Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Post AfD article

I have reverted as the article should reflect its current title. We had a discussion, the two word term is the topic - which incidentally introduces additional sources.Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The AfD was closed as keep. The lead may need a minor rewrite, but I don't see any reasons for major rewrites or deletions. Everything is properly referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the topic here changed. Each and every move !vote in the AfD specified severe notability concerns on the former title, but did mention that much of the content would be salvageable under a different title. WP:OR of antisemitic WP:PRIMARY sources (which are also presently extensively quoted) - without any supporting SECONDARY sources - is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not the place for OR, and particularly not in this odious subject matter.Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I've modified the lede. I also moved around the sections to reflect the new topic. I tagged the "Uses in literature" section (which I previously attempted to remove - and was reverted as a "mass deletions") as WP:UNDUE (due to relying, mainly, on PRIMARY sources and including material not present nor discussed in SECONDARY sources) and as WP:OR (due to being a synthesis of PRIMARY sources, in some cases the connection to this article (e.g. the "Nova Babylonia" primary quoration) being OR).Icewhiz (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the AfD was closed as keep. A minor rewrite is in order per the new name, but only minor changes are needed (rewording of the lead per the focus change from the proverb to the two-word part). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

A recent blanket revert modified the lede so that it doesn't reflect the new title, as well as removing several bits of content sourced to SECONDARY academic texts. asserting "POV edits against consensus" is not a reversion rationale. Please discuss specifically the reversion of -

1. [1] - the lede - and specifically coverage (Wrobel, Janicka in journal articles) stating that this is a contested POV phrase (with many Jews and scholars viewing the situation in Poland quite differently from this Polish POV phrase).
2. [2] - use of the phrase by the National Democracy underground newspaper to describe the situation in Jewish ghettos in 1940. This is sourced to an article in Acta Poloniae Historica by Tomasz Szarota.
3. [3] - use of the phrase by a Nazi research institute in 1942 - this is sourced to a journal article by Janicka.
4. [4] - use of the phrase in a paper submitted to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, and how most historians of Jewish history in Poland rejected this characterization. Sourced to an in-depth discussion of this in a journal article in The American Historical Review by David Engel (historian) (sourcing really does not get better than this!).
5. [5] [6] - use of this phrase in the context of the Jedwabne debated and promotion of this POV phrase by PiS following 2005 - sourced to the same journal article by Engel.
6. [7] - context of Hundert remarks - present also in Hundert himself, and in secondary coverage of Hundert (in a journal article/interview of Antony Polonsky).
7. [8] - use of the phrase by the Catholic church (oddly - it seems the reverter thinks its appropriate to cite and quote extensively this 1636 text - without a secondary reference) - source to an article by Adam Kaźmierczyk in Biuletyn Polskiej Misji Historycznej.
8. [9] use by Jesuit Walenty Pęski in a 1672 Polemic - sourced to Janusz Tazbir in Acta Poloniae Historica.
9. [10] - use in 14th century Austria, sourced to a journal article by Joanna Tokarska-Bakir.

In contrast to much of the (now reverted article) - these are sourced to secondary academic journals by writers in the field (as opposed to 17th century anti-semitic tracts) - which is generally the type of sourcing we should use. Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The title is a shortened version of the whole thing, so that it's easier to find. The article is about the whole phrase. This has already been discussed. You didn't get consensus so you went forum shopping to AFD and failed to get it deleted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And since this was a well known and common phrase, I'm sure you can trowel the internet to find some instances where this was used in some context which fits your cherry picked POV. For example, the Szarota article - yes, it notes that it appeared in an obscure publication once but so what? Is the source about the use of the phrase? No. Does the source suggest the use of the phrase was widespread by the Endeks? No. It's as if you took a fairly common American saying, then went and found an instance where someone unsavory said it and then came running to the article trying to cram it in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The AfD closed as a move to a new topic - after several of the participants in the discussion noted their alarm at sourcing in the article, as well as the non-notability of the prior topic. I performed a source review for "Paradisus Judaeorum" in academic journals this morning, inserting coverage which was not present in the article. We reflect sources - and this is what they choose to cover for this phrase. Coverage in journal articles is not "troweling the internet". I will note that the present "Early Latin verses" and "History and versions" (or "Uses in literature" in the more reasonable version) - is trowling google-books - basically mentioning every PRIMARY source (including 16th-19th century ones) in which Paradisus occurs in the context of Poland and Jews. In any case - the above arguement - to sourced journal content - is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKE - resulting in an article that does not present an anti-Semitic slogan in a balanced manner. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No, no it didn't. The AfD closed as a move to a new title. YOU are just inventing this "move to a new topic" out of thin air. There's nothing in the closure which would suggest that. I mean, that's not even how AfDs work. Stop making shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And here is the context for the dispute. Your changes and removals on this article have been unilateral. These have been undone by what? Four, five? Maybe six different editors? You obviously had no consensus for any of them. Likewise, the RM didn't go your way. So in what looks like spite, you nominated the article for deletion. This was a neat little trick as it allowed you to forum shop for your POV. And while there was lots of votes there to move the article to a new title (so you "won" that part) there was nothing in the closure to validate the edits you've made - which have been opposed and undone by multiple editors, and for which you have no WP:CONSENSUS.

Rather than trying to pull these kinds of tricks, what you need to do is to actually CONVINCE other editors of your position. Being confrontational and misrepresenting sources to push negative ethnic stereotypes (as you're doing on a related article) is unlikely to help you succeed in that endeavor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The sole editor who reverted the additions above, sourced to journal articles, was Volunteer Marek. Following comments that my previous attempts to remove WP:UNDUE WP:PRIMARY content in this article was a "mass deletions" - I modified the lede without removing any of the primary quotations and WP:OR, which I merely moved - that's trying to work towards consensus. The AfD discussion participants raised some serious objections to the current state of this article. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I might be the only one who reverted that particular edit but several editors - Piotrus, Pharos, Serial Number - have reverted your previous attempts at basically doing the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Some of the new sources may be useful for further expansion, but please, link to the online versions of the articles. Ex. "Engel, David. "On Reconciling the Histories of Two Chosen Peoples." The American Historical Review 114.4 (2009): 914-929." I am sure adding a url so others can more quickly access and verify the contexts shouldn't be that difficult. This source seems like it could be useful, if other editors can access it. For now I prefer VM's version, since your version seemed unduly biased towards portraying this concept as anti-semitic, and it contains irrelevant content that can only be described as trying to unduly influence the reader. Ex. you inserted the following sentence to the lead: "The theory of a tolerant Poland is common among most Poles; however, most Jews consider Poland to be one of most antisemitic countries." While the first part seems roughly relevant, what most Jews think of Poland is irrelevant to this article. There were plenty of similar semi-random, off-topic additions in your version, such as undue stress over a single WWII-era Holocaust-denial source - it is UNDUE and OR to use a WWII source to claim that the view of Poland as Jewish Paradise during WWII was common. Such off topic or undue claims do not belong here, regardless of whether we focus on the proverb or on the two-word phrase. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Icewhiz completely misrepresents the Engel source. He says that it says: "Most historians of the Jews in the Second Polish Republic rejected this view, seeing the long-term stability of Jewish-Polish relations not as a result of any Polish proclivity for tolerance and liberty, but rather due to mutual interests between Jews and parts of Polish society". Which, first of all, is a non-sequitur. The preceding sentence is about Kutrzeba's description - but Kutrzeba, doesn't say ANYTHING - according to Engel - about "proclivity for tolerance and liberty". And, second, more importantly, there's nothing in the source about "Most historians of the Jews in the Second Polish Republic" rejecting this view. The sentence is also written in a confusing way - no one has ever claimed that the Second Polish Republic was a "paradise for the Jews" so it's not clear what Icewhiz is trying to debunk here (this is also how it's easy to tell that Engel is being misrepresented since why in the world would he "reject" a view which did not even exist???) Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKE of the anti-semitic context of this saying, as reflected by WP:RS is not grounds for removal. When URLs are openly available - I post them - however an openly accessible version of a journal article is not a criteria for use - The American Historical Review is a top-tier publication. As for Engel - he clearly says (in the paragraph after Askenazy and Kutrzeba , clearly referencing this as contrary to Kutrzeba's theory):

Kutrzeba’s conclusion was emphatic: “It has been said that Poland is the paradisus judaeorum. It may not have been a paradise for the Jews, but if one compares Jewish liberties in Poland with the restrictions [prevailing elsewhere] . . . , the exaggeration in this name . . . may not appear excessively great. [paragraph break] If Askenazy hoped that Jewish scholars from Poland would promulgate a similar version of the Polish Jewish past, he was surely disappointed. Although several leading historians of the Jews who lived in the Second Polish Republic—Majer Bałaban, Ignacy Schiper, Mojz˙esz Schorr, Rafael Mahler, Emmanuel Ringelblum, and Philip Friedmann ... did depart in significant ways from the Dubnowian narrative about Poland’s place in Jewish history, the story line that they substituted for it accorded only in part with Askenazy’s desiderata.24 .... On the other hand, it attributed the long-term stability of Polish Jewish relations not, as Kutrzeba had suggested, to any essential proclivity of the Polish nation for tolerance and liberty, but to mutual advantage stemming from a meshing of interests between Jews and certain classes of Polish society. Jews did well in Poland for a long time, the Polish Jewish historians argued, only because they contributed substantially to the development of the Polish state and economy However, political and economic changes eventually engendered a situation where, in their view, the benefits of cooperation no longer sufficed to offset tensions born of mounting competition and religious parochialism. Although the dating, description, and etiology of those changes were matters of ongoing debate among them, all agreed that during the period of partitions, Polish society had increasingly fallen prey to imported traditions of anti-Jewish prejudice that were not in keeping with its historic values. Poles might recover those values, they suggested, but only if they took affirmative action to do so.

Also

footnote23: "The description of Poland as paradisus judaeorum.... Kutrzeba and his colleague Franciszek Bujak may have been among the first modern historians to employ the expression seriously as a more or less accurate description of the Jewish situation in old Poland"

which clearly supports the content - and specifically Kutrzeba's argument being the "essential proclivity of the Polish nation for tolerance and liberty" . Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wait WHAT?

Engel says: "the exaggeration in this name . . . may not appear excessively great." As in, yeah, a bit exaggerated but essentially right.

And then Engel says, according to YOU: "Kutrzeba and his colleague Franciszek Bujak may have been among the first modern historians to employ the expression seriously as a more or less accurate description of the Jewish situation in old Poland"

Yet somehow, you turn this into: "Most historians of the Jews in the Second Polish Republic rejected this view"

Bull. Shit. You're acting as if other people couldn't read. Please stop trying to gaslight other editors. It's right there in plain view.

