Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Not just Jews

Aristides de Sousa Mendes didn't "fought against his own government for the safety of European Jews" only. He fought for them and for all the people who needed visas to escape from Hitler.

He always said he did it for ethics, humanitarian and religious reasons and that those were far more important than administrative orders.

He was humilliated by portuguese authorities and his family's house (in Cabanas de Viriato) was left to decay.

This MAN was hid from his countrymen! The portuguese have to wait until the 1980's to come to his knowledge (altough some small articles appeared on magazines from time to time). And even now many portuguese don't know him (not to mention the rest of the world).

Aníbal Cavaco Silva (prime minister in the 80's and 90's) was said to have explained Sousa Mendes' family that if Aristides should happen to be under his orders he would do the same (because Aristides disobeyed superior orders). This was written in a newspaper ("Expresso" if i am not wrong) and Aníbal Cavaco Silva never made a formal (or not) denial of that article. Even now, Aristides de Sousa Mendes is a "rock in the shoe" both for portuguese politicians as well as to others allover the world. To have to accept that a "disobeying diplomat" was an heroe is thing that people that live by authoritarism will never "swallow".

There were many other people that did similar acts (a japanese ambassador, two other portuguese and more), but noone saved so many lives in such a few time as he did. And due to that he and his family had to endure heavily.

I am proud to be called human because MEN like these, no matter what nationality, colour, sex, age, religion, sexual tendencies, etc, existed and still exist... no matter if official "History" tends to neglect these and praise others! --Felissilvestris

Replies to various points in the previous user's comments:

(1) I have changed the line in the article to read "Jews living in Europe," which is more accurate.

(2) The Portuguese Wikipedia article mentions something about in 2006 a house of his was being rebuilt (?) but doesn't give a source. If you have a source for this, let's add it. All I found so far was a 1998 article from someone writing to say he was horrified by plans to raze the house you mention and to build a hotel. He was trying to start a campaign to save and restore the house. I don't know what became of that.

(3) I don't read Portuguese (I have to guess from Spanish and from online translation sites), so I can't look too effectively for the article about Aníbal Cavaco Silva, but if you find it, post something here and we can all look at and decide whether and where it fits into the article

(4) I saw a bit about other people dishonored by their governments for similar acts, on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and tried to add it to this article. I'm also working on adding a paragraph about his efforts at the French border, where he led a group of refugees to a different crossing point without phones after offices received a call ordering them not to honor the visas. Last, we need a "See also:" referring the reader to related articles about the other people you mention (for example, see the Raoul Wallenberg article).Lawikitejana 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Origin?

Does anyone know if Sousa Mendes is a converso/marrano family name? Was Aristides de Sousa Mendes aware of such a family history?

I found one secondhand source that claimed he was of converso descent, but am dubious only because one would think the accounts by his family would mention it, if it were so. The only way I can think they wouldn't mention it would be if they saw it as lessening his example to others; i.e., the idea that he "only" did it because he had Jewish heritage and not because it was simply the moral thing to do. Lawikitejana 19:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Aristides de Sousa (or Souza) Mendes could be of converso/marrano origin. Sousa Mendes is a genuine portuguese name. Sousa is older than nationality and Mendes comes from Mendo, a popular portuguese name of early days of independence. Other than name i can not say wether he was or not from jewish ascent. I know he was roman catholic and that religious believes as well as ethics made him do what he did. All i read about him, and especially what i read from what he said led me to think that he would mention it anywhere or anytime (if he knew he had a jewish ascent). On the other hand he was from a noble, aristocratic family. Those kind of families usually have their genealogy done, unlike plain people like me, so i don't think that theory (of him being from jewish ascent) can be trusty. But this is just my opinion, not a fact. Altough my opinion is rational and based on facts. However, and more important, is that this is not important about Aristides and what he did. As i have said he fought to save people. He didn't fought to save jewish people. Telling that would be unfair to what he did and said; that should mean discrimitation, thing he opposed. According to accepted numbers he saved around 30 thousand people, being jewish around one third. He did that on few days in Bordeaux and near the frontier of Irún/Hendaye. It is well known too that he said that "if so many jews suffered because of a catholic - Hitler - then, it's not too much that a catholic suffers for having helped jews" and "i couldn't distinct nationalities, because i obbeyed to humanitiarian reasons that don't distinguish between races nor nationalities" (this had to be with the orders he received from Salazar, where were forbidden visa to some nationalities, ethnies and so on). I hope this helps. My first contribution is not a "jounalistic" essay, just a contribution to the article i have read and with some strong opinions about broader issues. This one is a more detached writing, altough much times we work on theories because we have not enough facts. --Felissilvestris 05:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No other country did as much to help the refugees as Portugal

