Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum

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 [1].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)

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. [2] 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)

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)

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)

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: [3]. 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)

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)

What is unclear this time?

User:Slimvirgin, please explain what is unclear this time: [4]. 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)

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: [5]. --_{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 [6]: "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 [7], 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 [8] 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 ([9]), 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)

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)

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)

Scan of Kot & Krzyzanowski

In case anyone wants to verify, or read them, you can download the scans I made from here: [10]. 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)

The historical context where the content of this page needs to be located

As I noted above in my last comment on the Kot discussion section of this page, here is the historical relevant material for understanding the historical context and the consequences of the social picture that is so succinctly described in the four sentences of the 1606 proverb/epigram, and the revised 1647 Latin version of the Polish priest Michael Radau, that is the subject of this page:

1. The historical events of Polish history and of the history of the Jews in the Kingdom of Poland

2. The Cossack uprising of 1648-1650 that caused one of the biggest catastrophes of Jewish history in Europe in the 17th century

The social and economic circumstances of the Kingdom of the Polish that are captured in the proverb/epigram were the basic underlying causes of the historical events described in the two links above, and it is in this historical context that the history of the proverb/epigram and its social and political impact in the 17th century has to be understood. The Latin publication in 1641 of the proverb by a priest of the Catholic Church in the Kingdom of the Polish is directly connected to the historical events of 1648-1650 in the kingdom. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

What "1647" version are you referring to?

What "four sentences of the 1606 proverb/epigram" are you referring to?

Nihil novi (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This is all in the section of the article called "Latin texts." The Polish and later Prussian Jesuit Michael Radau's Latin version of the epigram Regnum Polonorum est is given there as published in 1672. But the previous section on the history of the versions, asserts that he had had this/his version as early 1641. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am confused what is the direct relevance of the 1606 poem, or the addition of the "heaven for nobility" by Radau (c.1641?) and the 1648 Khmelnytsky Uprising. The Uprising was very disastrous for Jews (and Poles) in general, but I am not aware of any scholar making a connection between the poem (epigram, proverb, whatever) and the later uprising. Nor does Kot in his literature review mentions that any post-Uprising version of the poem addresses the issues of the Uprising. Nor, again, does anyone else. Anyway, in case I misunderstood you, re: Readau. Both Kot and Krzyzanowski mention that his text is from 1672 but they say that it was likely invented during his lectures c. 1641, and only published later (or that no earlier printed copies survived). They don't explain in detail why they assume 1641 is the right date, my guess is that 1672 text states that it comes from the lectures otherwise known to be delivered in 1641. But it would be OR to speculate on this in our article, since no scholar goes into much detail on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The historical importance and implications of the poem that is being described in this page ("poem, epigram, proverb, whatever" as you say) is a relatively new field of study, which started only with the rather recent POLIN exhibition. However, the economic and political alliances of the Polish nobility and the Jews in the 17th century Kingdom of Poland, that is alluded to so clearly and succinctly in the poem, as one of the main historical reasons for the Khmelnytsky Uprising of the Cossacks and peasants against the Jews and the nobility at once is very well established in historical research. I just gave the known historical context here, as it is already described in all the pertinent Wikipedia pages. This known historical context was missing/lacking in the poem Wikipedia page itself, and in all the discussions about the article here, up to this point. However, since the reasons for the very central historical events of the 17th century for both Poles and Jews are referred to in the poem, and since the consequences of the events refer directly to the history of Polish anti-Semitism, which is one of the subjects that is now being discussed here, this critical omission had to be corrected. I hope I have contributed to this overdue historical correction. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid drawing such a connection in this article is WP:OR. Again, I ask, which source connects this poem or proverb, to the Uprising? Now, I think it wouldn't be amiss to mention that the Polish-Jewish community was decimated the the Uprising, if we develop a section about the Golden Age of Polish Jews (which I think - with the note that I haven't done that much lit review on this - did likely end with the Uprising). But since the current article doesn't really discuss the Jewish society of Poland much, I think it would be better to expand articles such as History of Jews in Poland or the Khmelnytsky Uprising instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Since I have somehow reluctantly joined the latest ongoing discussions here about the contents of this page I have been saying that the poem cannot be appropriately described or understood without extensive reference to the historical context in which it was created. Whatever happens to the content of the page, this lack of due 17th century historical context for the society that is being described in the poem cannot be ignored any longer, especially since one of the reasons for the probable changing of the title and/or the content is the history of anti-Semitism in Polish society. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 00:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, the issue is that any detailed analysis would be OR, as no scholar to my knowledge has analyzed this poem in this context. Kot did so but he didn't discuss the Jewish aspect much, he was more focused on the nobility one. We could add some summary of the relevant history of Polish Jews to the "Paradisus Judaeorum" section. Is this what you are suggesting? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If the page is to remain in Wikipedia in some form (and not just in Wikisource where it originated) and with a different name, this is one of the content problems that would have to be corrected. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 00:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