You, and only YOU, made up the part about "most historians reject blah blah blah". You pulled that out of your ass. You then added Engel's source to the end of that sentence to make it seem like it was Engel that said it. It wasn't. This is a explicitly dishonest misrepresentation - actually, "misrepresentation" isn't strong enough here - of the source.

And deflecting to the part about national proclivities is just that - deflecting because, once again, you got caught misrepresenting sources. The text in the article says nothing about any proclivities. Even YOUR OWN text from Kutrzeba that you include in the article says nothing about it.

Freakin' a this is is some blatant shenanigans.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

And the fact that you choose to leave out some crucial text in the ellipses here: "desiderata.24 .... On the other hand" suggests that this isn't just sourcing sloppiness, but a purposeful decision. You give us "the other hand" but hope no one notices that you left out "the one hand".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation. The section 'Second Polish Republic' from [11] seems essentially correct and I am tentatively supporting it restoration, through some c/e changes may be needed to make it more clear that the term 'paradisus judaeorum' is relevant here. I'll try to access the full paper shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "Most historians of the Jews in the Second Polish Republic rejected this view" at the very least is NOT "essentially correct", or any kind of "correct" for that matter, as it's just something Icewhiz himself made up and cannot be found anywhere in the source. Indeed, the source itself SAYS THE OPPOSITE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The source itself clearly states that "several leading historians of the Jews who lived in the Second Polish Republic" rejected the view - in the next paragraph. As for your claim above that Engel says: "the exaggeration in this name . . . may not appear excessively great." - no Engel does not say that. Engel quotes Kutrzeba saying that (in quotation marks). He then presents the opposing view (in the next paragraph) of most other historians of the period. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, this is a gross misrepresentation. The key words here are "the view". First, Engel DOES NOT say "they rejected the view". You made that up. Engel says they "accorded only in part" with Askenazy's "desiderata". And "the view" here is WHY 16th century Poland was a "Paradisus Judaeorum" not WHETHER it was one. How many times does this need to be said? It's obvious yet you keep stubbornly insisting that the source says something it doesn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's just quote and attribute: According to Engel, several leading historians, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We could attribute that to Engel (though not necessary - Engel in the The American Historical Review should be more than fine for views of historians nearly 100 years ago). I don't think we need to attribute Kutrzeba's views back to Engel. I also found - Cinematic Motifs as a Seismograph: Kazimierz, the Vistula and Yiddish Filmmakers in Interwar Poland published in the Gal-Ed journal (the author is an expert Polish-Jewish History and Culture) which could be used to source uses in film and other context from the Polish Second Republic (and a bit before - 1913). This work references The Esterke Story in Yiddish and Polish Literature: A Case Study in the Mutual Relations of Two Cultural Traditions which unfortunately does not seem to be online. I've seen tie-ins to Esterka in other sources as well (e.g. Janicka is quite explicit - but not only) - which also might be worthwhile to work into the article as a related concept (Another myth/conception regarding Jews in Poland). as a side note - given the open move review (was not aware of it when I made my edits) - I intend to take a step back here until it is resolved. Constructively - there are quite a bit of academic sources on "Paradisus Judaeorum"(/Iudaeorum) - what I inserted (diffs above) - was a first draft - it definitely needs a CE, and could be expanded with additional material.Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have considered restoring the section myself, but I came to the conclusion that it is mostly off topic. The JP phrase was used by Kutrzeba (whom Engels cites), but Kutrzeba source is rather old (1919?), and you yourself have raised concerns about usage of older sources. Engels, on the other hand, doesn't really seem to discuss this phrase; instead he talks about different views of why Poland became the haven for Jews in the Middle Ages. From what I have read of Engels, I do agree with him - but I just don't see how this is relevant here. I think this source and argument might belong to the History of Jews in Poland, but they are not particularly relevant here. As I said earlier, why many sources do use the phrase JP in passing, very few actually discuss it. I invite you to edit the article or discuss proposed changes here, but let's try to stay on topic. This article should be based on (preferably) academic sources discussing this phrase/proverb/poem, and not digress into discussing off topic issues that sources using this phrase in passing discuss. TBH, the Polish museum controversy is another section that is problematic - I increasingly think it really belongs in the POLIN museum article, not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of the term in Polish state propaganda, in order to abrogate minority protections, is decidedly on topic. I will note, that as I see it (following my betters - e.g. Engel, Wrobel, and Polonsky to name but a few) - "Paradisus Judaeorum" is an extremist historical position that denies Polish antisemitism (and at its extreme - sees Wwii ghettos as a paradise). The corresponding, widely held, position on the "Jewish side" of the debate frames the vast majority of Poles as antisemites. This is how PJ is discussed in RSes - and we should reflect that here.Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Except neither Engel, nor Wrobel, nor Polonsky say that that it is "extremist historical position". It is solely YOUR position (and I guess perhaps that of a particular photographer). Please stop attempting to misrepresent sources, please stop making stuff up, please stop trying to claim authority of respectable authors who don't actually agree with you. This is misleading, too put it very very mildly. It is NOT how PJ is discussed in RSes. Congratulations. You managed to write another paragraph where every single statement you made was false.

Prove otherwise or stop this WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Engel (while a superb source), is perhaps too complex and nuanced for a discussion. Wrobel frames the two extremes here nicely - "Contemporary Polish-Jewish relations resemble a vicious circle. On the one hand, most Poles firmly believe that Poland has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world and that antiSemitism has existed only on the margins of Polish society. As far as they are concerned, there has been no such phenomenon as Polish anti-Semitism, for Poland has always been a true paradisus Judeorum. On the other hand, most Jews, especially those on the American continent and in Western Europe, claim that Poland is one of the most anti Semitic countries in the world. Jews have often shared the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's belief that virtually all Poles received their anti-Semitism "with their mothers' milk."".[12] Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Engel (while a superb source), is perhaps too complex and nuanced for a discussion" <-- if by "too complex and nuanced" you mean "does not actually support Icewhiz's views but Icewhiz tried to pretend that he did", then, I guess, yeah.

And your own quote from Wrobel disproves your position. And as already pointed out several times - can you just once acknowledge another person's comments in a relevant way? - Wrobel is talking about people who believe "Poland has ALWAYS been". I.e. folks who think there's never been anti-semitism in Poland. But that is not what we're talking about here. Here we're talking about the situation in Poland in the 16th century, where the term originated. Nice try at strawmen though. Nota bene, Wrobel is obviously critical of those who "claim that Poland is one of the most anti Semitic countries in the world". Perhaps you should take the sources you keep suggesting seriously for once.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Engel advances this view as well. Wrobel is critical both of those who deny Polish antisemitism (true paradisus Judeorum) - and of the polar opposite Jewish view - he strikes (as Engel does) - a middle ground. As made clear in the recent AfD, the 16th century polemic (claiming Jews had it "too good") is not notable. The two word concept of Paradisus Judaeorum has been applied, in Polish discourse, to a number of eras - from the 17th century, through the Second Polish Republic, and during the Holocaust as well (calling ghettos, a Paradisus Judaeorum). Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So which is it? Do Angel and Wrobel strike a middle ground, or do they consider it to be a "extremist historical position"? And the "recent AfD" did not make what you claim 'clear". What was your point anyway? We were discussing your gross misrepresentation of Engel weren't we, before you derailed the discussion again? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December

Since this article was recently moved as part of the AfD closure that overturned the prior RM, a related move review has been started. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Elżbieta Janicka removed

As far as I can tell Elżbieta Janicka is a "is historian of literature at the Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences." Seems like a good source to me. Her book Philo-Semitic Violence?: New Polish Narrative about Jews After 2000 may be useful.Jonney2000 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Dismissing a noted scholar as "Janicka is a photographer, not a historian so not really qualified to make this assessment. Normally I'd just say "not in the lede" but that rant is stuffed so full of nonsense and is barely coherent, so it's pretty much a non-RS"diff is a WP:BLP vio. While Janicka is indeed also a very noted photographer (in the artistic sense - exhibitions and the like), she has subsequently become also a professional academic. Per this journal in 2015 - "Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature, cultural anthropologist, photographer, MA at the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot (1994); PhD at Warsaw University (2004). Author of the following books: Sztuka czy Naród? Monografia pisarska Andrzeja Trzebińskiego [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences.". She is invited as a speaker in international venues - e.g. [13][14] The Institute for Holocaust, Genocide, and Memory Studies at the University of Massachusetts in 2018. She has a position at the Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences [15] (her profile there doesn't mention her prior photography work) and a respectable list of publications. An historian of literature & cultural anthropologist (with expertise in minority studies, urban topography and cultural memory, Polish identity narratives, categories of the description of Holocaust in the Polish dominant culture) - is precisely the domain expert for historical Polish sayings and writings that we need in such article. Cutting domain experts out - while quoting at length antisemitic writings by clerics a few hundreds years ago - is a severe POV and advocacy issue - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for showcasing hate speech. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Janicka is a photographer with a degree in "humanities". She has no training in history and is not a historian. Since there's no licensure requirements for calling oneself a "historian", she, or her promoters, can of course refer to herself as a "historian of literature". I'm a "historian of literature" too. Also a "historian of art". And a "historian of music". And a "historian of soups". And a "historian of shady sayings". Pointing out that she has no actual qualifications in history is NOT a BLP vio. But nice try. And these kinds of accusations coming from someone who makes it regular practice to attempt to turn Wikipedia BLP articles into hit pieces is quite rich. Whatever.

If there's some article that is relevant to her books on Trzebinski or the "symbolic topography of the former Warsaw Ghetto" then yeah, we could use her there. But she is most certainly NOT a "domain expert" here - she's just someone with an academic degree in something else, that went to a museum and didn't like an exhibition, so she wrote basically a long rant about it, stuffed full of inaccuracies, falsehoods, hyperbolic and exaggerated language, failed attempts at irony and faux outrage. And that's the parts that are coherent. And before you go there, no, evaluating a source, even critically, is not a BLP vio either.

Afaik, she has no training in cultural anthropology either, so I'm not sure where you've pulled these credentials from.

