Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1] (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 [2], 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 [3] 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)

Warshy, please refrain from labeling fellow Wikipedians as anti-semites and racists. Kindly stick to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks.--Darwinek (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not label anyone anything. I referred to an act and to an apparent bias, as I see it. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:16, 2 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 [4], 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. (7) 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.

(8) 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)

References

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)

User:Piotrus, was consensus even gained for the move in the first place? Which editor did the move? Can they self-revert? I simply don't know if there is clear consensus that any name is better than the current one, some editors might actually want it this way; but I do concur that it seems to be a major cause of the disagreements here. Personally I've never seen the Poland is... formulation and would prefer the full proverb for precision, also it seems consistent with PL-wiki. Calling in the administrators would prompt another issue, which is that this article is directly under the scope of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Some editors might not be aware that special standards apply here, and communication of that may help. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The criterion of title conciseness would favor something shorter than "Poland is heaven for the nobility, purgatory for townspeople, hell for peasants, paradise for Jews".

Nihil novi (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This article's present title, Paradisus Judaeorum, is in fact an appropriation of a topic by a single ethnicity, somewhat as "Auschwitz" has come to be associated among the general public exclusively with the Germans' World War II murder of Jews, leaving aside a number of other ethnicities, prominently Poles, who were murdered there.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

For consensus re move, see #History. The move to the current name was the result of an AfD, a rather rare outcome, and consensus was IMHO hard to judge. I certainly did not support such a move. I think we should start a RM and move it to a new name. I specifically note that to the best of my knowledge (reading through the discussions here) I am not familiar with any editor who is happy with the current title, so I think we have a consensus to move it. The issue is 'move where'. Maybe a RM with a bunch of options (A, B, C) would be a good solution in the near future. Let's see if we can gather the options here, I wouldn't want to miss something. Titles proposed are: A) Poland is... (short version of the proverb) B) Poland is heaven for the nobility, purgatory for townspeople, hell for peasants, paradise for Jews (full version of the proverb) C) Poland is heaven for the nobility, hell for peasants, paradise for Jews (shorter version of the proverb) D) Clarum regnum Polonorum (opening line of some versions of the poem/proverb in Latin) E) Heaven for the nobles, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews (original title) F) Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews (second title) G) Paskwiliusze na krolewskim weselu podrzucone (Polish title of the 1606 poem). I guess we could add English title of the poem but it is hardly a COMMONAME. I'd be leaning to A, B, or C personally. Let's see if any other names are proposed, and then we can see what consensus a RM will arrive at. Reducing choice may help, E, F and G probably the least interesting, and I find D a non-elegant solution (not English, not common, not known in Poland where the proverb is popular). So if possible, I'd prefer to start a RM with options A, B or C, or maybe just A and B. But again, please feel free to tell me some other name variants should be included because you think they have merit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What is (are) the wording(s) of the proverb in Poland in recent decades (as distinguished from the various 17th- and 18th-century pasquinades)?

Nihil novi (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

pl:Polska niebem dla szlachty, czyśćcem dla mieszczan, piekłem dla chłopów, a rajem dla Żydów per Krzyzanowski. Well, he uses the verb too, "Polska była niebem dla szlachty, czyśćem dla mieszcan, piekłem dla chłopów, i rajem dla Żydów". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus. Krzyżanowski's second version, with the verb "była" ("Poland was") is evidently an after-the-fact past-tense reference rather than a current proverb. His first version, though superficially minus a verb, effectively contains one, implied by that version's use of the noun instrumental case ("Poland is heaven for the nobility").

So, almost certainly, it should be the first version that would appear, boldfaced, in the initial line of the article.

I still think that that first line should not appear as the article's title: Can you imagine recommending the article to someone, either orally reciting the whole verse as the title or writing it out for him?

It would be interesting to establish the historical timespan when the proverb would actually have been used in that form, in the present tense. By the late 19th century, many Polish nobility had either been stripped of their estates by the occupying powers, particularly Russia, for rebellion or had lost their estates through mismanagement of them, and had joined the mieszczaństwo (townspeople) – as Wikipedia biographies of many later-prominent Poles attest.

I agree that it would be important to give the article a more suitable name than "Paradisus Judaeorum". I also agree with Chumchum7 that it's a shame that an ambiguous folk saying should take up so much time and effort by editors capable of addressing more substantive topics.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)|