All right, I think we are in agreement such an expansion can be beneficial. Please WP:BEBOLD and try it yourself if you don't mind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I want it to be clear to all concerned here that I won't touch the content of this article again until the name of the page is appropriately changed. I think user:SarahSV has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the changing of the name of the page was an intellectually unwarranted and dubious act. And that the editor who committed the act and who has been the main purveyor of content for this page, which appears to be his own little pet project on Wikipedia since, is definitely engaged now in unstoppable walls of text, in gaslighting, and in canvassing outside editors in order to save his undue pet project. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

A distinction

A scholar's views in one realm of interest do not necessarily influence his contributions in another realm of interest.

Isaac Newton left extensive writings on Christian theology, but his religious interests left no trace in his ground-breaking mathematics or physics.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz espoused "philosophical optimism", but it did not diminish his independent co-invention, alongside Newton, of calculus, or Leibniz's many other scientific accomplishments.

Alfred Russel Wallace, a firm believer in Spiritualism, is credited as independent co-discoverer of the theory of evolution alongside Charles Darwin, who showed no interest in the very unscientific, indeed fraudulent, cult of Spiritualism.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In spite of your 3 rather random examples (and many more such examples could be found in either direction), I will reiterate my argument above: in the matter of anti-Semitism, in my view, the scholarly work of Kot and his political views and actions cannot be hermetically separated, artificially isolated, as if there is no connection whatsoever between one realm and the other. His influence in both realms have very serious consequences for one central issue: the relations between Poles and Poland and Jews since the 17th century and up to the Second World War. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has ever pointed out that any of Kot's scholarly works have issues with anti-semitism. I have nearly completed my review of his biographies, and the only criticism of his scholarly works I've seen is minor and technical; mainly, that in his discussions on reformation he focuses too much on the material angle (ex. economy of the Church), and too little on the theological. Nobody has ever suggested that his scholarly works are anti-semitic, or problematic in any form when it comes to Polish-Jewish relations or such. In fact I am surprised at how many superlatives are sent at him. Also, would you care to comment on Wasserstein ("Kot (who was not regarded as an anti-Semite") and Szczucki ("Kot was popular among the students from ethnic minorities: he was a strong opponent of nationalism and antisemitism")? That he said something that today we consider rather shocking, in his capacity as a politician few years later, is irrelevant to his scholarly works. This has been noted by a number of scholars who wrote about Kot's life, noting the need to separate discussion about Kot, the renown scholar, and Kot, the mediocre politician, also noting he was pretty good at keeping his political views from affecting (being seen in) his scholarly work. And even when it comes to his political views, which have been discussed in works I have reviewed, the critcism focuses on his hatred of the Sanacja regime, no scholar suggested he had any particular likes or dislikes on Jews (well, we have the criticism from Biskupski, but it is plainly and clearly contradicted by Wasserstein and Sztucki). Examples cited by NN are all quite relevant. (Anyway, this is something better discussed at his page). PS. I think the most extensive critique of Kot (as a politician) is found in [11] (Polish but it can be google translated if needed); and it doesn't mention anything related to a Jewish dimension at all. And if you want critique of Kot as a scholar, the source is [12], it's in English and the author, Wiktor Weintraub, is a Polish Jew. You'd think that if Kot was an antisemite, Weintraub would be a bit more reserved instead of calling Kot a "first-rank" and "leading" historian. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The above is based on skimming and snippet view. The antisemitism is plain. Piotrus, what you've been doing here feels like gaslighting. I'm the only person who thinks the article is unclear; I'm the only person who can't understand the English; a few editors on this page are the only people who can see the antisemitism; Icewhiz was the only person who could see the POV and OR; Biskupski was the only historian to name the main source's antisemitism; and even though the DYK was pulled from the queue because of those concerns, you renominate it, and without mention of the first.

