Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIC and WP:GNG fail. The article also has SYNTH, OR, and NPOV issues (beginning with the title itself - a form of phrase in English not used outside of Wikipedia (googling the title in quotes leads mainly to Wikipedia clones), and use of an anti-Semitic phrase as a Wikipedia title) - however deletion is generally not cleanup.

Note that a recent RM concluded that this article is about the full phrase - "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" and not about "Paradisus Judaeorum". The full phrase is a DICTDF and GNG fail . Phrases, for Wikipedia notability, may be notable when they are discussed at length in secondary sources as a topic. This is even true for hate speech. However, this requires actual in-depth secondary analysis of the topic.

While the article contains a seemingly long list of references, they are in fact a WP:REFBOMB. Many references don't contain the phrase at all. Some references are PRIAMRY 17th-18th-19th century uses of this hate speech. Some references discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum" - but not the full phrase. In others, the full phrase is briefly mentioned as an introduction to "Paradisus Judaeorum" or to the status of nobility in Poland. In fact - of the sources available online - there is but a single source - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004) - which is a secondary source (in Polish) of a reasonable quality that discusses the phrase itself - and this in approx. 2 paragraphs - which would be stretching the definition of WP:INDEPTH.

Please see analysis of sources below (numbering - based on this version, from the time of the nomination):

ref1 - "You need to speak Polish": Antony Polonsky interviewed by Konrad Matyjaszek) - discusses "Paradisus Judaeorum". The full phrase is not present (though it is mentioned as anti-Semitic), there is a 4.5 line footnote mentioning the 1606 text.

ref2 - Krzy?anowski, Julian Madrej glowie do?? dwie slowie: Trzy centurie przys?l?w polskich (1960) - PRIMARYish collection of sayings, does contain the phrase.

ref3 - Adalberg, Samuel. "Ksi?ga przys??w, przypowie?ci i wyra?e? przys?owiowych polskich (1889 !!!) - dictionary style collection of sayings - entirely PRIMARY. Merely contains the phrase (under phrases beginning with Polska) - no analysis.

ref4 - Haumann, Heiko (2002-01-01). A History of East European Jews - The source does discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum" at length, however it does not discuss the phrase - it merely mentions it in a sentence as part of the wider discussion in the source on the Golden Age in Poland (with a question mark in the title).

ref5 - kinner, Quentin; Gelderen, Martin van (2013-03-07). Freedom and the Construction of Europe - merely mentions the saying, before discussing the status of nobility in Poland. The saying is not analyzed or discussed.

ref6 - Moskalewicz, Marcin. Jewish Medicine and Healthcare in Central Eastern Europe - does discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum", however the full saying isn't even mentioned.

ref7 - Janicka, El?bieta (2016-12-28). "The Embassy of Poland in Poland: The Polin Myth in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ) as narrative pattern and model of minority-majority relation - mainly discusses "Paradisus Judaeorum" as an anti-semitic trope (including by the Nazis and nationalists in the Polish second republic) and its questionable use in the Polin musuem. The full phrase itself is not even present, though Janicka does discuss its origin in an antisemitic 1606 pamphlet.

ref8 - Norman Davies (24 February 2005). God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795 - does not contain the phrase. It does mention "Paradise of the Jews" and says a better label would be "Paradise of the Nobles" - in any event it is not about the phrase.

ref9 - Garbowski, Christopher (2016). "Polin: From a "Here You Shall Rest" Covenant to the Creation of a Polish Jewish History Museum. An interview with Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett" - brief mention of the origins of the phrase in the context of the museum exhibit.

ref10 - Modras, Ronald (2000). The Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939 - quote of phrase (+short sentence it is an exaggeration) as a lede to a discussion on the state of Jews in Poland

ref11 - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004). Rzeczy mgliste: eseje i studia - discussion titled "Paradisium Iudeorum" of 1.5 pages in a paper on Polish antisemitic sayings. The 1.5 pages consist mainly of primary quotations and also discuss an unrelated "poem" of "Judas and his sack". In total, there are approx. 2 paragraphs discussing our phrase.