Nihil novi, the Chief Rabbi of Poland put it well: "Right now, what we have is a vicious cycle where one side paints a black picture and the other a white one, but the only way to move forward is for both to find a way to balance their language.” The Auschwitz death toll includes 960,000 Jews (865,000 of whom were gassed on arrival), 74,000 non-Jewish Poles, 21,000 Roma, 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war, and up to 15,000 other Europeans. I disagree that the issue of the title of this article is comparable to the historiography of Auschwitz. In the interests of us working towards consensus I request you don't pursue that formulation. Let me take this opportunity to thank you for the many times you have improved the grammar and syntax of the article content I have added in the past. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Piotrus, hugely appreciate the links you've shown me, which bring me up to speed with how we got to here. Correct me if I'm got any of the following wrong. Afaics, the move was first proposed by user User:Icewhiz; it failed consensus; Icewhiz then proposed deletion of the whole article; that failed too but administrator User:Sandstein made the move - in the spirit of establishing compromise it seems to me; to my mind the comment from User:valereee in that discussion is also highly persuasive, "I just finished reading 3 of the scholarly references which I'd searched for the fragment 'paradis' in order to get both Paradisus and paradise, and in over 150 pages none of the three actually talk about the proverb itself."[5]; Icewhiz was then indeffed for disruptive editing in this topic area. Right now I have two main thoughts in my mind. (1) That this article, whatever its title (including the full proverb), must definitely and with WP:NPOV cover allegations, according to WP:RS, that the concept of Paradisus Judaeorum is antisemitic; and any counter theses thereto. (2) That given the move was a consequence of lobbying by an editor who was indeffed afair precisely because of their off-Wiki conduct in this topic area, it may be that the sanction should have a retroactive relevance here, and be used to revert the consequences of that lobbying, which was part of the conduct. (And for the record, personally I found Icewhiz to be beneficial to our project on several occasions.) The best people to decide that would indeed be the administrators who indeffed Icewhiz, in consultation with Sandstein, and those in the WP:ARBEE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland space such as User:NeilN, who based on precedent I could see raining down sanctions and article restrictions just to impose stability, let alone civility here. Finally, everyone's patience must be wearing thin so let's focus on practical steps: name reversion and properly incorporating all points of view. I've got to say this is a horrendously complex matter about a tiny subject; in years from now we may look back and wish we spent our time better applying the 10,000 hour rule to becoming bestselling thriller writers and rock stars. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW, for accuracy I vote (F) but adjusted to WP:V to directly quote source [2] Gromelski's 'of the' rather than 'for the'. We have plenty of long ones, such as Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Ping User:Nihil novi. What's your take on 'of the' compared to the 'for the'? Since I am not a native speaker, could interested editors propose the FULL version of the title they want to see in the voting? Like H., I., etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Poland is heaven for the nobility [szlachta], purgatory for townspeople, hell for peasants, paradise for Jews."

I read the proverb as describing what Poland was – what it meant – for each of the named social classes, rather than as assigning some kind of ownership (of).

Hence I use "for", without "the", except in the case of "the nobility" (it's not individual "nobles" – a misleading term when used in the singular, in English translation, since Poland had no native aristocractic titles, considered to be "titles of nobility", unlike England and many other European countries).

The "the" is needed before "nobility", used in the sense of a social class, to avoid potential confusion with "nobility" in the sense of a personality trait.

Use of "of" could create a needless ambiguity: If Poland were the "hell of the peasants", that could beg the question: What was the heaven or purgatory of the peasants?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll ping User:Chumchum7. I'd really like to get a list of move options A, B, C... that everyone is happy with so we can do a RM here that will hopefully allow us to move forward. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all there is no WP policy or guideline requirement for abbreviation of the article name afaik. After all we have WP:CONS on Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles! Fwiw my stated preference is entirely informed by WP:V in English, and the only occurrence of the proverb that I have seen is in its 17th century usage described in Gromelski page 233 as: 'the heaven of the nobility, purgatory of the burgers, hell of the peasants and paradise of the Jews'. So based on a blunt application of WP:V, that would be the article name perhaps with the first definite article removed at most. I appreciate 'of the' may have been a mistranslation of 'for the' so if there is a better-sounding verifiable use of the proverb in English, please bring it. Note I wouldn't support future content changes in response to the name change per se. The accuracy of the phrase shouldn't be presented at face value as it is WP:BLUE at least hyperbole (e.g. scholarship shows that the magnate nobles had it good but many if not most of the Polish nobility were poorer than the burghers and as poor as the peasantry). Likewise, the concept and phrase "Jewish Paradise" in isolation does need to be retained at the article in the context of the history of Eastern European antisemtism somewhere, perhaps a few lines here and a directing out to articles on the History of Jews in Poland, etc. The Blood Libel painting at Sandomierz Cathedral on the one hand, the Statute of Kalisz on the other. As we know scholarship does indeed show the Orthodox Ukrainian peasant Cossack Uprising - which may have come later than the proverb - was hell for Jews as well as the local Polish Catholic clergy, seen to be working in collusion with each other for the Polish magnate class in a cultural and economic imperialism. I'm sure our Ukraine-specialist colleagues would confirm this. --Chumchum7 (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: For the chronology of this, it goes more or less like this:

1606: the original Latin poem (described as pasquinade by literature scholars) appears. It is popular enough (unlike many other pasquinades) to even get reprinted (1623, 1636, possibly others).

1641 (approximate): Prussian Jesuit Radau adds the enduring "heaven for nobility" part

1648 Chmielnicki Uprising starts

1672 Radau's version appears in print (at least that's the earliest surviving printed version of the "nobility part"

Numerous variations appear in print in Poland and outside over the next two centuries. The poem gets shortened into an epigram/proverb.

1875: Józef Ignacy Kraszewski refers to this as an "old proverb". [6] He cites the latin 2-part (Jews and Peasants). This reference was removed as OR from the current version of the text, as were some others, please see this revision which frankly I think did a better job explaining the historical evolution of this phrase.