You need to start engaging with the arguments, not throwing back walls of text in the hope that people get fed up and wander off. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to start responding to arguments by others, you have repeatedly ignored almost everything I've said, such as Wasserstein's and Szczucki's clear as day comments that Kot was not an antisemite, or Tokarska-Bakir's usage of Kot as a source, and calling his 1937 work solid, in the context of her article on antisemitism in Poland. You have ignored those important rebukes time and again. Will you kindly reply to them now? In response you your irrelevant quote about Kot's behavior in an incident of no relevance to his 1937 paper, I have done and presented a comprehensive literature review about Kot, which makes it abundantly clear he is a well respected scholar. EVERY SINGLE in-depth review of his life and work is effectively glowing, and none even alludes that he might have had some bias against the Jews; in fact Szczucki clearly states he was not an anti-semite, and Weintraub ‎gives us an example of a Polish-Jewish scholar who refers to Kot in superlatives, again, something I mentioned above that you ignored. I don't think that referring to an indef banned editor who disrupted this entire topic area before ArbCom was focred to step in and ban him is making your case stronger. I would very much appreciate it if you would start responding to arguments, and to reliable sources presented. Because from my end, what I see is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that, repeated time and again "in the hope that people get fed up and wander off". And it was already mentioned by Nihil novi that using the war time incident in context of his 1937 work seems like "poisoning the well", so I am not the only one here concerned about the quality of your posts here. But I still would like to assume good faith and engage in productive discussion with you since you did raise some helpful criticisms in the past and helped to fix some unclear parts of this article, which I appreciate. Do you think we can do that and focus on the positives - we are both here to build an encyclopedia, aren't we? If so, may I suggest you WP:REFACTOR your post above, to remove the bad faithed comment about me - in which case I would of course be happy to refactor mine. Then, I will be happy to address your replies to my arguments, for which I have been waiting for several days now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

How many scholars in general people here know who are publishing specific scholarly work in a very narrow and specific historical field in 1937, and then in 1939 they are serving as ministers of interior in a country overrun by a world war foreign power? Yes, there are examples of this, but they are not very many. For a scholar to jump so quickly from scholarship to such a prominent role in politics, the sum of his overall previous scholarly activity must have been pretty remarkable within the politics of the society where he or she accomplished it. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what's your point here, but please note that Kot was active in politics before, during WWI, when he worked with the future (WWII-era) Prime Minister, and then since 1933, when they were both in opposition. Even before 1933 he was active in politics in the form of supporting them in the world of academia (organizing professor's protests, etc.). They key point is, however, that he kept those two worlds separate. Nobody has presented here a single quote from his scholarly works suggesting that they had any antisemitic aspects, or cited a review of his academic work that would suggest they have some problems. All of the reviews of his work, some of which are in English and can be read by people participating in this discussion, are effectively glowing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