No other country did as much to help the refugees as Portugal", say Fritz

and Kaethe Adelsberger, for whom Portugal means salvation. Two Jews, among hundreds of thousands to have fled across the whole of Europe escaping the Nazis. And they are still living in Lisbon today. The capital city of this small, impoverished nation was a transit station for many prominent Jewish refugees, such as Heinrich Mann, Franz Werfel, Lion Feuchtwanger and Alfred Polgar.Strictly governed by Prime Minister Antonio Salazar, Portugal was neutral during the Second World War and guaranteed a thirty-day stopover for the hunted exiles, who had to make their way through the country on route to America. But as the war intensified and less ships were able to sail, more and more people were „stranded" in Lisbon. ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS6Q6ZQ5qT8

Careful on what you read.Prime Minister Antonio Salazar was not Anti-Semitic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3sidestoeverything (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Honor and disgrace

I suppose this title was written by a Portuguese speaker. Be careful: "disgrace" is a false friend. If you're trying to say queda em desgraça, I don't think that's the word you need. ("Disgrace" means vergonha!) FilipeS 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

news article :Aristides de Sousa Mendes

Utah men uncover special connection to WWII • Ling.Nut 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Article very messy

This article needs a great deal of clean-up to get rid of unsourced statements and extraneous text. I have done some of this work, but much more is needed. coimbralove 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed text that belongs in other articles and is not directly relevant here:

Response: agreeJPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: Although this is probably one of the most sourced files in wikipedida. There is not probably one statement that I’ve introduced that you did not ask for the source. I’ve been patiently adding sources although most of the facts I’ve added are from two very basic biographies. One from Rui Afonso and another from Le Monde journalist, Jose-Alain Fralon. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"on the false pretext that Poland had launched attacks on German territory. On 3 September France and Britain, followed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa – declared war on Germany.

Response: agreeJPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The period that followed, from September 1939 till May 1940 is known as the phony war. War was declared by each side, but no Western power had committed to launching a significant land offensive" ...

Response: As long as it stays clear that Sousa Mendes was already disobeying in a time when hostilities hadn’t begun on the western front and that at that time on the French side people were optimistic that France would win the war.JPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This statement is too confused for a short response. It's widely accepted in all sources that Sousa Mendes' flat-out disobedience of Circular 14 happened after the invasion of the low countries. But it's true that various refugees had approached him for help prior to that point because whatever the supposed "optimism" of others, these people felt themselves to be in real danger. Sousa Mendes had been well aware of the Nazi threat for quite some time and had a brother who was Ambassador to Warsaw with whom he was in close communication. Unclear if JPratas' suggestion is that Sousa Mendes disobeyed for the fun of it rather than for humanitarian reasons. coimbralove 9:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"On April 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway." coimbralove 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed redundant wording that appears almost word for word in the previous paragraph:

Response:Agree JPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"On June 20 Sousa Mendes left for sub-post of Bayonne and in the city of Hendaye, places through which he passed on being called home for insubordination; in these places he granted visas without a consular stamp and only in handwriting, and therefore they were not registered anywhere. Maybe one day the research from the Sousa Mendes Foundation will find some trace of these refugees."

Response:No comments JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed poorly written, vaguely sourced statement:

"as it is documented in the Steven Spielberg Film and Video Archive at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum"

Response: Dont' know why this archive is a vague source. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced and poorly written text:

"It has been written in many articles and newspapers, probably to make the Sousa Mendes story more colorful, that Sousa Mendes was from the diplomatic career. But he was not. He was from the consular career. The consular career is a different career path, not leading to the ambassador rank. Consuls do not deal with political issues they deal with bureaucratic issues to both the citizens of the consul's own country travelling or living abroad and to the citizens of the country the consul resides in who wish to travel to or trade with the consul's country. Douglas Wheeler classifies Sousa Mendes as a "low rank official"."