1887: (first?) Polish proverb collection of 1887 by Samuel Adalberg records this saying (4 part, order: nobles, townsfolk, peasants, Jews). This information was also removed from the current version.

1937: Kot's in-depth, ~30 page monograph on the original pasquinade (which he refers to as such, also as a satire) and its permutations (up to the end of the 18th century,I think the latest work he cites is from 1760), is published. He titles his work after the 3-part proverb (order: Jews, Peasants, Nobles). He notes that this biblical proverb (comparing a country or a place to hell for group A, heaven or paradise for group B, and purgatory for group C) existed in other European languages, and then got incorporated into the 1606 work whose later permutations he analyzes.

1958: first edition of Krzyżanowski's proverb collection. He discusses the 4-part proverb (order: nobles, townsfolk, peasants, Jews) and clearly calls it a proverb, noting its 1606 origins (he calls the 1606 work a poem, and a satire). He explicitly notes that the "first verses of the satire became an enduring proverb."

As for the translations using for instead of the of, they are quite numerous: [7] (note it uses "Eden for the Jews", yet another variant I haven't noticed before...), [8], [9], [10], [11]/[12] and many others. Note that the sources can't even agree on whether we should use the or not ("heaven for nobility", "heaven for the nobility"). Peasants can be translated as serfs, burghers are townsfolk or city-dwellers, etc.

Thanks for the links. This has adjusted my preference to either the line as it appears in Ruth Wisse or Gershon Hundert, no preference between the two. These have the added advantage that they are native English language authors, excluding the possibility of mistranslating 'for/of'. (Don't get me started on the mistranslation of 'since'/'from', 'by'/'til', etc.) Thanks for the chronology, FYI my position on the need to include the aspect of antisemitism remains the same. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Wisse: ""heaven for nobility, hell for the serfs, and paradise for the Jews"". Hundert "'Poland is heaven for the nobility, hell for the peasants and paradise for Jews'". They are a bit different, do we add them both as options or try to arrive at a single compromise version? They are native speakers and they can't even agree whether it's "heaven for the nobility" or "heaven for nobility"... should I toss a coin? Help :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In this and other Wikipedia articles, we have ourselves been translating Polish-language texts and source titles into English. Why should we not likewise ourselves translate this Polish-language proverb – especially since there is obviously no "authoritative" published English-language version?

Nihil novi (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a rationale for using WP:ENGLISH, and WP:ARBEE/WP:APL prefers us to use English sources too. Necessarily there's a gap in WP:V if editors are translating into English which can be subject to interpretative bias or cause errors in translation, as I've just identified over at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom. If pushed I'd first go for Wisse on the grounds that it's from a full book so probably a better source, but she uses "serfs" which is different to peasants and possibly minority usage. So I'd truncate Hundert to "heaven for the nobility, hell for the peasants and paradise for Jews". One thing I know is that Poland is... a nightmare for Wikipedia. I also have a stabilization proposal: how about putting the name in quotes, to show it's a slogan or proverb - and potentially a misnomer? That may cool this whole thing down once and for all. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your two sentences just before the final one. Could you please reword them for clarity?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the former was a lighthearted observation about the complexity and volatility of Poland-related articles at Wikipedia, which has contributed to the creation of the whole WP:ARBEE area. The latter is just a passing idea to have the title as 'heaven for the nobility, hell for the peasants and paradise for Jews' in quote marks to show it's not necessarily a face value statement, which may reduce the number of objections to it in order to establish WP:CONS. Neither are very important. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the quotation marks is that I am pretty sure it would go against MoS, as none of the other Category:Proverbs or such (ex. see Category:Allegory) uses them. I am fine with the heaven for the nobility, hell for the peasants and paradise for Jews. I do like the burghers part, but it also raises more translation issues (town dwellers, townsfolk, etc.). Should we just try a simple RM with one choice (heaven for the nobility, hell for the peasants and paradise for Jews) or should other choices be proposed? Correct me if I am wrong, but none of the other choices had much support... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

kvetches

Every empire inspires its kvetches (Yiddish for "complaints" or "whines"). Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth garnered a number of kvetches expressed, first, in the written language of medieval Poland, Latin, then in much abridged Polish-language proverb versions.

The various Latin-language kvetchers quoted in this article were, it has been remarked, equal-opportunity kvetchers: they spared no social class or occupational group of Poland or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

It would be well to find a supremely competent Latinist to review and, if appropriate, to revise my secondary-school Latinist's translations of the Latin versions quoted in the present article.

I have added this article to the ""Golden Liberty" "see also" section. If something like an authoritative version of our proverb can be settled on, it might be well to quote it, with appropriate commentary, as a historic kvetch in a new section of the "Golden Liberty" article.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

According to wiktionary, it's from Middle High German quetschen (“crush, press”). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So I understand. My intuition was that the Yiddish word's origin might have been overdetermined: over the centuries, the Yiddish language added a lot of Polish and other Slavic words to its basic stock of German vocabulary. Suggestive to my ear is that a kvetch, as a speech production, has more in common with squealing (a Polish word for which is "kwiczenie", pronounced "kveetchenyeh", rather similarly to kvetch) than with "crushing" or "pressing".