My point was, and the details you added about his political and academic career confirm this, that he was both a politician and and an academic. And this is a combination of occupations that is not very common. What is obvious, however, is that in his particular case, of an overtly politician/academic, this so-called clear distinction that the opener of this section and you are trying to establish (between his blatant, rather amazing anti-Semitism and his scholarship), cannot be assumed or maintained. And, given the sources about his anti-Semitism that have been uncovered here, in his particular case, this supposed "distinction" is actually rather non-existent. The changing of the original name of this page to focus uniquely on the Jews was a blatant anti-Semitic act, and the continued defense of the contents of this page as they currently stand also demonstrates, in my view, an unacceptable racist bias on the part of the defending editor. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"this is a combination of occupations that is not very common". I understand dealing with Polish references is a bit challenging (requires machine translation), but [13] is in English, and it plainly opens with "Like a long line of historians beginning in antiquity, Stanisław Kot was both a writer of history and a politician who helped to shape events. Whereas in his scholarly writings he preserved a calm impartiality with any polemical thrust usually concealed from the reader’s view..." Here are two reliable scholars (Peter Brock (historian) and pl:Zdzisław Pietrzyk) who contradict you on both points, crucially also noting that his scholarly work are separate (remain neutral) from his political leanings. You keep ignoring the simple fact that each and every work about Kot is full of praise, and no scholar saw it fit to discuss his antisemitism. If it was so blatant, you'd think this would be discussed more in relevant literature. Anyway, have to wonder which unnamed editor you criticize here, given that I agreed with your suggestions on how to restructure this article once the name issue is fixed, and that I was vehemently opposed to the move of this article from the old name to the current, more problematic one (and obviously I would be perfectly happy with the restoration of the old name). The move was orchestrated by the now-indef banned User:Icewhiz (see talk archives / page history for the past move proposals). I recommend you get your facts straight, it tends to help. PS. The paper by Brock and Pietrzyk in fact is the third source that explicitly argues Kot was not an anti-semite: "From his high-school years on, Kot rejected categorically the anti-Semitism that Poland’s integral nationalists were now propagating with increasing vigour." (p.409). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Outsider comment

User:Piotrus has just asked me to take a look at this for outside comment. Having scanned this discussion very briefly I am convinced by SarahSV's quotes and share K.e.coffman's perspective that Kot expressed anti-Semitic sentiments. Some questions: (1) Is there any evidence that his attitude changed or was modified once he understood the full horror of the Holocaust (as happened, say, with many American and British anti-Semites) ? (2) What sets him apart from figures such as Theodore Roosevelt and certain British Conservatives who remain generally credible despite their truly nasty if not sinister comments about Jews? (3) According to WP P&G is his antisemitism a reason not to quote him per se? We quote secondary sources quoting anti-Semites to demonstrate their anti-Semitism, but doesn't a secondary source that has made anti-Semitic remarks remain a secondary source? I can think of at least one living mainstream historian who falls into this category. (4) Most importantly, does anyone disagree with Piotrus that we are not citing him for anything that would be remotely considered controversial or such ? Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing disclaimer: I mentioned this discussion at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom, and invited editors active there to comment here; on that note, we can use more input on talk of JP page where we are trying to clear more sources. To answer your Q1, not that I know, but despite a sizable literature on Kot (see bibliography in his article), I don't think anyone has dedicated more than a passing mention to his attitude to Jews; I think mostly because outside of some passing remarks he never was involved in related issues much, plus his attitude seems to represent what passed back then for moderate (as dismaying as it may be from today's perspective). I mean, Stola says "there is much evidence that the year 1939 did not fundamentally change the view of Polish politicians on the matter." And Kot represented a centrist faction, not right wing, he was liked by his Polish-Jewish students... It is shocking how intolerant and racist where people just few generations ago compared to today 2) Good question. 3) Not sure what you mean by WP P&G? 4) Agreed, that's key here. As I said, I wouldn't rely on Kot as an expert on Polish-Jewish WWII relations, but as far as I know he is not cited in this context. And plenty of scholars consider him reliable for areas of his expertise (literary history, early modern period Polish history, and such). Consider for example one of the founding fathers of sociology, Max Weber. As noted [14], from today'sperspective Weber would be considered somewhat racist (towards Jews, Poles and others Slaves, and Blacks - disclaimer: term as used in the source...). Shocking today, normal a 100 years ago, but the key point is that Weber is still widely referred to and cited by modrern scholars. It is just he is not considered an authority on ethnic minorities, because it is obvious that his thinking was outdated. But if anyone would suggest not to cite him because of that, and ignore his theories on ideal type or dozen of others, he would be laughed out of the room. I think pretty much every modern course in basics of sociology has a big section on Weber, students learn about him all around the world, and nobody makes a fuss about it; of course his racism is interesting to discuss at graduate level, but it is not generally mentioned at undegraduate level at all as to undue/fringe/irrelevant to the general reader. See also for another interesting reading the chapter on Racism and Sociology here. Which is why Kot's antisemitism is not even mentioned in any of the now close to ~10 in-depth articles about his life and works I've recently read. "Polish politician made a few antisemitic remarks during WWII". Sadly, that's not news... Again, we can only thank the powers that be that we live in a more tolerant time today. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chumchum7, thank you for this comment. First, Kot wrote the source text in 1937, so whether he changed his views after the Holocaust isn't an issue (and no one has offered evidence that he did). As for how the source text is used, it's easier if you look for yourself rather than have me describe it. An additional concern is that very few of us can read the source, so the way in which it has been used in this article can't be assessed independently of the editors who want to use it.