ref12 - Starowolski, Szymon (1636). Stacye zo?nierskie: Abo W wy?i?g?niu ich z dobr ko??ielnych potrzebne przestrogi. Dla Ich M?iow P?now Zo?nierzow st?rych, y inszych m?odych, co si? n? Zo?niersk? vs?ug? sposabi?? b?d? - anti-semitic tract from 1636 (!!!) - The saying is present - but is not discussed as a topic - this is a PRIMARY attestation of use - which is not relevant for notability.

ref13 - Palmer, William (1876). The Patriarch and the Tsar ... Tr?bner and Company. p. 58. - contains a markedly different phrase (Nova Babylonia) which contains some common (though modified) clauses, adds others, omits others. Connection to this article is WP:OR - and in any event there is no discussion in the source of the "Nova Babylonia" phrase - it is merely a PRIMARY attestation of use - and is not relevant for notability.

ref14 - Archivio storico lombardo (in Italian). Societ? storica lombarda. 1907 - old book containing the phrase and nothing else.

ref15 - Monumenta hungariae historica: Ir?k (in Hungarian). Magyar Tudom?nyos Akad?mia. 1894 - another reprint of one of the original 17th century "poems" in Latin.

ref16 - Polin. Basil Blackwell for the Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies. 1986. - seems to be a mere mention of an 18th century use.

ref17 - J?zef Ignacy Kraszewski (1875). Polska w czasie trzech rozbior?w 1772-1799: studia do historyi ducha i obyczaju. 1791-1799 - a reference to the phrase as "old proverb".

ref18 - D?blin, Alfred (1991). Journey to Poland. Tauris. - written in the 1920s (this is a 1991 reprint). Merely mentions this as an old saying.

ref19 - Walsh, William Shepard (1892). Handy-book of Literary Curiosities - old book, seems to be a brief mention.

ref20 - Proverbs of All Nations, Compared, Explained. W. Kent & Company. 1861 - contains a different phrase (with goldmine), attributed to a German source (no Latin or Polish). Connection to this article is WP:OR, and regardless - the source contains nothing beyond a German langauge sentence and a translation of it to English.

ref21 - "A Virtual Visit to the Museum of the History of Polish Jews". Culture.pl. - probably not a reliable source, but this discusses the "Paradisus Iudaeorum" musuem exhibit. The phrase isn't actually present, though it is discussed in the opening paragraph as the source for the two word term.

ref22 - Despard, Matthew K. (2015-01-02). "In Search of a Polish Past". Jewish Quarterly - contains a discussion of the Polish museum, not the phrase.

ref23 - Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. (2016-09). "Mixed Metaphors in Muran?w: Holocaust Memory and Architectural Meaning at the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews" - ditto.

ref24 - "Russia Gathers Her Jews. The Origins of the "Jewish Question" in Russia, 1772–1825. John Doyle Klier. Northern Illinois University Press - "Paradise for Jews" appears in a chapter heading. No indication the phrase is discussed at all.

ref25 - Hundert, Gershon David (1997-10-01). "Poland: Paradisus Judaeorum" - article is on the concept of "Paradisus Judaeorum". The Polish phrase is merely mentioned and then discussed in a single sentence.

ref26 - Byron L. Sherwin (24 April 1997). Sparks Amidst the Ashes: The Spiritual Legacy of Polish Jewry - a discussion on the history of Jews in Poland. A 3-term saying (varying from the one here - connection is somewhat WP:ORish) is mentioned as an introduction to a paragraph discussing Jewish life in Poland but not the phrase.

ref27 - "Paradisus Iudaeorum (1569–1648)". POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews - musuem exhibit on "Paradisus Iudaeorum". The full phrase is actually not present nor discussed on the linked webpage. The full phrase is present (one of many sayings presented) on the wall in the museum itself.