Nihil novi (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The "Golden Liberty" article referred to above already refers to this article specifically as:

Poland is heaven for the nobility, purgatory for townspeople, hell for peasants, paradise for Jews

I did not check the history there, but this would be my suggestion for the name ot this article. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I placed the proverb in the "Golden Liberty" see-also section.

I agree with you as to the proverb's wording in English, but I still think that the full proverb does not make a very handy title, which should be concise. Therefore, for this article's title, I would favor something like "Poland is...". Especially since there have been so many variants of the pasquinade and even of the proverb supposedly derived from it.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of link to context (szlachta)

In tightenting the prose and removing the fact that half of the lead sentence was in bold, I added a link to an important bit of context: szlachta. Nihil novi removed that link. Perhaps they'll explain why below. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you are speaking of.

I don't think you understand the sequence of events linking the 17th- and 18th-century Latin pasquinades to the modern Polish-language 4-member proverb. Putting the evolution into correct sequence was my intention in revising your revision.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

19th C. painting courtesy of the National Art Museum of Ukraine

Could you provide written Polish/Ruthenian/Ukranian versions from the early 17th century, with references, please? This chapter has some interesting lines about the prevalence of antisemitic tracts leading up to the Chmielnicki Uprising (linked above). e.g. De surcroît, à côté de feuilles volantes véhiculant parfois grossièrement les stéréotypes judéophobes, en allemand ou dans les autres langues vulgaires, le nombre d'oeuvres dénonçant la nocivité des Juifs et destinées à un large public s'accrut très fortement au XVIIe siècle, en allemand, en tchèque, en polonais, en hongrois, sans parler des sermons." (& à fortiori of "pasquinades") While this reference does not refer to the saying specifically, it does discuss the prevalence of arenda in Poland-Lithuania... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

For the early-17th-century precursor of the modern 4-part Polish-language proverb, please see the 1606 Latin pasquinade in the article's "Latin texts" section. (Latin was then still the standard written language of most educated Poles, including the author of this pasquinade.)

Nihil novi (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware that Khmelnytsky Uprising is a crucial historical context link for this page regarding the 17th century background and the socio-economic connections between the Jews and the Szlachta in the Kingdom of Poland. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2020

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

The result of the move request was: No move. Consensus is against moving to the proposed title. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Paradisus Judaeorum → Poland was heaven for the nobility, purgatory for town dwellers, hell for peasants, and paradise for Jews – After extensive discussions above there is a clear consensus to move this article, but it is not clear what is the best move. In the end, I decided to stick with sources. Most modern and reliable is Krzyżanowski, and he uses "Polska była niebem dla szlachty, czyśćcem dla mieszczan, piekłem dla chłopów, a rajem dla Żydów." Given the multitude of competing English versions, with different order of parts, using the or not using it, translating words differently peasants/serfs, burghers/townsfolk/towndwellers, I think it makes sense to stick to the most recent Polish work on the topic when it comes to the order. I chose peasants over serfs and town dwellers over townspeople and burghers based on Googlefight. "Poland was" instead of is, as or such is based directly on Krzyżanowski as well. I recognize we could discuss whether to use 'the' or not (Poland was heaven vs Poland was the heaven), but in this case I recommend brevity in this already very long title (not that long titles for proverbs or such are unheard of, see Category:Proverbs. Closing remarks: 1) Latin title is unpopular, goes against WP:USEENGLISH, and there are several possible variants anyway. 2) Just Poland is... is elegant, but does not render the real meaning of this proverb, unlike the full title (Poland is... what? Readers won't know unless they read the article, this is not an Easter Egg entry). Also, Poland is... vs Poland was... is an issue. 3) One could also dispute that the title could be made shorter by removing "Poland was", but again, this deprives the title of crucial content. Again, in the end, I think going with Krzyżanowski, the most up recent in-depth source on this, and sticking as close to it as possible, is the best solution. 4) If we have a strong preference for adding a/the to the title, it's not a big issue, but please be clear where such elements should be added if anywhere. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support as nom, obviously. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This seems a clear, accurate, straightforward English rendering of a proverb descriptive of Poland's past. Nihil novi (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose:

1. This would be incredibly misleading for any English speaker. Titles should be neutral; here there's enough context needed that the title is no longer neutral for a lay reader.
2. There's no real reason to change the title. The Latin title is "popular" (and the fact that it's used in the POLIN museum should establish that fact), and even if it wasn't it wouldn't be unusual (see eg. List of Latin phrases).
3. Per your admission there's a "multitude of competing English versions", and yours isn't particularly better than any of the others. And it's overly long.
4. If you want a more true-to-source, yet concise title, I would support moving to Polska była niebem, which is both neutral and short.