The key issue is whether, given his antisemitic views, his writing should be used on Wikipedia as an independent secondary source for anything to do with Jews. We wouldn't use a 1937 text by a racist white American scholar as a secondary source on African Americans, even if it was only the examination of an old poem. There would be no debate about this; it would be self-evident. We might use it as a primary source to illustrate how people wrote about African Americans, if secondary sources offered that kind of critical analysis. But that isn't available here. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"it's easier if you look for yourself rather than have me describe it". If you cannot describe specific problems, we are back to where we started, where you were saying vaguely the article has problems, and it took several days and a series of posts for you to clarify that those problems in essence meant that the lead didn't clearly explain relation between the proverb and the original 1606 pasquinade. It would really save everyone a lot of time if you could be more specific about which sentences/claims/quotes you are concerned. Please be so kind as to quote here any controversial/red flag claim that is sourced to Kot.

"given his antisemitic views" - once again you ignore Szczucki and Wasserstein, both reliable scholars, both who said Kot was not an antisemite. And Tokarska-Bakir, who in her study of historical antisemitism used Kot not as an illustration of antisemitism, but as a "solid source". All of those scholars who studied Kot realize that what he said and did as a politician was unrelated to what he wrote as a scholar.

"We wouldn't use a 1937 text by a racist white American scholar as a secondary source on African Americans". Right. And we are not using Kot here for any plausibly antisemitic claim about the Jewish people, are we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there SarahSV and thanks for the reply. Also this may be the first time we've met, so I'm glad to make your acquaintance in a topic area we're both interested in. Working towards a solution, perhaps there are ways of approaching this issue asymmetrically, with a few practical steps. (1) I looked at Kot's page, and can't see a single mention of allegations about his antisemitism there. If you were to add reliable secondary sources to that page supporting such content as WP:DUE, I would support you. (2) That in turn may support a mention of his antisemitism on this page, ideally supported by a reliable secondary source directly connecting it to the subject of this article in order to avert WP:SYNTH. If no such reference can be found, I don't think it would be unreasonable to mention (in this context of a Jewish theme in literature) that he has been described as an antisemitic literary historian - if that description is verifiable. (3) Setting aside Kot's antisemitism for a moment, as dated to 1937 he is also a very old source and there may be a case for him being outdated versus the other sources in this article, namely Matyjaszek (2017), Polonsky (2017) and Tokarska-Bakir (2004). I don't now why they have been relegated to a 'note' with commentary when they should have at least equal weight. It would be odd if we have an article on a English Renaissance subject that so prominently featured a scholar from 1937 at the expense of 21st-century revisionists. How about editing to increase their prominence? (4) If sources say the very concept of a 'Jewish Paradise' in Poland is anti-Semitic, they should be quoted in this article. Can we enumerate them? (5) The best place for entirely throwing out a source from any area is WP:RS/N. You always have the option of taking it up with our whole community there. (6) Both you and Piotrus could try WP:DISENGAGE for a while. In case of any future WP:ARBEE investigation of this page, I think it will serve you well to strike through the line where it could be perceived that you said he posts long replies as a form of malice. The problem is that it's impossible to prove that. If you believe he has been disruptive, the rules say this Talk page is not the place to say so and could get you into trouble if you inadvertently break them. You always have the option of WP:AN/I, etc. I hope that helps. (8) I happen to agree that the title was more appropriate before, so you could have a go at reverting it pending further consultation for WP:CONS.