And here's a thing. This source is not even needed here. We already have more than adequate sourcing for the text in question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

“Janicka is a very noted photographer” - NO she is not, she is neither a historian [16] or very noted photographer [17],[18] (with all respect to Janicka) Opinion of a random photographer that happened to self-publish a rare opinion piece about her finding in POLIN Museum clearly is not relevant here. GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Controversy over use at POLIN

The "Controversy over use at POLIN" subsection really belongs in the "POLIN Museum" article and should be moved there.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup, this is a classic POV WP:COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm willing to discuss how much discussion belongs here, but at minimum a mention and a wikilink. valereee (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I think a mention and a wikilink is fine. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But right now it's like the biggest section in the article (or as big as the history section), which is clearly WP:UNDUE. And the purpose of most of the section is indeed to WP:COATRACK stuff into it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Not really, as a rather significant chunk of academic sources discussing this phrase are related to the POLIN museum controversy. Thus - per WP:BALASP - this should fill a rather significant chunk of the article. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

And once again, this is false. The sources used in the section are either POLIN itself or a single issue of an obscure (internationally) journal which happens to have several articles about the exhibition. That does NOT make them a "significant chunk".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I did a fairly comprehensive source review earlier this week. Academic sources related to POLIN (using Iudaeorum more often than Judaeorum) were approx. 20%-40% of the sources I found. Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Where did you do this "comprehensive source review"? Neither 20% or 40% appears on this page more than once. I've also looked at every instance on this talk page where "POLIN" is mentioned and see no such "comprehensive source review". In fact, out of the 26 citations in the article currently, only 4 are about POLIN, plus another 2 from POLIN itself. And of those 4 which are about POLIN, 3 of them come from the single issue of a fairly obscure journal. So... I don't know how you came up with your calculations but these don't seem to be supported by actual... math.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Evident even in a cursory scholar search. As for the 26 citations in the article - many of them are PRIMARY and of little value (merely being attestations of use) - e.g. an anti-semitic clergyman from 1636.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It should certainly be copied there. I think the section here can be shortened. I am not sure what is the best balance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Verses

Is this section needed in the article?

• Paradisus Judaeorum#Early Latin verses

It seems to fail WP:NOTLYRICS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it fails. NL is a reminder that modern lyrics are copyrighted. The other consideration is length and relevance. Wikisource is good place for most non-copyrighted primary texts, but the issue here is that there are several variants. Listing them here seems reasonably helpful to leader, through I have no objections if they are moved to wikisource and linked here instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

NOTLYRICS applies irrespective of copyright - "Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style". In addition to that you have restrictions on post-1922 lyrics, but the sentence before applies regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Enter 10k of text spent on pointless arguing about what is 'reasonable length'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• I removed the verses; if someone would like to move to Wikisource, this can be done from the diff, which I'm linking here: [19]. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I restored it, I don't recognize a legitimate basis for the elimination of well-sourced material.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I too find NOTLYRICS not relevant for a not-copyrighted not-song.--Pharos (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

NOTLYRICS does not limit itself to copyright. Furthermore, we have WP:NOTSOAPBOX - in this case promotion of antisemitic 17th century rants that have little to do with the re-scoped article - this article is on the term "Paradisus Judaeorum" - not on 17th century rants or saying (which are sourced to PRIMARY 17th century text books - rather demonstrating being UNDUE by the lack of SECONDARY sources actually containing these verses). Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's "promoting" anti semitic rants, 17th century or otherwise. Stop making shit up. And no, this article is about both the phrase and where it comes from, your unilateral and WP:TEND efforts to obfuscate that not withstanding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• The more relevant guideline is clearly Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources: "If out of copyright, shorter texts – such as short speeches (the Gettysburg Address), short poems ("Ozymandias"), and short songs (most national anthems) – are usually included in their article. Longer texts are best summarised with the full text placed on Wikisource, or given as an external link."--Pharos (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Aquired Krzyzanowski and Kot

It took me a while, but finally I found time to visit a Polish library which has those two works and took pictures (scans), so if anyone wants to see them, send me an email.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead-image caption

What does this mean?

An early, Latin-language manuscript version of the pasquinade included in a poem which satirically marked the 1605 wedding of Sigismund III Vasa and Constance of Austria.

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I find it clear enough but feel free to rewrite it. It's the photo/scan of the original 17th century edition of the poem which contains the phrase PJ. That poem, as explained in the text, was a satire for the royal wedding of SIIIV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

An "early" version: so early that it predates the earliest version by one year, according to the first sentence; Latin-language as opposed to Latin what?; manuscript version as opposed to what other kind?; why use the term pasquinade? And later "planted at the royal wedding party". And "[o]ut of the two pasquinades": what were the two pasquinades"?

The whole article has an OR feel to it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It has been a while since I worked on this but AFAIK there have been several pasquinades, one of them contained the phrase discussed. They have been always grouped together, like a collection of short stories or poems. 1605 is an error, see also caption at File:Regnum Polonorum Est (start).png, thanks for catching it. Early should be replaced with the first. "-language" is probably not needed. Manuscript is just a term, I am not sure what's wrong with it. I'll edit the caption to make it more clear per you suggestions, feel free to fix it further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

A "manuscript version included in a poem" doesn't really mean anything. What other versions were there, apart from manuscript versions? And a manuscript version included in a poem? And again, why the term "pasquinades"? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the version. Pasquinade because its the correct literary genre for the poem this appeared in, as noted by sources who analyze it (although I think we still don't have a good article on this literary genre, see Talk:Pasquino#Suggestion_to_split). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, this is not a GA. Please revert that promotion. There are serious problems throughout with the writing and sourcing. It's difficult in places to understand. Citations aren't written clearly; sources don't support or fully support the text. And it's very repetitive. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what problems you have. This has went through copyediting by several problems. What citations don't support the text? What's repetitive? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It says the same thing several times. The writing is problematic. When you look at the sources, they don't quite say what the text says. What is the subject? The two words, the whole phrase, the poem? I'm sorry to say this because I know it puts a question mark over later work, but this version was clearer. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It was a clear version indeed, similar to one in Polish Wiki. The article went mad shortly after and was also called for deletion [20].GizzyCatBella🍁 06:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Weelll, the fact that a certain now indef banned editor had a major issue with this article (up to and including trying to get it deleted) did result in few bumps, but overall, I think the expansion helped. The main issue is that that we are dealing with a number of closely related subject, each of which actually may be notable. Those are, from smallest to largest: 1) the term "Jewish paradise" as used in the context of Polish history 2) the proverb "heaven for the nobility, paradise for Jews, purgatory for townspeople, and hell for peasants" 3) the 1606 poem that contained 1) and over time gave rise to 2). But should this be split? I am not entirely convinced those three topics are indeed notable, and that the reader would benefit from having them split. Granted, I am the main author of this, but I don't think this is particularly confusing, through further expansion and clarification is always good. PS. I intended this to be about 2), but post-linked AfD I was forced to rewrite it into 1). Shrug. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

More information is always better than less, I agree. I'm still thinking about what could be done to address SV's concerns.GizzyCatBella🍁 06:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Break

Could someone please explain the caption? "Original Latin manuscript of the pasquinade, containing the expression Paradisus Judaeorum."

What is meant by "original manuscript", and which source says this? Where does the term "pasquinade" come from; which source uses it? And the poem (if it's a poem) in that manuscript does not say what our article says. If that manuscript is your source, then you need to change the phrase. Why use a later version of the phrase?

The 1937 source for the first sentence: there are better and more recent sources in the article. Is there something special about that source? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really don't see that much problem with it. But then I am not a native speaker, I'll ping User:Nihil novi for his two cents, since he is also graciously copyediting this article for the n-time, and we all know what "reward for good work" is. Anyway, the expression PJ seems to have originated in that 1606 text, which is photographed/scanned in the image. I don't think it's OR to say that the picture of X is showing X. As for pasquinade, I am not sure if there is English reaseach using this word, since the poem is not really discussed in English literature studies, but Polish ones about it use the term "paszkwil" which as far as I can tell translates to pasquinade (ex. from Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, Żydzi u Kolberga: "W przekonaniu Stanisława Kota, paszkwil ten...", or Krzyzanowaski; just do a google book search for the Polish title of this poem collection, "Paskwiliusze na królewskim weselu podrzucone". ). Again, it doesn't help that the very term pasquinade is not common in English and that our article about it, well, is a mess :) There is a pl:Paszkwil, btw. And no, pl:Pasquino linked from pasquinade is different concept, as I said, our article needs a rewrite, it confuses a literary genre with a type of statue, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see "pasquinade" in Wiktionary, which gives an F. Scott Fitzgerald use of the word from The Great Gatsby.

The Polish cognate of "pasquinade" is paszkwil, which is what Poles call the literary micro-work that is the subject of our article.

I would not call that micro-work a "poem". "Pasquinade" is about the right term for it.

Any other specific questions?

Nihil novi (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th edition, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, p. 1016, gives the same definition for "pasquinade". So does The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 5th edition, Oxford University Press, 1964, p. 886.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, I see this doesn't seem to have been "bottomed out" fully. I will attempt to undo the promotion now (didn't know that could be done directly, actually, let's hope it works). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Sorry about this, there is quite the kerfuffle going on, and we obviously can't let matters rest. I am happy to continue to work with you to resolve the issues; or to hand over to someone with more knowledge of Polish literature; or to close the GAN so you can work on it further. Please let me know what you would like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: another editor has reverted that, so the choice is for everyone to work together until they are happy with the article, or to take it to GAR. I shan't intervene. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed?

A valid point has been made that following a move from Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews to Paradisus Judaeorum the article might had lost some focus. I always had doubts whether the focus on the small phrase Paradisus Judaeorum is good. It may be notable on its own, but it lacks an in-depth source. It is often used, but not discussed much in depth, and the two main works have different focus. Krzyzanowski focuses on the proverb (Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews). Kot uses the proverb as the title of his monograph, through his ovearching theme is the use of satirical texts which use this proverb or its variations. As such, I think that the main topic with most clear notability is the proverb. This would allow for what I think is the least confusing structure: 1) section that explains origins/history, and then 2) discussion of the meaning. This is how the article looked before the move: [21]. The move may merit a bit more rewriting, mainly in the lead, to restore the focus on the proverb, rather than its small part, but is manageable and I am willing to do it. Thoughts? WP:RM? Any other title suggestions? Shorter would be better but I have no idea how to shorten beyond basing this on the title Kot uses, which would be "Polska rajem dla Żydów, piekłem dla chłopów, niebem dla szlachty" so in English Poland as Paradise for the Jews, Hell for the peasants and Heaven for the nobles, which "a bit" shorter, but still rather long. PS. Krzyzanowski's chapter uses the longer title: "Polska była niebem dla szlachty, czyśćem dla mieszcan, piekłem dla chłopów, i rajem dla Żydów". Note changed order of the verses (Kot uses Jews, peasants and nobles; Krzyzanowski uses nobles, townsfolk, peasants and Jews), as noted by both Kot and Krzyzanowski there is no "stable order" for them anyway. I think our initial title was based on Krzyzanowski's chapter title. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SarahSV, the focus of the article was more apparent before the move.GizzyCatBella🍁 07:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Repetition

Would someone please remove the repetition? I would do it, but I'll be reverted. The article is saying the same thing over and over. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why you assume you'll be reverted. Have you been reverted here so far? Anyway, what repetition? Remember, the lead should summarize the article, so most key points should generally be repeated twice in the article (once in lead, once in the text). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You know I've been reverted. You even changed the wording of a quotation I added.