François Robere (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Francois, if you would care to read the extensive discussions above, in which you did not participate, you'd notice that there was a consensus among participants that 1) it is the current title that is not neutral, putting undue weight on the Jewish aspect (the accusation of antisemitism even appears in this context, which is kind of ironic considering User:Icewhiz's involvement in it as the prime proponent of the move in question...). 2) The Latin title, while popular, refers only to a part of the bigger proverb, and again, it is not neutral (note the cited academic papers which explicitly criticize POLIN for the use of this phrase). 3) My version is based on the most recent and reliable Polish source we have, which I think is a reasonable compromise. Nobody has suggested that there is any other English version which could claim primacy over others. 4) Polska była niebem, or any other Polish title, goes against WP:USEENGLISH for no good reason. English for Poland was heaven is a short versin that I don't recall ever seeing used in any sources. Poland was heaven for nobility would, I agree, be the most logical and neutral short version, but I don't think length is a major problem, we have articles with longer titles, MoS allows it. Given that the discussion of the 'Jewish Paradise' will be retained in the article, and it may be the lengthiest section, it seems reasonable to include that part in the title. Poland was paradise for Jews however would raise the same neutrality issues as noted in 1). And if we include both nobles and heaven in the title, why disciminate against peasants and town dwellers? Sticking to full version as reported by Krzyżanowski seems like the simplest solution where we don't make our own calls of judgement about which part is most important, or what the order should be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Spare me the patronizing comments, Piotrus. I've been following this article since it was barely out of WP:AFD.

1. Downplaying the Jewish aspect of the title is insincere at best, given that this entire article was started as an offshoot of the Antisemitism in Poland topic area, and has barely any notability outside of it.
2. See above. Also note that we're now in agreement that the title is in fact popular, which renders moot much of your argument for a move.
   1. The sources that criticized POLIN for using this title didn't criticize it because it was exclusive or overly focused on Jews, but the notion of Poland as a "paradise for Jews" was fundamentally incorrect. Translating it to English does not make it any more correct, on the contrary - it makes it even more misleading.
3. You haven't attached any of them to this proposal, so it's impossible to judge.
4. Oh, please. "heaven for the nobility" wasn't even part of the phrase until 70 years after the phrase was introduced, per the sources. You're really making splits here trying to neutralize the phrase from its questionable subtext. François Robere (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Your case would be stronger if you'd actually participated in the discussions above. The article was not started "an offshoot of the Antisemitism in Poland topic area". It was started by User:Pharos, not usually editing related topics, and I'll ping him in case he wants to comment on this. The term "paradise for Jews" is popular... just like "heaven for nobles" or "hell for peasants". There is no reason to give primacy to one of those elements, they are part of the one proverb, and are most neutral as part of the set, not when we arbitrarily stress one. This is the consensus of the discussion above in which you did not participate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Your case would be stronger if you'd actually participated in the discussions above Not participating in a discussion never stopped you from voting, and I don't recall berating you for doing so.
2. The article was not started "an offshoot of the Antisemitism in PolandThe article was started by Pharos on Sept. 25th. You took over on Oct. 1st. Icewhiz followed on Nov. 6th, GCB on Nov. 7th and VM on Nov. 8th. Four out of the five top contributors to this page got there from the Antisemitism in Poland TA. The AFD and MOVE discussions, which you're now trying to undo, were started by you and Icewhiz.[13][14] So yeah, it's an offshoot, and you're just playing coy.
3. The term "paradise for Jews" is popular... just like "heaven for nobles" or "hell for peasants". Is, it really? So why is it that none of the sources use Regnum Polonorum exclusively, but several use Paradisus Judaeorum?
4. This is the consensus of the discussion above in which you did not participate. Except, again, we already had two of these discussions in the past,[15][16] and I don't see you presenting anything remotely close to the 29 or so sources already presented there. François Robere (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

COMMENT: It is UNDUE and anti-NPOV to use, as the article's title, a single member of a heterogeneous proverb, as pars pro toto – as representative of the whole proverb.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no 'antisemitism in Poland' topic area. Well, there is, but is narrow. I'll take your word for it that this is how you and Icewhiz got here. I don't presume to speak for anyone else, but I got here from the generic 'history of Poland' area. This proverb, FYI, has implications that go beyond just the narrow and controversial history of Jews in Poland, it is is also used in context discussing the szlachta and serfdom in Poland, which I find equally interesting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Presumably there is, or we wouldn't have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Granted, this all started with Collaboration with the Axis Powers#Poland, but most of us "TA regulars" are now editing in Law and Justice, LGBT rights in Poland and Islamophobia in Poland too.

Regardless of where you came here from, you obviously knew this touches on the broader TA as well.[17] François Robere (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The situation of Poland's towns and cities – which were often the property of individual szlachta members or their families – and of their inhabitants, was also of concern to the Commonwealth's critics.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is a very balanced and fair proposal, well thought out after all the discussions. I completely endorse all the points made by the move requestor above, especially "was" and no use of the "a/the" objects. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Piotrus suggested we ping Pharos, and I think it's a good idea we ping other editors who participated in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" MOVE and AFD discussions: Andrew Davidson, Blueboar, Calthinus, Catrìona, Darwinek, Dekimasu, Dreamy Jazz, Dweller, E.M.Gregory, Galobtter, Guy Macon, Hhkohh, Jirangmoon, Jonney2000, K.e.coffman, Keneckert, Ktrimi991, Malik Shabazz, Mikenorton, MrX, Orientls, Paine Ellsworth, Pharos, Piotrus, Sandstein, Semmendinger, Serial Number 54129, Shrike, SJK, SmokeyJoe, Srnec, StarryGrandma, Thryduulf, Valereee, and WillPeppers.