ref28 - Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna (2016-12-28). "Polin: „Ultimate Lost Object"". Studia Litteraria et Historica - paper on Polin museum. The phrase itself (which isn't even quoted) is discussed in a single sentence + in footnote8 the author devotes 4.5 lines to a previous 14th century Austrian use of "Paradisus Judaeorum" (but not the full phrase).

ref29 - Kijek, Kamil (2017). "For whom and about what? The Polin Museum, Jewish historiography, and Jews as a "Polish cause" - about the museum. Discussion of "Paradise for Jews" as a meta-narrative of the museum. Highly WP:SYNTH to include this (seems this was included to criticize Janicka by cherry-picking the author disagreeing with her that this is the sole narrative - while omitting the author's agreement that that is a narrative, a troubling use of words, and the author referring to "Janicka has compiled a much longer convincing enumeration of the elements of interwar antisemitism absent from the core exhibition"). In any event - this simply does not discuss the phrase.

Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This is awkward. I think your argument based on analysis of the references is logical and pretty strong and it directs me to suggest that the clear way forward is for this to article to be retitled Paradise for the Jews or Paradisus Judaeorum. However, we just had a RM that found consensus against the former. But as I don't see the strong attention to the sources at that RM that you're presenting above, I'd stick with move to either of those two terms. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The RM, while related, was on the primary topic of the article. Opposers of the move argued, correctly, that the present article is on the phrase (and this would not be just a move to Paradisus Judaeorum - but a major re-organization and re-write of the article (the phrase being merely background material for the concept - some discussions of "Paradisus Judaeorum" don't even mention it) - furthermore, many opposers mentioned that the present article could exist side-by-side with a Paradisus Judaeorum article. The RM, however, did not assess notability of the phrase itself. As an WP:ATD - I believe the RM discussion (to a topic that would clearly pass notability and is missing) was a correct first step to consider prior to nominating for deletion and assessing notability.Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Given there are so many reliable sources showing the notability of Paradisus, I'd be happy to roll up my sleeves and do the rewrite myself. We could !vote here for a delete and I'll rework it from the deleted text, I don't mind. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, excellent catch. You're right, I just finished reading 3 of the scholarly references which I'd searched for the fragment 'paradis' in order to get both Paradisus and paradise, and in over 150 pages none of the three actually talk about the proverb itself. All three mention Paradisus Judaeorum and/or some paraphrase of 'Jewish paradise' instead. One says the expression "Paradisus Judaeorum" was "a 17th century polemical concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels" and criticizing its use in a museum exhibit's title. Another mentions the proverb's roots, doesn't quote it but rather just refers to it as the "Paradisus Judaeorum" and mentions the original source is a 1606 antisemitic pamphlet, also using this to criticizes the museum for using it. That's it. Nothing about the proverb itself. I'm kind of gobsmacked, here. valereee (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Paradisus Judaeorum. My logic is this – deletion isn't cleanup, so the state of the current article isn't an issue, only the notability of the topic. Clearly, the phrase "Paradisus Judaeorum" and its variants is notable. The question is whether this larger proverb in which the phrase is embedded is notable enough for an article? I think, clearly it is notable enough to be mentioned, at least briefly, in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" article; but I think the nominator is most likely right that it isn't sufficiently notable for a standalone article. So, then should this article be deleted entirely, or survive as a redirect to "Paradisus Judaeorum"? I think, if the later article mentions the proverb (I think it should), this title should survive as a redirect to it. So, if this becomes a redirect to new article "Paradisus Judaeorum", do we need to wipe the history of this article? And must that new article start from scratch? I think, keeping the history isn't harmful, and some of the content (especially references) of the existing article might be useful for the new one. Given all that, Move/Redirect rather than Delete. SJK (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Paradisus Judaeorum. Agree with above sentiments, and will trust the literature reflects this. The few I double checked definitely lend notability to this term, which would necessitate a re-write of some sections in this article, but I feel the topic is notable, if inappropriately titled. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Move I concur with SEMMENDINGER. I found the article very interesting and should meet requirements for scholarly articles on Wikipedia. Cleaning is necessary, but a simple move and cleanup should sufficiently rectify the biggest issues here. WillPeppers (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Merge into Golden_Liberty#Proverb which already contains details of another proverb about this political era. Having this as a separate page which focusses on the Jewish aspect rather than the other parts of society seems undue. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Why would that be considered undue? It's literally a page in regard to Judaism, so it makes sense it should solely cover just that one religion, no? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that Golden Liberty already mentions the proverb (it currently links to the article in its current title, but prior to creation of this article - version of 27 August - is contained a discussion on this: The Commonwealth was called Noble's Paradise, sometimes—the Jewish Paradise, but also Purgatory for the Townsfolk (Burghers) and Hell for the Peasants.[16] And even among the nobility (szlachta), the Golden Liberty became abused and twisted by the most powerful of them (magnates).[14][17] However, this "the Jewish Paradise, but also Purgatory for the Townsfolk and Hell for the Peasants" was retrospectively coined in the 20th century by Jewish-German novelist Alfred Döblin, not by the people of that time, and it should be evaluated whether this really reflects the fact of the age. In fact it is also true that a number of Russian peasants fled from their far more brutal lords to settle in liberal Poland,[18] which might stand out as example of counterevidence to the "Hell for the Peasants" claim.. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Move with a redirect to Paradisus Judaeorum. I encourage those who are knowledgeable in this area to do a major rewrite. This has a good potential to become a GA or FA. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Changing my !vote to Don't delete, Undecided on move while I watch and see where Pharos is going with the argument below. Free clue: I am looking for fewer comments about what other editors did and more arguments regarding why the present title is better than the proposed title. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Unchanging my !vote. I haven't seen a single valid reason not to move this to the far less incendiary title Paradisus Judaeorum. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Do you agree that this is a notable topic, and that it should include coverage of the poem/proverb as well as the two-word phrase? I can understand objection to a name that sounds offensive, although I do disagree.--Pharos (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• @Guy Marcon: You do understand, I hope, that the current title is less incidental than the one you now support moving to? Not a single source has criticized the proverb as anything but an exaggeration (no stronger words were used), while (a single) source (Janicka) has explicitly called the term "Jewish Paradise" antisemitic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• • @Guy Macon: Me and User:Pharos are the ones who wrote it, and we are quite well versed in this area (Polish literature and history). And we say the move/deletion is not a good idea, and is simply a POV argument by an editor who hasn't contributed much to the content except making the biggest WP:IDONTLIKEIT mess I've seen in my time here. Something you may want to consider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep or minor move to something more search-friendly. The WP:NOTDIC argument is a nonsensical one, we have many articles in Category:Proverbs, and there are numerous RS that support the notability of this one. It is true that there are more sources for the popular two-word phrase than for the poem/proverb, but both aspects have scholarly sources and are notable, and clearly it make sense to treat the two together. The two-word phrase is covered in greater depth in the #Paradise for the Jews section as is appropriate for its historical resonance. For what it's worth, my original title for this article was Heaven for the nobles, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews, and many other variations in order and vocabulary also appear in the secondary literature in at least four languages, which is why it is not strange that "googling the title in quotes" of one particular version is not so simple. As the original creator of this article, I strongly object to the idea that I am somehow promoting an anti-Semitic idea by discussing the history of anti-Semitism and the anti-Semitic reaction to tolerant Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth policies of the 17th century.