(9) Aside from practicalities, I can share some opinion for what it's worth. I am not sure that banning a secondary source is in keeping with our obligations for WP:NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't require our sources to be objective; it requires us to build objectivity by presenting a range of sources, each of which will be necessarily subjective. Moreover, sources are just as complex as people. Mark Twain remains admired by us for his anti-racist advocacy of black emancipation while still causing us disgust for his racist comments about Native Americans; I suspect we would still quote him even as a secondary source on race. Same for Abraham Lincoln, who abolished black slavery and was a racist. 

As we know, antisemitism was common all over the world prior to knowledge of the Holocaust, and were we to start throwing out every single pre-Holocaust writer who portrayed Jews in a racist manner, we'd have to start with Dickens (Fagin) and Shakespeare (Shylock). Yes, these were fiction writers, but I refer to them to make the point about Wikipedia adding context as an alternative to censorship. My feeling about our project at Wikipedia is that we believe it's better to shine a light on something bad than to hide it in the dark.

On the point about America, we know that its antisemitism changed only after knowledge of the Holocaust: "Also, "The number of Americans who heard “criticism or talk against Jews,” according to the historian Leonard Dinnerstein, declined from 64 percent in 1946 to 12 percent in 1959.". But as the History of antisemitism in the United States also shows us, it carried on among university scholars way into the 1960s with maximum quotas for Jews even at Harvard and Yale. So I very much doubt we wouldn't be able to find an American scholar who pre-war made anti-Semitic remarks who is cited on Jewish matters Wikipedia. We certainly have cited a British historian on WWII who had an American mother, and said:

“This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

That same historian went on to (among other things) champion the creation of Israel, as did many people who had made anti-Semitic remarks. One example, the founder of Zegota, Zofia Kossak-Szczucka, was both a Righteous Among Nations and an anti-Semite; would we need to banish her as a secondary source, even after Israel has immortalized her at Yad Vashem? And so there is another point here, aside from sources being as complex as people. It is that antisemitism is also complex, and is many different things. A scholar can be anti-French without it being associated with genocide, and prior to the Holocaust many scholars were anti-Jewish without any concept of genocide entering their heads, per the one in the box above - who is Winston Churchill. I'm sure we can't imagine Wikipedia banning his WWII history books from our articles on the Holocaust. For the record, the American president was actually worse. This returns us to the issue of context. We keep the source, quote the source, and surround it with context - with citation. I hope that helps. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, thanks for the reply. By WP P&G I mean Wikipedia policy and guidelines. As I think you've said, this could all be simplified. It seems some editors interpret the concept of Paradisus Judaeorum as playing into the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jewish wealth and power. But it isn't being said as clearly as that, and instead the focus is on Kot. I assume you'd have no problem with content stating that context, if adequate citations can be found. I prefer the old title because this article is about the poverb, whereas this new phrase is an edit of that proverb and I can't see why. Maybe you could be a good sport and revert it. As for Kot, I think the case for exclusion would need to be taken up at WP:RS/N where anyway I would expect it to be retained as explained above. It might be worth having a think about WP:DISENGAGE before things get any hotter in here. It has helped me in the past. Hope that helps. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: Thank you for your interesting comments. To keep it brief, per DISENGAGE, and constructive, I think everyone here is unhappy with the current title. I started a thread about this at #Talk:Paradisus_Judaeorum#Should_this_article_be_renamed? but it saw little participation, but comments to that extent were made elsewhere. Perhaps an admin who is active here could revert the move and restore the pre-move name, or even the original name as created by User:Pharos. I think there is clear consensus that any name is better than the current one. Then (or before) we could do a straw poll on other name variants, if people are still unhappy (I now prefer the WP:USEENGLISH and short Poland is... as proposed by User:Nihil novi few days ago. Hopefully the change of the name will address a number of issues raised here (UNDUE, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

References