Not included are editors who were banned/blocked, who are already here, or who have expressed disinterest in being pinged. François Robere (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The more the merrier, through I note that at least two blocked editors were included. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please place me on the editors who have expressed disinterest in being pinged list. I don't have the faintest clue as to what is best to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Also not interested. Sandstein 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion has generated an impenetrable wall of text, as per usual on the general topic of Poland and antisemitism. Can anyone who has been following provide some sort of brief and concise summary of the arguments that showed this "clear consensus", because I can't even find that. By brief and concise I do not mean 8 long paragraphs. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for asking a very sensible question.

The article is about a Polish proverb, "Poland was heaven for the nobility, purgatory for town dwellers, hell for peasants, and paradise for Jews."

The article appeared originally under that title.

The article was subsequently retitled, using the Latin version of only one member of the proverb, "paradisus Judaeorum" ("paradise for Jews").

The argument for retention of "paradisus Judaeorum" as the title of this article has been an avalanche of obfuscatory prose and special pleading.

If someone wants to do an extensive exegesis of the putative meaning of that one member of the proverb, he is welcome to do so under the current title of this article, "paradisus Judaeorum". But that is not the sole subject of the proverb, which deserves its own comprehensive title, as proposed.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted though that whether the subject of this article is, or should be, the entire phrase (and there is disagreement on what that means) or part of it, has been the subject of intense debate. The consensus of the previous RM was that the partial phrase best represented the content of the article at that time, and I have not found any evidence of consensus to change the scope since then.
Describing only one side of the discussion as suffering from "an avalanche of obfuscatory prose and special pleading" is disingenuous at best: looking at this as someone uninvolved with that discussion it's clear that all sides have been guilty of the avalanches of prose that has often hindered rather than helped, and there is little evidence of what might be termed "special pleading" but what there is has come equally from those in favour of changing the title as from those who are not. Thryduulf (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. What clear consensus are you referring to? I re-read through the old AfD, which I participated in, and it seems the "clear consensus" was to move to this current page. Reading through the old AfD I stand with my comments from that time. I also agree with what SJK wrote in the previous AfD, "Clearly, the phrase 'Paradisus Judaeorum' and its variants is notable" based on the nominator's research at that time. Therefore, the current title seems to be the best title for this page. By the way, it seems that every contrary view to the nominator gets WP:BLUDGEONed. To answer @Valereee:'s question, yes, there was clear consensus to move the article back in 2018 during the AfD, and the result of that move was to create this page. We've already been through this, and the current page was the result agreed upon by a dozen users. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