--Pharos (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  "there are numerous RS that support the notability of this one" if you could present just two that would probably switch a lot of the !votes on this page. I don't think most of us are too fussed about DICDEF, it's GNG or rather WP:V that's the problem here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Dweller: Please see two I link in my keep vote below. Let me know if you have questions, but check the article's talk page where I went into more depth on those two sources already (only to be ignored by this AfD's nom). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure how many people are worried about GNG, as the above sentiments seem to think it meets notability. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, don't move. First, a WP:RM just finished on article's talk with no consensus to move. Second, this is a bad faith nomination, as the nominator was told, multiple times, that they are in-depth, multiple, academic treatments of this very proverb - they just choose, again and again, to ignore this, up to and including this AfD. This is WP:POINT disruption and waste of community time. Anyway, the PROVERB is subject to in-depth treatment in a chapter of a book by one of most famous Polish language scholars, Julian Krzyżanowski and it has also been the subject of a dedicated article by Polish historian Stanisław Kot (both are present as refs in the article and have been pointed out at talk). As such, the proverb passes WP:GNG. If anyone feels the topic of 'Jewish Paradise' needs to be covered in a separate article, well, they can split it. But the proverb is the unifying element for the poem and the two-word construct. PS. I think some of the content from this article could be copied to POLIN Museum, as majority of discussion of the two-word construct seems to be concerned with the minor controversy over naming of one of their galleries (that never made it to mass media, just a few academic back and forth articles a few years back). On that note, please consider that the two-word construct of 'Jewish paradise' doesn't even seem to have, IMHO, independent notability outside this very controversy... Let me stress again: not a single, in-depth source have been presented about the two-word construct. Sure, it is used a lot in passing, but there's no in-depth analysis of its use, history, etc. The only in-depth treatments we have are (sadly, mostly offline and in Polish) works that focus on the longer phrase, i.e. proverb. Ideally, someone with access to a Polish library should read them and present a proper review for us, but it will be a month+ before I have the opportunity to do myself, at earliest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  The 1937 source by Kot (a politician in the second republic and a historian) has not been seen nor analyzed by anyone involved here. The 1960 source by Krzyżanowski (which no one examined outside of snippet view, I believe) is a 609 page dictionary-style tome containing Polish sayings. Of the source actually in use in the article - the phrase is not even mentioned, or mentioned in passing by most. There is one source - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004) - that has 2 paragraphs of content (net). In the RM you argued that the anti-Semitic "poem" (actually a few different ones), the 4-clause phrase (title here), and "Paradisus Judaeorum" are 3 distinct topics - you can't have it both ways - if the 4-clause phrase is a distinct notable topic - you should present several in-depth secondary works on it, preferably modern pieces of scholarship. At present - most of the sources in the article that contain the 4-clause phrase in the article are neither secondary nor in-depth. Some of them are actually references to 17th century anti-Semitic works which just contain the phrase (or variant) as a polemic against Jews (and in some, but not all, also anti-Noble).Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Chipping back in here, I see no bad faith, only logical process. The RM was about one issue, an AfD is about others. I agree with Icewhiz that the sources currently presented do not warrant passing GNG and therefore point to delete. Much of the material present, however, is valid good content for the other title, which makes me suggest what I have. If you think this is a notable topic, we need multiple occurrences of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)r