The lead is repetitive too, Piotrus.

And the repetition includes the citations. This one—Kot, Stanisław (1937). Polska rajem dla Żydów, piekłem dla chłopów, niebem dla szlachty [Poland as Paradise for the Jews, Hell for the Peasants, and Heaven for the Nobles]. Warszawa: Kultura i Nauka—is written out in full six times. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Did I change the wording of a quoation? Can you link the diff? Maybe I made an error, and I'd be happy to self-revert. As for citation repetition, as far as I know it's allowed by MoS, and is not an issue outside FA-standards. I specifically dislike Harvard citations which remove links to Google Books and make verification more difficult. But if you know a way to shorten them that's MoS friendly and preserves the links, please do so (yes, Kot does not have the links, I know). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat long citations. If you want to add a Google link, add it to the page number. As for the diff about changing a quote, see the history and my edit summary about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree, but I don't think this an issue relevant to pre-FA level of quality. I might tackle this when I do another ref c/e or such, but anyone can try to do this too, shouldn't be too complex or time consuming. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Issues

Ping User:SlimVirgin. Are the any outstanding specific issues you want to raise here? The caption you noted as problematic has been significantly rewritten. Is there anything else? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The English is poor in places and deteriorating. The sources don't exactly support the text. My first impression when I saw the article was that it was antisemitic OR. The question is why we're hosting an article about this phrase.

Can you post here a source that discusses the phrase or the text it came from in some detail, rather than in passing? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try to address those issues. The more eyeballs the better, etc. It's not like we are any hurry for this to be a GA.

re: "The English is poor in places and deteriorating." I noticed several times this went through copyediting by User:Nihil novi, whom I know is a native speaker and does a lot of copyediting for such issues. This is also a simple enough issue I think that the GA reviewer would caught it, meanwhile they called it "well-written", but let's see what they want to say: User:Chiswick Chap? Would you mind re-reading it once again and consider the quality of English? Ditto for other editors active here, it's a simple enough issue I think we can hear from others, if anyone has time to comment on this.

Thanks but I'll leave that for others more knowledgeable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"The sources don't exactly support the text." This sound serious. Can you be specific? Which source does not support which sentence? The article went through enough copyediting and such over the years some errors might have been introduced that I missed.

"Antisemitic OR". Eh? It's a notable proverb. In-depth monograph by Kot, well-reviewed by modern scholars (positively commented upon by Tokarska-Bakir), plus a chapter by Krzyzanowski (both of which I've read, even went to library since they are not online :>). This was discussed a lot in the archives. Anyway, I think it is correct to say that the origin of the phrase are antisemitic, through really, they were xenophobic in general, and antisemitism was only one dimension, limited to two or three words; as noted, the author had a grudge with many other groups (Protestants, all foreigners, the nobility, etc.). But the term has clearly moved on (see linguistic reclamation), unless you think Gershon Hundert, John Klier or Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett missed that little fact, and so did everyone involved in naming the gallery like that in POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews. Through I agree I think POLIN should add a small note somewhere about the phrase origins, like Kijek suggested. When I was there few years back they didn't have such a note, I do wonder if it has changed since. Anyway, the modern use is not antisemitic, through as noted, it is considered an exaggeration of the situation of Polish Jews. But exaggeration is not hate speech. PS. In all honesty, I think the article should be moved back to its original title, the proverb is clearly notable, the two-word phrase, less so. But I am not sure how an AfD "rename" verdict can be challenged. Err, maybe we could do a WP:RM if you think it would solve the issue? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The article's renaming to "Paradisus Judaeorum" from its original, more comprehensive title was ill-advised and was forced through against strong objections. Nihil novi (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, I’ll further note that the concept of this proverb being of the antisemitic origin is quite new, asserted by just a few scholars from what I can observe. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the antisemitic origin is a particularly new thesis, nor controversial. The only issue I see is that in the context of the original poem... err... pasquilade... whatever, it was just one of many dimensions of the effectively xenophobic+ rant (it was not only xenophobic, but also anti-nobility). The original poem was critical of other groups. That said, it even developed interesting variants, IIRC Kot mentioned one that was pro-Protestant and anti-Catholic. The latter proverb dropped big chunks of the poem, and as noted, only mentions nobility, peasants, Jews and townsfolk, and given all the variants there are some that don't even mention the Jews (ex. [22] which just mentions the peasants), so they obviously cannot be antisemitic :> Now, when we limit the discussion to just the Jewish part of the saying, of course the antisemitic dimension becomes much more relevant. In either case, I support mentioning the antisemitic/xenophobic origin of the phrase in the article, it's relevant. Last thing, let's don't get confused about historical and modern usage. The original text was xenophobic, the later proverb and the modern use of the phrase (which as can be easily googled includes Jewish disapora newspapers and scholars of Jewish history) obviously isn't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have completed a comprehensive copyedit of the article. I will welcome any further questions or suggestions.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I notice that some citations are missing page numbers. It would be well to include them, when possible. Nihil novi (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: Could you be specific - which citations do you think should have book numbers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Specific page numbers are missing from references 2, 5 (missing "p. 14"), 17, 21.

Several references appear to give incomplete page spans: 26 ("pp. 107–"), 29 ("pp. 224–"), 37 ("pp. 56–").

In reference 19, the book's title might be better translated into English as Hazy Things rather than Foggy Things.

Note "a" might benefit from several clarifications (unclear formulations in the paragraph 1 quotation; in paragraph 2, it's unclear who is being quoted; and "Lampoons" – apparently a direct quotation from the reference – could be confusing as a rendering for "Paskwiliusze ").

Nihil novi (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Page numbers missing in ref 2: when I initially added it I thought it was a journal paper, and we don't cite pages for them (which, btw, I think is wrong, but MoS...). I'll try to add page ranges to Kot citations soon. Page 5 is a paper and we don't cite specific pages for them. Ref 17, ref not added by me, suffers from the digital scan which does not has visible page numbers, but I think the code refers to it as page 47 (fixed). Ditto for ref 21, I added the page that is suggested by the code. But code suggestions can be wrong, if the text doesn't have a page number and, well, not much we can do outside manual page count, and this is not always feasible.

Incomplete page spans are an artifact of the tool used which defaults to them rather than to a page, fixed.

I am not the author of note a, let's see if the author will address this, ping User:SlimVirgin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Note "a" quotes the source (and the source's English), so please don't change it again. The second paragraph of the note is one of the source's footnotes. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know I did not change the note a. If I am wrong, please link the diff and I'll see what happened. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I'll correct myself: I'd appreciate it if the person who changed it would not change it again. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Pasquinade and other repetition

The word "pasquinade" appears 22 times in 1614 words readable prose size, including twice in one sentence (permalink). "1606 pasquinade" appears five times. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I reduced the number of duplicated words a little. We might need some help from Nihil novi to reexamine it. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Two more examples of repetition, both from the lead:

1. "The proverb Paradise for Jews or Jewish Paradise (Latin: Paradisus Judaeorum, the latter word also spelled Iudaeorum) derives from an anonymous 1606 Latin pasquinade (satirical epigram) which gave rise to a Polish proverb ..."

The proverb comes from a pasquinade, which is an epigram, which gave rise to a proverb. The proverb came from something that produced a proverb.

2. The proverb said Poland was "heaven for the nobility, paradise for Jews, purgatory for townspeople, and hell for peasants". This meant Poland was "favorable to the nobility ... less so to the townspeople ... and much less so to the enserfed peasants."

The above says the same thing twice. Those are just two examples. The rest of the article was the same when I last looked. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the proliferation of "p" terms, sometimes of overlapping meaning (pasquinade, epigram, proverb), In my current copyedit of the article I have reduced them to just two terms: "pasquinade" (the original, longer texts) and "epigram" (the shorter later texts, ranging in length from three to five phrases). The "proverb" in currency today is synonymous with "epigram".

That should help resolve some of the confusion.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nihil novi, it would be easier to call the original Latin a "text" and the resulting "heaven for the nobility" a "saying". If you're interested in epigrams, see Niall Livingstone, Gideon Nisbet, Epigram, Cambridge University Press, 2010. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

But we are not Simple Wikipedia. The technical terms are pasquinade and proverb. As used in reliable sources (Kot, Krzyzanowski). Ping User:Nihil novi since he wasn't and he might have missed the direct query above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't know about epigrams particularly since the Polish sources don't use this term. Kot and Krzyzanowski use terms pasquinade (for the original poem) and proverb (for the resulting ~4-part saying). I agree that too much repetition is bad style, but usage of synonyms can lead to some problems when they are not 100% accurate (I mean, didn't someone already say here pasquinade is not a poem...?). Anyway, with all of that, maybe we can finally fix pasquinade and split it properly? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"Proverb" might work in lieu of "epigram", if someone could check whether that will be consistently satisfactory in the article. (I'm a little tired now of rereading it.) Thanks! Nihil novi (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

But those sources are both writing in Polish. Do they use the words "pasquinade" and "proverb"? Even if they do, that doesn't mean we have to, but do they?

Good writing is about communicating clearly, so the best thing is to keep things simple and straightforward. Use ordinary terms. Don't keep repeating jargon or the same facts. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

But some topics are too technical to avoid jargon. We have to strive the balance, our texts should be undestandable for laypeople, but we are not Simple Wikipedia, and can use "big words" too :) In any case, I've started the article on Pasquinade. Hope it will clarify things a little. PS. I missed the question above, which I just answered above. Yes, Kot and Krzyzanowski use mainly the terms pasquinade (for the 1606 works and resulting longer texts found up to the 18th century or so) and proverb (for the shorter form that developed from them and is in use today).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested quote

Poitrus, thanks for adding that. I can only go by Google Translate. It doesn't completely support the text. The article says: "Kot notes that variants of the pasquinade and proverb, penned by others in the 17th and 18th centuries, also criticized clergy, Gypsies, Italians, Germans, Armenians, and Scots – groups being added or removed depending on authors' allegiances and predilections."