One of the drawbacks of being pinged in here is missing a bulk of previous conversation, so my first vote was a little premature. I just took the time to read through the above talk page and better understand the argument for moving now. Still, from what I can see, the current title of the article is the most popularly referenced one through history, congruent with Francois Robere's second point. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose François Robere said it better than I would. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Semmendinger. It's also hard to see how turning a two word title into a 17-word tile actually makes things any clearer, as suggested above, but. FWIW I do support not continually rehashing the same old arguments every few months. ——SN54129 13:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've reread the move discussion that resulted in the article being at this title, and I've read much of the discussion on this page, and I'm not seeing any evidence for the nominator's claim that "there is a clear consensus to move this article", and I'm not seeing anything that clearly shows any of (a) the previous move being in error, (b) a change in the article that means the current title is now incorrect, or (c) the proposed title being a good one. Accordingly I'm seeing no justification for a move to any title, and particularly not the proposed one. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I supported the original RM based on WP:COMMONNAME and having re-read that, the AfD, the Move Review and the most recent discussions, I see no reason to change the view that I had then. Mikenorton (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Firstly, thank you François Robere for the ping. My position has not changed since the AfD [18]. Although Piotrus is certainly a great editor I admire and also an expert on Polish literature, and although he is entitled to his viewpoint that the statement became detached from xenophobia (or *anti-Semitism, since Jews had already been in Poland hundreds of years and were not xeno-), I and others are entitled to disagree. I appreciate that some may perceive the saying as a reference to a glorious and tolerant past that is perhaps an inversion of some recent Israel/Poland controversies over WWII events, and perhaps going against this looks like "blackwashing". It is not. I have no doubt that we are dealing with generally cosmopolitan-minded individuals in this discussion, but let's be honest, the statement broadcasts the classic anti-Semitic canard that Jews are/were a socioeconomic class, and blots out all the cases of Jewish hardship and poverty that also occurred. At least the Latin title gives the impression of it being the title of some pre modern work, which it was. Hence, the proposed title is POV (although that does not make one racist merely for mistakenly supporting it). One could at least have "Poland is ... (proverb)". This has implications far beyond the portrayal of Polish history, as this page is also about Jewish history and will be accessed by readers also looking at the history of Jews. Also, as for elegance, frankly I disagree, as the proposed title is quite a mouthful.--Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The Latin title is best and the most concise that could be hoped for, and at least hints at what the article covers, since both Latin words are very similar in English. Keeping it in italics signals just fine that it is 1.) a historic idea labelled with a phrase, 2.) a non-neutral idea, 3.) a foreign phrase and idea for which readers will have to read to discover, and 4.) is the important part of the phrase - the references hell and heaven for rich and poor applies everywhere and is just a truism, it's the phrase "paradise of Jews" that tells us specific about a particular era and place. The proposed title appears as a bizarre statement, tells us nothing about the content, and is clumsy: "town dwellers" (really?). If it must move, let it move to something like "Poland as a Paradisus Judaeorum" or "Regnum Polonorum est paradisus Judaeorum"; if the article refers to a Latin phrase common in the literature, let the title be that phrase in italics as in the articles Carthago delenda est or E pluribus unum. In response to Calthinus's point about POV titles above, Wikipedia already has On the Jews and Their Lies, without anyone seriously suggesting the article's title implies its subject is about lies told by Jews, rather than a POV book by Martin Luther. GPinkerton (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, in the case of Martin Luther's piece of crap, it's in italics, which makes all the difference. --Calthinus (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Italics are essential! GPinkerton (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: On the translation itself, the proposed English rendering mishandles the Latin. Regnum Polonorum is technically "Kingdom of the Poles" rather than "Poland" (understandable enough) and est means "is" not "was", a difference which significantly changes the meaning of the phrase. The word order is also changed, without good reason - the Latin speaks of a paradise of the Jews first, doesn't mention nobility in the original, doesn't use the past tense but the present, and the use of "town dwellers" for Plebs is not really correct. GPinkerton (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus and GPinkerton: I actually agree with many points your raise. My main issue is that the original article was intended to discuss the bigger proverb which also deals with other groups, and was hijacked to focus on Jews only. Perhaps a split would be better, but it is really strange that instead of creating a new article about the Paradisus Judaeorum, the article about the proverb was retired. Consider that, for example, the "heaven for nobility" part is also discussed in the literature (well, used as an example/metaphor, just like the "praise for Jews"): [19]. Ditto for the "hell for peasants": [20], [21]. I don't mind if people want to expand on the Jewish segment of the poem/proverb, but why prevent the discussion of the proveb itself and of its other parts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I don't think it does prevent it being discussed. The first attested version's incipit is Regnum Polonorum est paradisus Judaeorum so it can be the title for the whole concept. The fact that the whole later version of the proverb is not in the title is not a bar to discussing all its aspects. My point is that the situation of the nobility anywhere is comparable to heaven relative to the hellish lives of the workers of town and country in pre- and early-modern Europe, but the situation of Jews in Poland was more or less unique, which contributes to the notability of the article's subject. In any case, the proposed translated title uses the past tense where the original Latin uses the present - at least in every variation listed in the article. GPinkerton (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It's just the page title. Has anyone really disputed that the page scope also includes the nobles or the plebs. Anyhow, another move discussion to consider that might attract less opposition could just be the full Latin quote. --Calthinus (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus and GPinkerton: I do believe some objected to discussion of other aspects of the proverb as out-of-scope under the current title and/or removed some content from te article, but I don't have time right now to look for diffs. Btw, regarding the past tense, it is because the past tense (and the entire title proposed by me) is how the proverb is rendered in the most in-depth source (Krzyzanowski). Essentially we are dealing with two issues here: 1) the question of scope, which the current title narrows down and 2) the title representative of the full scope of the article and adhering to NPOV (some editors have criticized what they perceive as undue stress on the Jewish segment, even suggesting that it endorses the antisemitic canard or such in a wiki voice...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I refer you to my answers above. POV Latin phrases with multiple possible translations in English (always less concise than Latin) can just appear as their Latin forms without Wikipedia endorsing them. See, for instance: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. GPinkerton (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Right, but the issue is that the Latin phrase refers more to the original poem, whereas our newest RS, Krzyzanowski (1970) discusses the proverb, which is primarily rendered in Polish, not Latin. My review of sources suggests that proverb is notable. Possibly also the poem is as well, but this would further suggest that splitting the content here may be worthwhile. On that level, we are dealing with three possible notable elements: 17th-century poem, a proverb used (recorded and referred to as such) from 19th-century onward, and finally, a phrase (Jewish Paradise) used in both. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I don't think they need to be split; they're all aspects of the same phenomenon and a single article can deal with all of them under different sections and sub-sections. The earliest attestation of the phrase (in Latin) furnishes an easier title. GPinkerton (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Another option is the title in Polish. After all, Poles don't typically use English words for a Polish proverb, unless I am mistaken? But that will still have issues of length I suspect.--Calthinus (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: See below for a comment about length. I think USEENGLISH favors English version, and Category:Provebs contains some longer ones. It's hard to summarize a proverb, and attempts to do so have been seen as controversial (ping User:Warshy, maybe we could use a lenghtier explanation on this?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh, the length was not my primary issue. At least put it in damn italics in the title. --Calthinus (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the current proposal as it is far too long. buidhe 12:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, Nihil novi and warshy. Since this is not a discussion centering upon this article's existence or its content, but simply upon its main title header, deference should be given to its main header in the only other Wikipedia which has an entry covering this Polish historical subject — the Polish Wikipedia, where the full title appears in Polish, not in Latin. If this subject also had an entry in Latin Wikipedia, then the current title would have been appropriate there, although for historical verisimilitude it would still have been best translated into Latin in its full form. However, for its header in English Wikipedia, the intuitive action is WP:USEENGLISH. As for the header's admittedly long form, that is the text of the historical proverb which loses its cogency if streamlined. Furthermore, WP:Other stuff exists — English Wikipedia has a number of main headers longer than the one proposed here (WP:Wikipedia records#Articles with the longest titles), including various quotations and titles of works of art. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't follow much of that, but what I do doesn't really seem relevant. Just because other articles have long titles doesn't mean anything regarding whether this is the best title for this content. Likewise what articles on other Wikipedias are called is not relevant, especially without consideration of the scope of those articles. Finally, per other comments in this discussion, the proposed title is not historically accurate. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it is historically accurate, because the subject of the article is the Polish-language proverb. The 17th- and 18th-century Latin pasquinades were merely prologue to the proverb.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the vote (directly above mine) specified, "Oppose the current proposal as it is far too long" and the comment (directly above that one) specified, "But that will still have issues of length I suspect", then the fact that other articles have long titles does indeed mean something regarding whether this is the best title for this content. Since the support votes contend that the proposed main title header is precisely the proper length for its purpose, then submission of examples that lengthy headers are not extreme outliers should be considered relevant. Likewise, when English Wikipedia features an entry which illustrates how the English-speaking world evaluates historical elements from other cultures, it should be quite instinctive to consult that culture's Wikipedia for comparison and / or guidance. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Can you elaborate on how the proposed title is not accurate? It is a direct translation of the proverb as cited by Krzyzanowski (1970). The translation was discussed before the RM and explained in my OP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I was referring to the comments by e.g. François Robere that the "heaven for the nobility" portion is a later addition. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: my opinion remains unchanged from the AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Kingdom of Poland Is...