  Errr, so what? We still have two in-depth sources about this proverb by top-notch academics (yes, the sources are a bit dated, but notability is not temporary, and the subject is pretty obscure). A 20+ page monograph and a 2-3 page analytical entry in a dictionary are quite sufficient for this. If someone wants to create a separate article about the two-word saying, it's not like anyone is stopping that person from copying relevant content there, if you think that topic is notable and needs to be separated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  We have? Have you examined Stanislaw Kot's piece from 1937? Is it on the phrase? The "poems"? We do not know it is in topic beyond a few brief quotes of it elsewhere. Futhermore is the 1937 publication a RS for antisemitism? I would doubt it. Kot is far from being a detached scholar - beyond being a leading member of the Polish Peasents Party - and his extremely nationalist politics, filling various government posts in the 30s and 40s (exile) - Kot himself is a topic of study in Polish antisemitism. For instance, in 1940 he is on record saying Jews are a "foreign body" in Poland and that there were too many Jews in Poland - he was "generous" in that he thought a third could remain, the rest should go elsewhere."stanislaw+kot"+third+foreign+body&source=bl&ots=xmgDnoAQQG&sig=Fl_8DRYI1a_6UluMNRsqkEY6ow8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYvorV5vzeAhUD3KQKHaiDDUcQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="stanislaw%20kot"%20third%20foreign%20body&f=false He also promoted Judeo-communism in concert with Jews and money stereotypes - in Nov 1941 he was concerned of "international financial Israelite magnates excessive power" and the possibility of Poles being subjugated to "economic Jewish slavery"."international+financial+Israelite+magnates+excessive+power+…”"+kot&source=bl&ots=rsa9OPi5t0&sig=8ZFgZEjcrwBawQ_n6Il_gc_PiBg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjByoyo6vzeAhUCsqQKHffGANoQ6AEwCnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q="international%20financial%20Israelite%20magnates%20excessive%20power%20…”"%20kot&f=false Kot is featured extensively in modern works which study Polish antisemitism - to use him as a secondary RS for Polish antisemitism? Truly novel.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Everything to you is about antisemitism. Well, face it - this proverb is not about antisemitism. As majority of sources show, it is about the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Antisemitism is only a side issue here. To the anonymous author of the 17th century poem, dislike of Jews was just as important as dislike of nobles, for example. And sny negative exaggerations became forgotten since as the proverb, detached from its xenophobic roots, is used in positive context to talk about vibrant Jewish medieval culture. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  You actually raised a 1937 source, as in indication of notability, whose author was advocating in his rather major political role (at the same time it was written) mass expulsion of the Jews in Poland (to be precise - 66% of the Jews of Poland) as they were a "foreign body". What's next? Janicka says the Nazi IDO institute in Krakow published a paper on Polish expresssions and Jews in 1942, and came to the conclusion that this saying provides a "valid insight" - are we going to try and pass that off as a secondary RS? Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  I can't believe you are serious - everything to you is Reductio ad Hitlerum, or rather, Reductio ad Antisemitium. Kot is good enough for Janicka - she treats him as a perfectly reliable source. When he says and she repeats that the author was likely a Catholic and the proverb is not favorable to Jews, you accept him. But if someone wants to use his to support a claim you disagree with, Kot is an unreliable antisemitie. Kali's morality, eh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Piotrus if I may -- while I would never want to reduce peoples' statements/views/etc to their backgrounds in any way, perhaps at times it also must be acknowledged. Whether it is anti-Semitic, unintentionally perpetuating anti-Semitism by making Jews sound as if they were some socioeconomic class (Jews/money, you know … :/), a case of white-washing, or totally innocent, citing an anti-Semite saying someone else is "unfavorable" to Jews for that point specifically is quite different from using what he says for almost anything else where Jews are concerned, and using sources from the 1930s/1940s is a thing that will instinctively put Jewish editors and also readers, even those who are perfectly in control of their emotions, on edge, whatever the intentions are. Perhaps it is similar for Poles regarding sources coming from Germany or Russia in those times. Personally, editing in my main area currently which is the Balkans, I prefer to avoid anything that is before 1945 and published in the area, and also anything from former Yugoslavia between 1985 and 2000, for similar though less drastic reasons. Admittedly, I'm saying this without having kept up with the exact specifics on your past spats with Icewhiz, but just one perspective, which is admittedly a Jewish one.--Calthinus (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Kot's monograph as cited by several modern scholars does I think do much to establish the general notability of the topic. I don't think "unfavorable" is a quote from Kot, and that's not what Wikipedia or modern scholars have cited from him. Instead they've referred to his scholarship on the original authorship of the poem. Certainly modern scholars should be given precedence on the issue of anti-Semtitism or related topics.