Google Translate produces this to support it: "We have already indicated that over the years and the spread of write-offs, satire has changed. (p.11); "so you can see that the author, although Catholic, doesn't like Italy" (p.12); "Otherwise the Protestant text had to be transformed ... so the phrase about the deceit of Evangelicals had to be dropped, shifting this ugly turn to the Gypsies and adding the greed of the clergy (p.12);" Even the satyr was transformed into Polish by the Polish slavist ... Jurij Krizanie ... enthusiasts of Slavs were shocked, as you can see, in Poland the excess of foreigners and their influences: Gypsies, Germans, Armenians, Scots and Jews, from where Poland presents itself as the seat of the inhabitants of Włocławek "(p.12-13)

SarahSV ^(talk) 03:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Google Translate does a passable job, through there are some errors. Still, let's consider the English phrase, what it means, and how it can be reworded for more clarity: "Kot notes that variants of the pasquinade and proverb, penned by others in the 17th and 18th centuries, also criticized clergy, Gypsies, Italians, Germans, Armenians, and Scots – groups being added or removed depending on authors' allegiances and predilections." The examples are irrelevant and I think of no consequence (one of the later pages also mentions Tatars, I didn't bother adding...). The other facts are 1) the existence of variants - I don't think it is controversial or disputed, heck, we even have three variants of the paquinade in Latin with translation in the tables; Kot provides more in the text and 2) that various groups were added or removed based on the likes and (mostly) dislikes of various authors. Again, I don't see what's controvrersial here, and the source supports it. For example, Kot writes how a Protestant author of one of the revisions removed the criticism of Protestants and instead added the criticism of the Catholics. Please let me know what is unclear or such, but, again with the disclaimer that I am the author of this sentence, it seems to me to be both clear and supported by the original text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the article about?

What is the main topic of the article? Is it the phrase Paradisus Judaeorum; the saying "heaven for the nobility, paradise for Jews, purgatory for townspeople, and hell for peasants"; or the 17th-century text from which the saying may derive? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of repetition, I believe this was answered before, but for clarity. Right now, per the outcome of an AfD I did not agree with, the main topic is Paradisus Judaeorum. Unfortunately, the phrase itself is not discussed much in sources, so inevitably, most of the content is about the 17th century text and the later proverb, which received some dedicated scholarly attention (namely by Kot and Krzyzanowski; for the record, they both discuss the proverb and the original text, through Kot focuses more on the 17th century text, and Krzyzanowski, on the proverb). Once the article was moved, despite objection from most editors who actually contributed here, I agree the focus became blurred. Would you support a WP:RM to restore the focus? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is why the article was expanded, especially on the English Wikipedia. This version of 26 September 2018 was clearer. There aren't many secondary sources, and therefore there isn't much to be said. I think it is wrong where it says "The epigram refers to the ... relative safety and prosperity of the Jewish population". It seems obvious that the phrase is snarky and anti-Jewish, and the secondary sources seem to support that view, but in terms of the clarity and the writing, that version is much better. The expansion seems to involve repeating the same thing over and over again, including the word "pasquinade", which should be removed. Again we run into the problem of editors on enwiki not being able to check the sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Is my recollection correct, that the original title – and central focus – of the article was the derivative proverb, "Poland is heaven for the nobility, purgatory for townspeople, hell for peasants, paradise for Jews"?

That's a longish title. Maybe it could be abbreviated, purely for handle purposes, to "Poland is..."?

Nihil novi (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Many proverbs are shorter, per Category:Proverbs. But I am not sure what is the good way to shorten it. Paradisus Judaeorum is in fact one of the ways it can be shorten. But it is just a third or a quarter of the whole, and clearly it can be misunderstood by some people, hence the recent discussion. Kot in his in-depth work uses all four segments. I'd rather have a the full title, which does not give an undue weight to any single part. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I did a very good lit review here, so I am not sure who is not checking sources. Did you check the sources? Did you read Kot or Krzyzanowski, who discuss this topic in-depth? I did, and their analysis of those issues convinces me this is a notable topic that needs extensive, in-depth discussion, although as I said before, the focus of this article might not be ideal. I asked you twice if you think RM would help, but I can't help if you don't reply. What's your problem with the term pasquinade? It's expert jargon, yes, but it is explained and correct. This is not simple English Wikipedia. I appreciate constructive criticism, but I am afraid you are speaking in unactionable generalities. Please point out specific issues, with quotations/citations, and we can work on them. And which secondary sources seem to support that "the phrase is snarky and anti-Jewish"? Nobody is disputing the historical antisemitic use of the phrase, but don't confuse history with the present. Plenty of respected scholars use this term with no reservations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I very rarely tag articles, but this is clearly not neutral, and efforts to discuss it have been both time-consuming and pointless. Would someone please post here up-to-date secondary sources that discuss this term in detail (not passing mentions), including English-language sources. The place to start is to find out whether there are sufficient sources to carry an article on the English Wikipedia, and what they say. That will determine the length and content. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you be specific about what exactly is "clearly not neutral"? A general claim like that is not very helpful. Volunteer Marek 06:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

All good sources are cited, through I am sure there are dozen more that mention related terms in passing. PS. I'll ping the original creator of the article, User:Pharos. Thoughts on title, neutrality, etc. are appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is non-neutral?GizzyCatBella🍁 07:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: An explanation to your question was provided, more or less, under #NPOV tag thread below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Citations

I've fixed one citation where the author and chapter title had been omitted, and I've just found another, so one of the authors should check the rest. See Michnik, Adam; Marczyk, Agnieszka (2017-11-28). Against Anti-Semitism: An Anthology of Twentieth-Century Polish Writings. Oxford University Press. p. 293. That's missing author, chapter title, and page range. Ideally, it would include location too, and it's not clear what the day and month refer to. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I fixed that ref. It's unfortunate Google Books does not provide metadata for chapters and confuses authors with editors, such errors abound on Wikipedia :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I'm not sure what you mean about Google Books; it shows the table of contents clearly. I'm also not sure that Henryk Muszyński is a very good source for this. It would be better to focus on uninvolved scholars. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean that when we use the citation formatting function, it pulls metadata from Google Books, but since GBook doesn't provide info on chapters, we need to manually correct it. And since it is not often obvious we are dealing with a book that has chapters by different authors, it is common for this error to occur as people often don't double check the table of contents or such. As for Muszynski, I don't see how he is involved? Is he being used to reference something controversial? Anyway, if inclusion of his article was good enough for the book editors and the reviewers at the Oxford Uni Press, I don't think there is much of a problem. See also editors' introduction on page 289: "Muszynski is known as an advocate of open and tolerant Catholicism, and he has worked tirelssy to improve both Polish-Jewish and Polish-German relations."--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hell

In some of our Latin texts, "hell" (for peasants) is written "infernus" (Latin noun for "hell"); and in others, "infernum" (Latin noun for "the depths of the earth").

It might be well to double-check these spellings in our text sources, where the word (whichever is correct) is clearly meant to be a noun, not an adjective.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Since in fact only Michael Radau appears to spell the word "infernum", then, assuming that all these gentlemen knew their Latin, it seems likely that the Radau quotation contains a typographical error.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right. That error is in Krzyzanowski, but Kot version is infernus. I am a bit tired now, but the original text in in public domain so if anyone cares we should be able to locate it somewhere to double check. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

What is unclear this time?

User:Slimvirgin, please explain what is unclear this time: [23]. The sentence reads quite fine to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Instead of replying this way, which bats things back to me, why not explain what it means in different words? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You added the tag, the onus is on you to justify it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If I have to spell everything out, that means the onus is on me to fix everything.

Read from the top of the article until that point. Remember that you're a reader who doesn't know anything about this, and you've read the article only up to that point. The first sentence says "phrase derived from a pasquinade which gave rise to an epigram". Then suddenly there's a "later proverb"—which part is the proverb and "later" than what? It all needs to be clarified. Contrary to what you said above, this is not a technical article, and there's no need for jargon, especially not when it's used inconsistently. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You know, WP:SOFIXIT is a thing. If you see an error, you can fix it. Of course, you are welcome to ask others for help, and I am happy to be of assistance, but I can't help you if you are unable to communicate to me what is wrong, and with all due respect, I find general criticisms too much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in other words, too generic to be of much use. Specifics are much better, and I'll try help as much as I can. You make a good point that the article should avoid confusing a reader, and I am happy to try to clarify it, but keep in mind what is unclear to one person can be clear to another, and generally the main authors have difficulty seeing such stuff. So don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your constructive criticisms, but sometimes they do need spelling out (I don't want to make this sound like its your fault, the fault, if any is to have, is equally mine for not being able to understand what you say). Anyway, I now hopefully understand what you mean, and I'll try to fix it. Unfortunately, collaborative editing including by copyeditors means that we are dealing with the "too many cooks spoil the broths" problem, it's good to have many eyeballs, but if I try to standardize the article, another person thinks we need a variety of synonyms, another dislikes one of them, another standardizes them in a different way, and this repeats several times, we do have a problem. At the same time, please keep in mind several other editors have read this article and weren't confused about this. Again, I'll try to fix this issue for the lead, but sometimes there is no perfect solution - we either use fewer synonyms and make the text more repetitive, something you yourself complained first, or we use more synonyms and risk making the text more difficult. PS. I reverted User:Nihil novi's usage of epigram, I am sorry, but as far as I can tell, while the term may be correct, sources use the term proverb, not epigram. Let's try to use the terminology used by the sources, to reduce any issues with OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This part is difficult to understand:

The Polish historian Stanisław Kot found the earliest printed reference to it in an anonymous Latin pasquinade (one of two known together by the Polish title, "Paskwiliusze na królewskim weselu podrzucone” – Pasquinades planted at the Royal wedding celebration [of 1606]), satirically commemorating the wedding of Sigismund III Vasa and Constance of Austria in December 1605. Of the two pasquinades attributed to the same anonymous author, the part that would become the later proverb appeared in the "Regnum Polonorum" ("The Kingdom of Poland").

Kot "found the earliest printed reference", but Kot isn't cited. What does Kot say about this? Who is saying that two "pasquinades" are known together by one title? The English translation of the Polish title (Paskwiliusze etc) in one of the scholarly sources is "Lampoons", not Pasquinades; we should stick to that. And what does the following mean? "Of the two pasquinades attributed to the same anonymous author, the part that would become the later proverb appeared in the "Regnum Polonorum""? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Scan of Kot & Krzyzanowski

In case anyone wants to verify, or read them, you can download the scans I made from here: [24]. I am afraid the quality won't be very good for OCR, so I wouldn't expect much from MT, I am afraid if you don't read Polish they will be useless outside the quoted Latin parts, but good luck. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

New title suggestions

Trying to summarize the long discussions above about the history of the article and different titles, and suggestions for the title of the page going forward:

• This article is basically about the history of the Kingdom of Poland in the 17th century. All the basic historical material should be in the History of Poland article, as correctly indicated by Sarah above.
• The reason for this separate article is that the subject (the History of the Kingdom of Poland in the 17th century) is approached or entered from the perspective of the words of a popular proverb that gave a concise and notable description of the kingdom at the time.
• The original version of the Latin proverb opened with: Regnum Polonorum est.... Which means: The Kingdom of the Poles (or the Kingdom of Poland) is...
• My suggestion therefore is that the title of the article should be: Regnum Polonorum est.... If the consensus is that an English title is better than a Latin one, then it would be "The Kingdom of the Poles is..."