This article is currently mistitled "Paradisus Judaeorum".

The 1606 Latin-language pasquinade, conventionally known as "Regnum Polonorum est..." ("The Kingdom of Poland Is...") from its first line, lists 19 of what its anonymous author viewed as vices of the "Kingdom of Poland".

The expression "paradisus Judaeorum" is only the first of the 19 listed shortcomings of the contemporary Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The arbitrary assigning of one of the 19 members ("paradisus Judaeorum", "paradise for Jews") of the pasquinade to stand for the entire 19-member composition, is an inappropriate substitution of pars pro toto ("a part [taken] for the whole").

This article, in order to properly reflect the sense of its subject, should be retitled "The Kingdom of Poland Is..."

Given the article's extensive discussion of the evolution of the expression "paradisus Judaeorum" - from the original derogatory, to a more favorable, interpretation - the expression "paradisus Judaeorum" deserves its own dedicated page, or treatment in an existing page that discusses the situation of Jews in various periods in the "Kingdom of Poland".

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nihil novi As you know, we had extensive discussions of this in the past. I am not sure if revisiting this will be productive, although I am not stopping anyone from starting another WP:RM (but I have no desire to do it myself).

I need to stop at WP:COIN and ask for community's "ok" to use my peer-reviewed article as a source here. That article is a result of my extensive research into this subject over the coruse of the last few years, inspired by our discussions here.

On a side note, Nihil novi, I see that our article has some quotations from Kot in the "notes" section. Some are translated to English, but others remain in Polish. Any chance you could tackle the ones that still need translation? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

On 3 April 2023 I translated into English what was not garbled in the Polish original.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I just stumbled into discussion of this page on arbitration pages and could not make any sense of it. What is the alleged problem/misinformation on this page, exactly? I can see the following text sourced to Stanislaw Kot: " Stanisław Kot surmised that its author may have been a Catholic townsman, perhaps a cleric, who criticized what he regarded as defects of the realm". Is that statement on the page a lie? Is it a misinformation? What they are talking about? But the phrase is pure speculation and uninformative. I think it is simply not needed. Welcome to rephrase though if this is something important. To me, this is just another example of nonsense debated during the ongoing arbitration, instead of people doing something more useful. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The only problem I have ever seen with this article is its title, which should have been "The Kingdom of Poland Is...". The current title, "Paradisus Judaeorum", refers to only one of a number of items listed in the pasquil, whose author sought to bring attention to a variety of what he saw as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's shortcomings.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think "Regnum Polonorum est" would be a better title. Of course in the context of recent history the current title sounds like a joke. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that different sources focus on three related concepts: 1) the 1605 pasquinade (untitled by the author but generally called by later scholars Regnum Polonorum est... or (in English) The Kingdom of Poland Is... 2) a shorter proverb based on it and 3) a particular part of the proberb (Paradisus Judaeorum) and its meaning. Those are all closely related; the sensible question that was asked by a number of people in the past discussion and that is hard to answer is "how many articles do we need (how many of these concepts are separately notable)", coupled with what to call them, given that the original poem has no official name and the proverb is rather long-ish too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I only looked at this page because it was mentioned in arbitration [22]. In this regard, what I can see is this: (a) no misinformation was placed to this page, (b) no consensus to exclude Kot as a source was reached as would be documented by closing a discussion, (c) no even valid argument to exclude Kot was provided because arguing that an author was biased is not a valid reason for exclusion per se according to our policy/guidelines. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)