--Pharos (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Calthinus: Of course if we were discussing anti-semitism, a 1930s source is too obsolete to be considered. But we are not. We are discussing an obscure literary construct, a poem or a proverb, and for that, an old but in-depth monogoraph (~20 pages) by a respected historian seems perfectly feasible. The only thing under discussion here is whether the proverb, which is in the monograph title and is discussed by it in-depth (as suggested by modern scholars like Janicka who cite it, presumably having accessed it offline) is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Move, and hand over to User:Dweller. If their rewrite results in anything more than a stub, then deletion can be reconsidered. François Robere (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • While User:Dweller is welcome to work on this or any other topic, Francois, you should be aware of WP:OWN. We don't "hand" articles out or "take them away" from anyone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Of course we do! We just go on doing something else and wait. François Robere (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Move relevant/valuable material to Paradisus Judaeorum -- a much less and incendiary title -- and also potentially Antisemitism in Poland and History of Jews in Poland. There is certainly useful material here but I'm not sure a whole page on the concept is necessary and useful, while on the other hand there are some issues that arise with the sourcing (so far, that is -- to give Piotrus and Pharos the benefit of the doubt here, it is possible that more sources in Polish exist I suppose) and the topic itself seems a bit hard to uncontroversially define. Is it one poem that became a proverb? Is it an -- alleged -- feeling among the ethnic Polish/Catholic majority? Is it an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? There seems to be uncertainty here, which is really not great given the nature of the topic and past conflicts in the "Jewish-Polish" bilateral area on wiki -- lots of room for misunderstanding both by editors and more importantly readers. Paradisus Judaeorum -- the idea that Poland was a Jewish "paradise" and discourse about that idea through the subsequent ages -- is notable, from a Jewish as well as a Polish perspective. --Calthinus (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep or minor move to something more search-friendly per User:Pharos. The subject is clearly notable as demonstrated by Piotrus. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for nominating an article for deletion.--Darwinek (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, don't move. No good reason for deleting this article. Piotrus makes valid points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatzref (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Welcome back from your 5 month wikibreak. @Tatzref: - please confirm that in endorsing Piotrus's reasoning, that you consider a 1937 paper written by a politician who at the time was advocating for the mass expulsion of Jews from Poland - a secondary reliable source? Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Move or Delete I think it should be deleted per WP:TNT or moved to moved to more appropriate title.Right now its reads like one big WP:OR essay most of the sources doesn't even mention the topic of the article.Some of the sources are 400 years old and hence WP:PRIMARY.There is no modern scholarship that discuss the topic of the article. --Shrike (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Shrike: The primary historical sources added by User:Pharos are just for the samples of original poem text. The proverb itself is discussed by in-depth 20th century sources (Kot and Krzyzanowski). Two in-depth sources (academic monograph and a 2-3 pages dedicated chapter is a book discussing famous Polish proverbs) should be sufficient to prove notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Neither of which anyone here read. Krzyzanowski is a 1960 dictionary style collection of sayings. Kot wrote his paper in 1937, in modern use he is used attributed, and Kot himself is better known for his politics (one of the leaders of the Peasent Party, ambassador to Soviet Union, Propaganda minister) than for scholarship - he is a topic of study in regards to his stmts on Jews - which included advocating the mass expulsion of most of Poland's Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Your attempt to discredit Kot because at some point in life he made some comments during his political career that others have criticized is simply irrelevant. What matters here is that he was a historian, and modern scholars cite him and consider him a reliable source. Notably, Tokarska-Bakir, wrinabout antisemitism in Poland, cited from Kot, calling his literature review and study of the proverb in question 'solid', and she did not deem it relevant to discuss any biases of his. Ditto for Janicka, who quotes Tokarska-Bakir's assessment of Kot. Neither of those tw modern scholars of antisemitism seem to have any problems considering Kot reliable. You are trying to me more holy that the proverbial Pope and presume you understand which sources are good or not better than experts - to me this is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Since this AfD has a possibility of overturning the prior, recent RM I am going to ping each editor who took part in that RM but has not posted here. @Catrìona, StarryGrandma, GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek, Serial Number 54129, Thryduulf, and Xx236: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Move for the reasons I gave in the RM - the "Paradise for the Jews" is the only part that has apparently gained significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Even in the article as it was then, the rest of the phrase was just background context. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - (and a strong one) per my argumentation at the RM (just recently closed!), I also just added an additional reference to the main body of the article [1]. I'll continue my remark later (sorry I'm busy at the moment) GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)