_most_dangerous_of_mindsets. I am sure there are many others. Heck, even in ArbCom (we have a vote on that right now) the key arbitrators are those who have the time, and those who don't are irrelevant. I even published an academic paper on it, which I link to in questions for candidates if you are curious. The only way to improve this is to get outside views (which is why I always appreciate when new people like yourself get involved, even if we don't necessarily agree) because clearly people are never going to change their mind (per my essay). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
And I appreciate that you're assuming good faith on my part, and I want to make it clear that I believe you are operating in good faith, and that I do not think you are intentionally operating with a conflict of interest. I just believe that you have a belief so strong in what you see as a great truth that it does indeed become an unconscious conflict of interest. valereee (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You comment words. What about the deeds - Move and AfD?Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Link to the Polish language article about the actual proverb should be removed - the narrative of this piece is not about the proverb anymore. GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @Pharos - After your recent correction [51], that brought back the article into the original quality the link to the Polish version of the article does not have to be removed anymore. However, if the POV version gets reinstated (and I think it will be) please consider removing the link since the article in Polish is about the proverb, not about the Poles "continuously hating Jews" or something along this lines. I'm not even sure what is the purpose of having the one-sided version of this anymore. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This page was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

False. The page has been also renamed and I don't see such information here.
The results suggest that Poles were a minority tolerated in some Jewish empire. In reality the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a big, multinational and multiethnic country, with a Jewish minority, which traded, banked, leased, rented but didn't participated in the political life. Jewish culture was isolated from the state. Only a small group of Jews converted and joined nobility.
The whole phrase describes social structure of the Commonwealth. Reduction to Jewish POV is biased.Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The article's original title was "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews", reflecting a 1606 satirical screed on the overall Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The article was highjacked to "Paradisus Judaeorum" ("Jewish Paradise").
Nihil novi (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paradisus_Judaeorum/Archive_1&oldid=946121613"