Response: The idea is to have a text purged from all the errors that have been printed for years. A few examples are: • That Sousa Mendes was a diplomat. When he was a consular officer. • That his father was from the supreme court, when he was from “Tribunal da Relacao” • That Portugal left him without any money, when he received until he died a salary three times the salary of a school teacher. • That in September, October, November 1939, Sousa Mendes was issuing visas just doing his job and being paid for it, just like all other Portuguese consuls, and therefore it does not make any sense to praise him for that and say that he was “saving lives”. Or telling the story ignoring the fact that Portugal’s neutrality was precarious, that Portugal could not be the solution to a problem of millions, that the government had not much room to maneuver, that other countries like US, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Britain, etc. (that were in a much better position to help refugees), were adopting much tighter emigration policies than small Portugal, that Sousa Mendes has an impressive track record of indiscipline, that he supported the dictatorship, that one of the reasons his sons left Portugal was the dispute with Andrée, etc. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced and poorly written text:

Response: The story of Sousa Mendes has been hollywoodized. The fact is that he really was a low rank official. (Milgram says it and so does Douglas Wheeler).

The response above is confusing because Sousa Mendes was Consul-General as well as being Chair of the Diplomatic Corps in Antwerp. These are high-ranking positions, so it's misleading and inaccurate to say he was "a low rank official." coimbralove 8:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: A Consular officer was never a key postion in the MNE and still isn't. Consuls do not deal with important political issues they deal with bureaucracy. Antwerp was no exception. But anyway. This is not about my view or your view. I was just quoting Professor Wheeler and Yad Vashem historian Dr. Avraham Milgram. They are supposed to be reliable sources. It would be good if you could also add your sources to sustain the point of view. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Below some more examples of what has been widely printed, and was also written here in Wikpedia, that was supposed to make the story more colorful:

1. Sousa Mendes’ father was a Supreme Court – Not True.

Yes, the above is inaccurate. The father José de Sousa Mendes was what we would call in the United States an "Appeals Court" judge. This should be corrected. coimbralove 8:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

2. Sousa Mendes was from the diplomatic career – Not Tru was from Coimbra`s Court of Appeal

The above statement is garbled. Not sure what the objection is. coimbralove 8:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: You are right, I wanted to say: Sousa Mendes was NOT from the diplomatic career he WAS from the Consular Officer career JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

3. “The Portuguese government never paid him any Escudo”. Not true, he received his full salary until the day he died.

Not sure what the basis of the above statement is. Sousa Mendes' salary was around 8500 escudos per month. I'm not familiar with any reliable source that states that he was paid "his full salary until the day he died." This is simply a fabrication or at the very least a gross exaggeration. coimbralove 8:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: I've provided many sources that say Sousa Mendes kept on receiving 1593$00 (Professor Wheeler, Rui Afonso, Jose-Alain Fralon, Ambassador Fernandes, and also primary sources). And Rui Afonso even sais that Sousa Mendes salary was three times the salary of a school teacher. It would be good if you could disclose your source as well. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

4. He had a brilliant career. – Not true, he had a track record of indiscipline, abuses and reprimands.

Agreed. The word "brilliant" is a value judgment that has no place in Wikipedia unless it is sourced. But I would caution that accusations are not to be confused with actions. In other words someone can be accused of something either justly or unjustly. The word "abuse" is as much of a value judgment as "brilliant" and has no place in Wikipedia unless it is reliably sourced. coimbralove 8:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

5. He was reinstated in his diplomatic career and promoted to ambassador. (Based on some article from AT&T) – Not true. He was promoted to Ministro Plenipotenciario de 2ª classe.