P.S.- I still think that the 1647 Polish priest Michael Radau's Latin version of the proverb, opening with Clarum Regnum Polonorum (The illustrious Kingdom of the Poles) is more elegant in terms of the Latin prose. But never mind, I digress.

Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Warshy, thank you for these suggestions. My first choice would be Clarum Regnum Polonorum and my second choice Regnum Polonorum est ....

However, that depends on whether we can find reasonably in-depth sourcing; that is, more than just passing mentions. It seems increasingly that such sources do not exist, whether for the Latin text, the Polish proverb, or the two-word phrase. There is Kot, but given the antisemitism described above, we can't use him as an independent secondary source to support anything to do with Jews. That leaves us with Krzyżanowski, Julian (1958). Mądrej głowie dość dwie słowie: Trzy wieki przysłów polskich [Word to the Wise: Three centuries of Polish proverbs]. That apparently devotes three pages to the proverb (not to Paradisus Judaeorum ), but hardly any of us can read it. Otherwise, there are only passing mentions.

Perhaps the best way to proceed is that anyone wanting to make the Latin texts available can do so on Wikisource. Anyone wanting to discuss Regnum Polonorum est ... can add it to Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Passing mentions of Paradisus Judaeorum can be added to History of the Jews in Poland. This title could be redirected there. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin. I understand the situation much better now, after all your explanations. I completely agree with all your suggestions above as to the best way to proceed. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

As I noted above, I think the even shorter version of this, and in English, Poland is..., as suggested by User:Nihil novi, is better. Krzyzanowski, after all, discusses the term in it primarily Polish rendering, not Latin. The proverb is used in modern Polish language. Just look at Category:Proverbs: some of them originated in Latin too, or Old English, but we use modern English spelling. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I added the NPOV tag because the thrust of the article seems to be that Poland has a positive view of Jews. What I really wanted to do was add the "multiple issues" tag to include OR and sourcing issues, but I didn't want to overwhelm the top of it. But the point is that it's a strange article. It seems POV and SYN-ish, and it can't decide what it's about. It's very confused between the short phrase, the longer phrase, and the Latin text, particularly "History of versions".

Several parts of the article seem to portray a POV. Examples: the lead says that the Latin text is critical of everything, not only Jews, but it failed to say (until I added it) that this was written by someone involved with the Polish museum, which has been criticized for using the phrase. That should be removed from the lead. There were two consecutive sentences in the lead starting with "however", which I've just removed. Elsewhere, in Wikipedia's voice, the article says "Until its 18th-century partitions by three neighbors, Poland was considered a “Paradisus Judaeorum" (Paradise for Jews)". What is the source for "What would eventually evolve into an epigram"?

There have been complaints about the article since 2018, and there were complaints that it was nominated for DYK. Despite that, it was nominated a second time.

Editors should decide what the topic is: the Latin text, the longer phrase, or the two words. Once you've decided that, then make a list of the reliable sources about that topic—including English-language sources, otherwise the text will be unverifiable. If there really are enough sources, summarize what they say without repetition. Otherwise, consider redirecting this to History of Jews in Poland, where it can be discussed in context. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

First, while the article does refer to three different concepts, you are the only editor so far - and this has been reviewed by multiple others - who finds it confusing. I am open to discussion of whether this should be refocused, but so far nobody has picked this up outside the suggestion to restore the old name, which is supported by GrizzyCatBella, and on which you haven't commented.

I don't see the problem with using a reliable citation from the scholar who works in a museum in the lead. It is a reliable source published in a reliable outlet. The museum has been criticized for using that phrase by one or two scholars, few others commented, some in defense, some saying both sides make valid point. Then the discussion died out with the museum not changing it nor apologizing or such outside of the quoted explanation. Nothing here is undue or non-neutral.

Regarding the "Until its 18th-century..." this sentence was not added by me and I have no objections to removing it if the source doesn't support it.

It is obvious from Kot and Krzyzanowski that the original poem (pasquilade) evolved (turned) into a proverb. The saying has been described as such by other works, including in English: [25]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't commented on the title because it depends on the sources. This should be source-led. I've asked you two or three times to list the English-language sources that go into most detail. My answer is that the title should reflect the most-discussed aspect of this, whatever "this" is. I'll post below a timeline of how the article evolved. Perhaps that will suggest a way forward. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think any English sources go into much detail. Multiple English sources use various parts of this proverb, but they don't discuss it outside a sentence or two, such as the few scholars who mention in passing the term "paradise for Jews" is an exaggeration. Then there was a bit of the discussion re POLIN, but again, they didn't discuss this phrase much and we cite all of them and I think we quote most relevant sentences in text anyway. In the end, the two most relevant sources (as in, in-depth) are Kot and Krzyzanowski, I have them scanned and can send them to people, but they are in Polish, so I don't know if they'll be of much use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

History

I looked around to see how this had developed in case it suggests a better focus. See Revision history stats.

• 2014: POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews opened in Warsaw. One of its galleries is named "Paradisus Iudaeorum" (Paradise of the Jews), a phrase from a 17th-century Polish proverb, the use of which attracted criticism. Discussing the museum, one source described the saying as an "anti-Semitic phantasm" (Janicka 2016).
• 22 Sept 2018: Pharos created a Wikidata item, "Clarum regnum Polonorum" (The illustrious kingdom of the Poles is), then on 25 Sept changed the label to "Heaven for the nobles, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews".
• 23 Sept: Pharos created Clarum regnum Polonorum on the Latin Wikisource.
• 25 Sept: Pharos created Heaven for the nobles, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews on enwiki.
• 1 Oct: Piotrus moved the article to Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews and began expanding it.
• 1 Oct: Piotrus nominated it for DYK.
• 2 Oct: Piotrus created pl:Polska niebem dla szlachty, czyśćcem dla mieszczan, piekłem dla chłopów, a rajem dla Żydów.
• 6 Nov: K.e.coffman opened a discussion about the DYK: Concern about a 8 November hook. There was consensus that it wasn't suitable for the main page. Narutolovehinata5 closed it as rejected on 13 January 2019.
• 7 Nov: Icewhiz opened an RM to move the article to Paradisus Judeorum. Closed as no consensus.
• 18 Nov: Discussion at User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/December#Really....
• 29 Nov: Icewhiz nominated it for AfD. Sandstein closed as keep and move to Paradisus Judaeorum; he moved it on 6 Dec.
• 1 Dec: Discussion about the sources: User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/December#"Paradise for the Jews" @ AfD. The main source has been accused of "aggressive antisemitism".
• 8 Dec: Piotrus opened Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Galobtter closed as endorsed.
• 1 Sept 2019: Piotrus nominated the article for GA.
• 16 March 2020: Chiswick Chap closed the GA review as promoted.
• 18 March: Piotrus nominated the article for DYK.
• 19 March: Chiswick Chap re-closed the GA review as failed after I asked him to reconsider, and I closed the DYK as rejected.

SarahSV ^(talk) 04:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC); edited 04:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, except I don't know why we mention the 2014 history as related to POLIN, it has about as much to do with this article as the date 1606 when the original paquinade was created. Anyway, I appreciate you writing this up, but I don't know what we can do except consider a RM to move this back to the original title as used by User:Pharos. Before such move, in the section I started above, we can consider if a name variant would be better (ex. Latin, or 3-segment as used by Pharos vs 4-segments as moved to by me, or such). Considering that nobody was ever able to find a single in-depth source about Paradisus Judaeorum, I think the AfD 'move', overruling a prior RM, was quite unfortunate. Do you have any opinion on restoring the earlier name? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to read the sources (e.g. Kot), but I'm not able to. I can't get any sense from this article of what his focus was. I suppose what's puzzling is why this is on enwiki. It's about Poland and most of the sources are in Polish, yet there is a long version of the article here, where few editors can check it, and a truncated one on the Polish Wikipedia, where it could be checked easily. As for a title here, what about Clarum regnum Polonorum? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I did ping Pharos several times here but I guess he is busy right now, so I can't answer for him why he did create it. I do think the topic (proverb) is notable, like others in Category:Proverbs, and so I expanded it since it piqued my curiosity. And I did it on English Wikipedia since I am more active here; eventually the topic will be expanded on Polish Wikipedia too I am sure. Sometimes English Wikipedia will have a better coverage of such obscure topics, it's a roll of the dice which wiki will cover something better first. As an aside, article on Coronavirus in Poland was created on English Wikipedia several days before it was translated to Polish, too. Shrug. The short Latin title you propose is not a bad idea, given that it is, well, short. But what would the focus of such an article be? If we want to use the proverb, hmmm, the issue is that it omits the "Kingdom of Poland" part, it is just shortened to Poland. So we could shorten it even further to Polonorum est (Poland is). Btw, I double checked the scans, and Krzyzanowski's chapter title is "Polska niebem dla szlachty" (Poland is the heaven for nobility); it took me a while to figure that out because I messed up the scan of the top of the first page (with the chapter/section title). This is the part that was added by Radau in 1672. We don't quote his version in the table, but I will add it now since it is rather relevant. Anyway, I think the Polonorum est might be an elegant solution to the problem, more neutral, and solving the issue that the following verses have numerous orders and variants. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been following these very detailed discussions from a distance. From what I've been able to gather so far, I would support moving it to the new name Clarum regnum Polonorum. It would start with the oldest form of the epigram, which, as far as I understand, opens with this name, and it would also start with a short description of the Kingdom of Poland in the 16th century, as described in the epigram? It would then have, basically, 4 sections, one for each of the sentences/social segments referred to in the epigram, the second being Paradisus Judaeorum. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Warsh: That makes sense, but don't you think Polonorum est makes more sense per the reasons outlined in my post directly above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Polonorum est" means "of the Poles is". Do you really think that would be a good title? "Regnum Polonorum est" (the opening of the 1606 text) means "The Kingdom of the Poles is", which would make sense – if your purpose is to highlight the earliest, 1606 pasquinade.

My own, earlier suggestion was to use the opening line of the English rendering of the Polish proverb, "Polska jest...": "Poland is..."

Nihil novi (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: I don't like the way the 1606 text is now chopped up with " / " marks. The clarity of the parallel Polish and English texts has now been lost. Nihil novi (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with Poland is.... USEENGLISH etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to try to make it clearer, and fixed several citations that had left out author, chapter title and other details. I moved quotations to footnotes to remove citation clutter so we can see more easily who is being cited, and I replaced long citations that had been repeated several times. I also removed part of the "History of the versions" section that seems OR-ish.

Having done that, it's clear that the article has major issues. It should be a tertiary source summarizing secondary sources (and the occasional primary source) that discuss this phrase/proverb/text in depth, but it looks as though most sources offer only passing mentions. According to Piotrus, the only two sources to discuss in depth are Kot and Krzyzanowski, and they're in Polish, so very few of us can read them. The sources are:

Kot, Stanisław (1937). Polska rajem dla Żydów, piekłem dla chłopów, niebem dla szlachty [Poland as Paradise for the Jews, Hell for the Peasants, and Heaven for the Nobles]. Warsaw: Kultura i Nauka.

Krzyżanowski, Julian (1958). Mądrej głowie dość dwie słowie: Trzy wieki przysłów polskich [Word to the Wise: Three centuries of Polish proverbs]. Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.

Poitrus, can you say what page range of each of these sources discusses this text/proverb/phrase?

I think the move to the current title was a mistake. It seems to have been caused by people at the AfD googling and finding more sources discussing the two words than anything else, but they're mostly passing mentions. It has left us with a title (and article) that seems odd and perhaps antisemitic, because it raises the question of why the article was created when there isn't much in RS to say about this phrase, except to list who has used it, but this is not "List of people who have used the phrase Paradisus Judaeorum". The substantive issue—the situation of Jews in Poland at that time—should be addressed in context in History of the Jews in Poland. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the c/e. I think most content you removed is indeed unncessary and bordering on OR, through the following parts can be restored as cited to Kot: "Several variants of the pasquinade appear in shorter Latin versions from various parts of Europe, ex, by Križanić." (I think this can already be verified by quotes provided). I am also not sure why this was removed: "A five-part proverb variant appears in a treatise, Palatinum Reginae Liberatis (c. 1670), by the Polish Jesuit Walenty Pęski, who omits mention of the townspeople, instead adding "purgatory for royalty" and "limbo for clergy". (was referenced to Krzyzanowski; I am sure it can be referenced to Kot as well)". Also "Similar proverbs have described other countries. Sixteenth-century England was depicted as "the paradise of women, the hell of horses, and the purgatory of servants"."; this was originally referenced to Kot, he mentions this on page 1-2, I think in later copyediting someone tried to 'improve it' by referencing the primary text.

As for the page ranges. Krzyzanowski devotes three pages in a clearly marked section to this. Page range is all three pages cited here. Kot's monograph is about 30 page long and is devoted in its entirety to this topic. I concur that the move resulted in bloating of this with OR based on the passing mentions, since as I said before many times, no in-depth source discusses the phrase "Jewish paradise" (in this context). Would you be ok with the move to the title as discussed in the preceding posts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, and I have been saying this all along.

I would change the article's title to "Poland Is..." (the English for "Polska jest...").

You mention that the principal sources quoted in this article are in Polish. If you will use the pertinent texts in the article's main text or notes, I will take the trouble to translate them into English, just as I have already translated major portions of text in this article.

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The Google Translate rendering that you cite below is beyond lousy.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with the new proposed title. You’re basically inventing a title for the poem itself, which is WP:OR. And poems are not always titled by their first line. In this particular case, the “Paradisus Judeorum” is the most well known part of the poem, which also means that people who want to look up he poem or the origin of the phrase are most likely to sea4ch for that. The proposed new title is almost misleading. Volunteer Marek 08:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Poland is" ("Polska jest") is not only the first phrase of the proverb, but the stablest (because always the first) of the 4-5 phrases. In different iterations, different phrases are the 2nd phrase. It is not always "paradise for Jews".

Nihil novi (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Indeed, please note that we are not talking about the poem but the proverb. Through a move to a poem (Paskwiliusze na krolewskim weselu podrzucone) could be an option as well. But per Krzyzanowski, whose focus on on proverb, I think proverb is more notable than the poem. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Stanislaw Kot

I'm concerned about the continued use of Stanislaw Kot (1937), which seems like an unsuitable source for matters of Jewish history in Poland. See for example War and Diplomacy in East and West by Mieczysław B. Biskupski (Routlege, 2017) which describes Kot as possessing "aggressive antisemitism". --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Good find. Thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It would help if either of you would read talk archives where this was raised and dmissmissed. A mention in passing that is not commonly used in other sources; in either case, Kot agrees the original text was unfriendly to Jews. I have read his work and I don't see any dislike or prejudice against Jews in it, on the contrary, Kot himself calls some texts/authors antisemitic. In any case, we are not citing him for anything that would be remotely considered controversial or such; and Tokarska-Bakir, a modern scholar who has published a number of works on topics concerned with antisemitism in Poland, has referred to his study cited here as valuable, and has cited her. There is no reason not to rely on it, as it is the most comprehensive work on this topic, and well received by modern scholars, including those who are experts in the topic of antisemitism. Heck, Tokarska-Bakir actually cites Kot to strengthen her argument about antisemitism (exaggerated) meaning of the original text. It is rather unlikely she would cite and praise anyone considered an antisemite. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I scanned the talk archives and did not see where the issue had been raised and dismissed. Could you point out the relevant thread? --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, I can't see where this was discussed either.

There is some material about Kot in Joshua D. Zimmerman, The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 111–112. Zimmerman discusses a report Kot wrote for the Polish government-in-exile—"Wiadomosci z kraju" ("News from the Homeland"), dated 25 November 1941—about Polish-Jewish relations during the occupation. Kot was then Polish Ambassador to Russia.

Kot acknowledged that the conditions in which the Jews were forced to live in the ghettos was horrific. Describing Polish perceptions, he wrote that "in contrast [to Poles], Jews usually break down as soon as they can crawl to the occupier, [even] serving as Gestapo informants, etc." Poles believed "the Jewish element was, is and will—unfortunately—always be foreign ... [because] they lacked a common spiritual basis with a higher moral value than the material one. During these trying times, Jews cannot really forge an alliance with the Poles because their way of thinking and feeling cannot be grasped."

Kot went on to discuss the fear of giving "the international financial Israelite magnates excessive power in the country, and that this might, in turn, enchain the country to 'an economic Jewish slavery'". Zimmerman describes this as "tapping into age-old stereotypes of Jews and money" (p. 112). SarahSV ^(talk) 20:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

One of the issues Kot discusses in his November 1941 report is the relative treatment by the Germans of Jewish and non-Jewish Poles during the occupation of Poland. He concluded that the Jews had it better, because although they were forced to live in horrendous conditions, they weren't at that point (qua Jews) being sent to camps, tortured and executed. I see now that an earlier version of this article touched on this, under the heading "Holocaust":

A 16 June 1940 article in the Polish National Democracy underground newspaper Walka titled "Gubernia Generalna — Paradisus Judaeorum" (The General Government — Paradisus Judaeorum) stated that:

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 the streets, or transported to the Reich. The Jewish Ghetto has no reason to complain about the occupation.

— Walka (16 June 1940)

A 1942 article titled "The Jews in Polish Proverbs and Proverbial Expressions" published by the Division for Research on Jewry in the Kraków based Nazi research institute Institut für Deutsche Ostarbeit (IDO) claimed that Paradisus Judaeorum is a "proverb which provides a valid insight into the actual relations in Poland".

SarahSV ^(talk) 23:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That Kot made a comment that can be seen as problematic, perhaps antisemitic even (through I don't think Zimmerman calls it as such - or dose he?; Zimmerman, as far as I can tell, calls Kot "a professional historian", through he describes his account as disturbing). But nobody is suggesting to use this account as a source here, do they? So what's the problem? Krzyzanowski and Tokarska-Bakir conclude he is a reliable source when it comes to the discussion of the 1606 text and its subsequent use. That's all that matters here. That Kot made a disturbing comment few years later is irrelevant here. PS. The usage in the rag Walka is not connected to Kot, and wasn't it you who noted that it is irrelevant to this article who randomly used the term? PS. Food for thought, from Bernard Wasserstein (1 December 1988). Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945. Institute of Jewish Affairs. ISBN 978-0-19-282185-0., page 124 ". Kot (who was not regarded as an anti-Semite)". And from [26]: "being antisemitic was by no means unusual for the nationalist right in Europe of the [period];" and "The civilian administration under Ambassador Stanisław Kot was much more open and helpful to the Jews". Anyway, to describe Kot as antisemite is quite a fringe view. I am not familiar of any work which does so outside the off-hand comment by Biskupski. See also [27], for example.; it's a good article because it makes a point that we have to distinguish Kot, the scholar, from Kot, the politician, and opinions on one differ from the other (and here we are focusing on his scholarly work, nothing to do with his politics). As far as I can tell Kot's reputation is pretty good; but in either case we are not using him to support any controversial statements, are we? And no, I wouldn't particularly consider him the best authority on Polish-Jewish relations, he is clearly behind his times. But for the analysis of the 1606 poem, he is reliable, as attested by positive review of his work by Krzyzanowski and Tokarska-Bakir, the later in particular sensitive to antisemitism, which is what her article where she cites Kot is focused on. If she thought Kot's antisemitism was worth mentioning, I am quite sure she would do so, instead of just praising his 1937 study. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

A "comment that can be seen as problematic, perhaps antisemitic even"? Those comments included: "Jews usually break down as soon as they can crawl to the occupier ..." And they lack a moral value higher than the material one.

I see that this discussion has taken place already, in December 2018: User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/December#"Paradise for the Jews" @ AfD. Poitrus, this is disturbing. Citing a 1937 source as an independent secondary source on Jews and arguably antisemitism is already skating on thin ice, but doing so knowing about the source's antisemitism is quite something. You wrote in the December 2018 discussion: "Kot's politics are irrelevant."

I assumed you all didn't know about this when K.e.coffman posted it above. Before that post, I had looked only at Kot's WP bio. No mention of it there. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what is the point of discussing it. Kot is considered a reliable source. He has been subject of numerous academic studies and analysis; I just expanded bibliography in his article. I can't find any scholarly criticism of him outside the off hand remark by Biskuprski, which is contradicted by Wasserstein. And positively reviewed by Tokarska-Bakir, a scholar whose one area of expertise is Polish antisemtism. If a source is good enough for her, it should be good enough for us, let's not try to be "holier than a Pope". If you want to criticize an author, you need to provide reliable sources, not your own. We, the editors, may have our views, but they should not overrule academic consensus. In either case, you haven 't replied to my comment "which statement by Kot" do you consider controversial? Or which of his quotes cited here would you consider inappropriate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying the following isn't antisemitism? Kot wrote in 1941 (Zimmerman 2015, 112):

Poles hate [the Germans] with a passion ... in contrast, Jews usually break down as soon as they can crawl to the occupier, [even] serving as Gestapo informants, etc. ... the Jewish element was, is and will—unfortunately—always be foreign ... [because] they lacked a common spiritual basis with a higher moral value than the material one. During these trying times, Jews cannot really forge an alliance with the Poles because their way of thinking and feeling cannot be grasped. ... It also has to be remembered [that Jews under the Soviets] behaved, from the Polish perspective, hideously.

Polish society is terrified of excessive Jewish influence. It is afraid that the need to import foreign capital into a decimated Poland would give the international financial Israelite magnates excessive power in the country, and that this might, in turn, enchain the country to 'an economic slavery'. Unease exists around the growing question in the country of whether or not the London circle, under the philosemitic Anglo-Saxon influence, will successfully resist Jewish influence in Poland, a fervent wish of the Polish nation.

SarahSV ^(talk) 05:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, I don't think anyone here is impressed by his views on this, to say the least. Yet this quote has nothing to do with this article. We are not talking about using his views to describe Polish-Jewish relations in the interwar period or WWII, where I'd agree we should be careful using contemporary Polish sources. Or, frankly, any other, as antisemitism was sadly rampart in most European countries around that time. But since this is not what we are discussing here, what's the point of this? WP:NOTAFORUM. In the context of discussing this pasquilade/epigram/proverb, Kot is considered an undisputed authority. Quote from Tokarska-Bakir: "Przysłowie to funkcjonuje w polskiej świadomości od wczesnych lat XVII wiekui. Tak bardzo jest ono obecne w potocznym myśleniu i dyskursie o położeniu Żydów w dawnej Polsce, ... Solidne studium źródłowe, publikowane w roku 1937, poświęcił mu Stanisław Kot... Na podstawie wyjaśnień Kota i Klonowica, moralna intencja określenia „Polska rajem dla Żydów” rysuje się nieco inaczej niż się ją zazwyczaj prezentuje. W określeniu tym nie rozbrzmiewa głos tolerancyjnego gospodarza, ale sarkazm człowieka bezsilnego, przerażonego bezkarnością przybyszów, którzy są nosicielami wszelkiego zła." Her article, which btw is probably our third best source as far as in-depth discussion of this, is dedicated to discussion of historical vs modern antisemitism. She uses this term over 10+ times, and nowhere does she suggest that Kot is antisemite or unreliable; on the contrary, she calls his 1937 work "a solid study". PS. Going back to what K.e.coffman said in the opening in this thread, "I'm concerned about the continued use of Stanislaw Kot (1937), which seems like an unsuitable source for matters of Jewish history in Poland", I think we are all in agreement that Kot is not a great source for "matters of Jewish history". Fortunately, he is not used as such. His 1937 doesn't discuss the Polish-Jewish history in depth, and I don't see any red flags for his use here, which is concerned not with Polish-Jewish history but with the literary analysis of the poem and such. In particular, Kot does not suggest, anywhere, that the poem or the term "Jewish paradise" should be taken seriously; there is nothing antisemitic in his text - and in fact, he even calls another author of one of the texts he mentions "antisemitic" (this is in reference to Gaudenty Pikulski); although ironically, like Biskupski, he doesn't explain the rationale for such an adjective. PPS. From [28] by Lech Szczucki: "Do Kota garnęli si również studenci pochodzący z mniejszości narodowych: profesor był zdecydowanym przeciwnikiem nacjonalizmu i antysemityzmu" [Kot was popular among the students from ethnic minorities: he was a strong opponent of nationalism and antisemitism]. This is footnoted to a work about correspondence between pl:Marek Wajsblum and Kot. Wajsblum was a Polish-Jewish scholar and student of Kot. He was, btw, hardly the only Polish-Jewish student Kot had; another notable one was pl:Wiktor Weintraub. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You've responded to these concerns by expanding Stanislaw Kot and nominating it for GA, without mention of his 1941 report. This despite the fact that the source is a high-quality RS, Joshua D. Zimmerman's The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, Cambridge University Press. You created the article on that book. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There's more about Kot in Michael Fleming, Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust, Cambridge University Press, 2014, 86–87:

[T]he British were advised of anti-Jewish sentiment in Poland by Stanislaw Kot, minister of the interior between 1940 and 1941 in the Polish Government in Exile ... In January 1941, Kot received a report from Prince Janusz Radziwill, a ... leading figure in the [Polish] nationalist and anti-Semitic Conservative Party during the 1930s ... Kot secretly passed the information on to the Foreign Office's Frank Savery on 9 January 1941. [The report stated that] "Anti-Semitism still continues to exist among all spheres of the population; it has only taken another form. ..."

Kot's motive in passing this information on to Savery was probably to advise the British of some of the tensions that the Polish Government in Exile was trying to deal with. There is also the possibility that he wanted to provide justification for his assertion, in conversations with representatives of British Jewry in France held in spring 1940, that the majority (two-thirds) of Jews would have to leave Poland after the war (Michlic, 2006:148; Stola 1995:73), a position for which Kot was later criticized.

This is followed by footnote 25 on page 327, which summarizes Kot's suggestion that Polish Jews be resettled outside Poland after the war, including to Palestine and southern Russia along the Black Sea. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Kot's article may merit some expansion, including the mention of his controversial report on the Polish Jews. I suggest your raise this on his talk page, and copy relevant material there. I will stress that I think issues you raise should be discussed in his article, I don't consider it comprehensive enough for the FA level (but I think it is now balanced and comprehensive enough for a GA, yes). I will note that his biography at USHMM does not even mention anything about his attitude or actions towards the Jewish people. We have to keep WP:UNDUE in mind, and not dwell too much on a single quote or document, particularly given that sources about Kot don't seem to consider his attitude to Polish-Jewish relations that major (at least, I have't found a single article dedicated to this, whereas I found many articles or chapters about other aspects of his life, see the bibliography I am compiling there). For another consideration, take a look at the Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews (another article I wrote). I don't think it is even mentioned from pages of US State Department, or in Roosvelt's bio. That said, I think the issue of US attitude towards the The Holocaust is under-represented on Wikipedia in general; we have Category:The Holocaust and the United States but no main parent article for this, a rather sad oversight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the Kot article earlier today and noticed you cite a USHMM page that describes Kot's archive. It's disappointing that you mention it here as a talisman. There is no USHMM bio. There is a page describing his archive that contains a list of relevant dates in his life, in Polish, almost certainly written by the Polish institution from which the material comes, which seems to be the pl:Zakład Historii Ruchu Ludowego.

What does the US attitude to the Holocaust have to do with this? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I concede, not much more than Zimmerman's quote. As I said, please discuss Kot on his talk page, what he said few years after punishing the work we use here, on an unrelated matter, and in his capacity as a politician, and not scholar, is really off topic here. The only relevant question here was "is Kot a RS for this article?" which I think has been answered sufficiently, given plethora of positive academic reviews of his work in related context (pre-20th century Polish history) and life, now clearly cited in his biography, which this discussion inspired me to improve. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Kot is not an RS for this article. Using a 1937 source on a sensitive issue—the analysis of a text describing the position of Jews in Poland—as an independent secondary source was never a good idea. If we then find out that the author made explicitly antisemitic statements and was described by one historian as "aggressively antisemitic", then clearly it becomes a very bad idea. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

While we should take special care when dealing with older sources, Kot's work is still respected and relevant today. Biskupski made a clear mistake, and he doesn't justify his assessment of Kot. No other source calls him antisemitic, and we have two that explicitly contradict such an assessment (Szczucki and Wasserstein). Kot's scholarly contributions are extremly well received, and praised by numerous scholars, such as Tokarska-Bakir, Szczucki, Soroka, Hurło, Brock, Pietrzyk, Tazbir, Fitowa, Weintraub and Wałęga. If you want, you can call Biskupski's passing comment a dissenting view, but the mainstream academic consensus is very clear that Kot is both reliable and valid. Now, the sources also make clear that Kot, the historian, should be seen in different context from Kot, the politician, who is a much more controversial and less respected figure. The quote you keep bringing is from the latter. The study, used here, is from the former. That's really is all there is to it. Bottom line is that if Kot is good enough to be cited in this context by modern scholars, including ones specializing in antisemitism, like Tokarska-Bakir (who in her article dedicated to the topic of antisemitism refers to the 1937's Kot's work as a "solid study", nowhere casting doubt as to Kot's integrity as a scholar), or Polish-Jewish historians like Wiktor Weintraub of Harvard who write a glowing review of his life and work ([29]), he is good enough for us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Much of what is known today of the Polish roots of the British and American Unitarian religious movements stems from the pioneering work of Stanisław Kot and remains well respected both in Poland and in the English-speaking world. Whatever the merits of Kot's political views and acts, those must be viewed separately from his scholarly achievements, which are reliable and, in many contexts, irreplaceable. Given the overwhelming preponderance of acceptance of Kot's scholarly writings, the misguided and / or irrelevant fault-finding with Kot the scholar is suggestive of what Cardinal Newman (as of 2019, Saint Newman) dubbed "poisoning the well".

Nihil novi (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The way I see it - we should differentiate between Kot a respected historian, and Kot a person with problematic personal views. For the purpose of this article, I don't see a problem quoting Kot's work, especially if it is a quote that is not problematic.--Darwinek (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I will be bringing more relevant material from 17th century Polish and Jewish history to this discussion, hopefully soon enough. However, the philosophical implications here that scholars' political views and actions (or even political offices and positions) do not affect a scholar's worldview and his or hers research and intellectual conclusions, is absolutely unwarranted from a social and cultural theory point of view. This is correct, in my view, in general philosophical and intellectual terms. But in Kot's particular case, as all the material that has been brought up above demonstrates, such a separation is really unfair, rather impossible. But adopting and implementing such a critical view of scholarship in the discussion of the subject of this particular page is not only theoretically warranted. It is absolutely necessary, in my view. In the subject matter we are discussing here there can be no hermetical separation between a scholar's political views and the conclusions of his or hers historical research. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that Kot (1937) does not discuss the Jewish aspect of this proverb/poem in depth, is not quoted here in this context, nor has any problematic quotation from his 1937 work been reported here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

From Dariusz Stola:

There is much evidence that the year 1939 did not fundamentally change the view of Polish politicians on the matter. On the contrary, we have plenty of statements made as early as a few months after the new government's formation, testifying to the persistence and the influence of emigrationist theories among Polish politicians in exile. For example, Minister Kot told a delegation of the Board of Deputies of British Jews that there were too many Jews in Poland, that "the surplus will have to emigrate" and the rest assimilate like Jews in the West. Several times he emphasized that the Jews had to leave Poland and that a suitable area had to be found for them, preferably on the Black Sea. The meeting with the Polish home affairs minister produced, to put it in diplomatic language, considerable misgivings among his interlocutors.

SarahSV ^(talk) 01:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

And this is relevant to this article how? That at one point in time Kot, in his capacity as a politician, has "produced considerable misgivings", has zero relation to the usage of his 1937 work here. As I have demonstrated in his bio, he is very well respected as a scholar, even today. That's all that matters here. If you dislike his politics during the war - join the club, I am not impressed by him either. And what he did as a politician and whether we like it or not doesn't matter to his role as a scholar at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)