What is the source for this? If you have one please use it to replace or complement the source that is already given. coimbralove 8:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: I've already realease the source It is very illustrative of how false statements published in newspapers end up being repeated ever after. But the fact that a false statement is printed a lot of times does not turn it into a true statement. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

6. When he was fired (also not true) he had 14 children to feed (also not true)

The truth is that he had 15 children, two of whom had died tragically. His minor children were unable to attend school from 1940 on, and his older children could not complete university. The father's "unofficial" punishment of being blacklisted impacted the entire family. Testimonials from the family are obtainable in the Manuel Dias Vaz books and on the internet. coimbralove 8:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Responsed I don’t believe this is true. His sons’ testimonials are biased. There is no proof of this blacklist and it is very unlikely his children (already grown) were denied attending school. It is also very unlikely that one of them would make exams to enter into the diplomatic career if he knew in advance he would never be admitted. Facts don’t corroborate your story. This is something that only someone living in the Americas can believe in. I’ve lived under Salazar. I don’t approve many of the things he stood for or did, but he was no Stalin and Portugal life in Portugal was not a nightmare. You will need a better source. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

7. The fact that he had a mistress was deleted from the article several time

The simple fact can and should be stated, but basically this is of no more than prurient interest. One could make the case that Sousa Mendes did the honorable thing by recognizing his daughter from the relationship and marrying her mother. coimbralove 8:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response:Glad you agree. In your previous incarnation (“Sousa Mendes Fondation”) you’ve deleted it several times. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

8. Etc.
9. Etc.

No idea what 8 and 9 above are referring to. Clarification? coimbralove 8:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

JPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Despite all the incidents and reprimands, Sousa Mendes was allowed to stay in Antwerp for 9 years. His family loved Antwerp and even his children wrote a letter to the Ministry asking for Sousa Mendes to be allowed to stay in Antwerp for a longer period. Usual practice was that Consuls would stay up to 4 year in one post. Antwerp because of its port, was very profitable for a Consul and therefore much desired by Sousa Mende’s colleagues. The highly unusual fact that Sousa Mendes was allowed to stay for 9 years was probably related with the Ministry wanting to protect someone with a large family. For this same reason Sousa Mendes was allowed to always work abroad. Consuls working abroad received a significantly higher salary and also a percentage of the services rendered by the consulate, including a percentage on the visas granted. When compared to his colleagues Sousa Mendes was a privileged one"

Response: Do not agree. It is an important point that despite his track record of incidents he kept on being protected. And that is probably why he thought he could go on making whatever he wanted, without obeying ordersJPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC) This response does not provide any clarification and is very speculative. What is the source of the statement that Sousa Mendes was "protected"--whatever that means? And the innuendo is heavy but without any back-up. coimbralove 9:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"A frenzy of visas" and "Trial and Punishment" are in need of serious edits as both are much too long and are poorly written.

coimbralove 15:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed text that belongs in other articles and is not directly relevant here:

"The period that followed, from September 1939 till May 1940 is known as the phony war. War was declared by each side, but no Western power had committed to launching a significant land offensive. ‘We will win because we are the strongest’ was the litany of optimism within France during the Phoney War (drôle de guerre). The fortifications of the Maginot line had appeared to make another German invasion on the scale of 1914 impossible.^[1]"

Response: As long as it stays clear that Sousa Mendes was already disobeying in a time when hostilities hadn’t begun on the western front and that at that time on the French side people were optimistic that France would win the war.JPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This statement is too confused for a short response. It's widely accepted in all sources that Sousa Mendes' flat-out disobedience of Circular 14 happened after the invasion of the low countries. But it's true that various refugees had approached him for help prior to that point because whatever the supposed "optimism" of others, these people felt themselves to be in real danger. Sousa Mendes had been well aware of the Nazi threat for quite some time and had a brother who was Ambassador to Warsaw with whom he was in close communication. Unclear if JPratas' suggestion is that Sousa Mendes disobeyed for the fun of it rather than for humanitarian reasons. coimbralove 9:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: I've just stated a fact. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed redundant wording:

"Circular 14 stated that there was no intention to delay visas of foreigners (Jews or non Jews) with overseas destination visas in hand as well as ship passage secured, but other cases would need to be previously consulted with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

Removed lengthy tangential text that belongs in other articles and is not directly relevant here. The argument that the text below points to is that other countries besides Portugal should also have had rescuers like Aristides de Sousa Mendes, but it adds very little to a discussion on Sousa Mendes and weighs down the narrative unnecessarily:

"Much literature severely attacks “Circular 14”, namely the Sousa Mendes Foundation that classifies it as “infamous”, but, on the other hand it is fair to say that Circular 14 and its policies were less restrictive than the policies and practices followed by most other regimes, namely the United States of America, Canada, Cuba and Great Britain. Serious obstacles to any relaxation of US immigration quotas included public opposition to immigration during a time of economic depression, xenophobia, and antisemitic feelings in both the general public and among some key government officials. Once the United States entered World War II, the State Department practiced stricter immigration policies out of fear that refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany.^[2] In 1939 MS St. Louis sailed from Hamburg, carrying 937 Jewish refugees seeking asylum from Nazi persecution. The destination was Cuba, but officials in Havana cancelled Jewish passengers' visas. Jewish immigration was strictly limited in North America, so the passengers were denied entrance to Canada and the United States.^[3] During the second half of 1941, even as unconfirmed reports of the mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis filtered to the West, the US Department of State placed even stricter limits on immigration based on national security concerns. The most strict was Great Britain starting September 1939, when all issued visas were cancelled on the start of war and The British White Paper in May 1939, a policy statement approved by the British Parliament, contained measures that severely limited Jewish entry into Palestine."

Response: This ended up like this because in a previous version editor Redmoon (Also called the Sousa Mendes Foundation) wrote that only right-wing regimes had policies similar to circular 14. And comments like this can be found in articles and publications. What nobody says is that Circular 14 was less restrictive than most other countries. The paragraph, although long, is necessary to put circular 14 in historical context.JPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There are very few documents similar to Circular 14 that have come to light for other countries. It's true that many other countries had anti-Semitic immigration policies during the Nazi period, but this fact just goes to show that it's too bad those countries did not have figures like Sousa Mendes who knew right from wrong despite the prevailing propaganda. This fact should never be used to support Circular 14 as being "not that bad." coimbralove 8:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: What does not seem fair is to present Circular 14 as something that just popped up. Without saying that i) before circular 14 all other countries adopted tighter policies, ii) that there was an Evian conference, iii) that the problem was a problem of millions, iv) that Portugal was not in a position to be the solution; v) that other countries with vast resources were not willing to help, vi) That the give visas to everybody without asking questions was not a solution, vii) That Portugal’s neutrality was very precarious JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed vaguely attributed tangential text:

"At that time the French were convinced they would win the war. The morale of French people, wrote Somerset Maugham in March 1940, was one of determination."

Response:it clarifyies that Sousa Mendes was already disobeying in a time when hostilities hadn’t begun on the western front and that at that time on the French side people were optimistic that France would win the war.JPratas (talk)

This statement is too confused for a short response. It's widely accepted in all sources that Sousa Mendes' flat-out disobedience of Circular 14 happened after the invasion of the low countries. But it's true that various refugees had approached him for help prior to that point because whatever the supposed "optimism" of others, these people felt themselves to be in real danger. Sousa Mendes had been well aware of the Nazi threat for quite some time and had a brother who was Ambassador to Warsaw with whom he was in close communication. Unclear if JPratas' suggestion is that Sousa Mendes disobeyed for the fun of it rather than for humanitarian reasons. coimbralove 9:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: Does not matter what I think. These are facts. In early 1940 the French were optimistic about the war. As it is also a fact that he Sousa Mendes also committed the crime of passport forgery to help a Luxembourger to run away from mobilization. Many people will approve this, and many won’t approve it at all. The fact is there. The reader will be able to make his own judgment. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced and poorly written text:

"In the disciplinary proceeding brought upon Sousa Mendes at the Portuguese Foreign Office, Count Tovar, opted for sparing Sousa Mendes from being trialed for passport forgery risking several year in prison and he wrote: “In my view the falsification of documents committed on 30 May does not fall within the scope of this Board.", therefore leaving the case to be handled by the police and regular courts. Sousa Mendes ended up never being trialed for this crime."

Removed vaguely attributed poorly written tangential text:

"This passaport forgery happened some days before the battle of Somme, when German army was still 700 km away from Bordeaux, and where the French army achieved an outstanding success. The potential of the 14th panzerkorps was reduced to 45% for the tanks and 60% for the infantry. The German general von Reichenau, comandant of the 6th German army wrote: « the French troops engaged on the Somme in June 1940 fought like lions! ». So, while the French were fighting like lions, Paul Miny was escaping from mobilization with a false Portuguese passport issued by Sousa Mendes, saving his life."

Response: Important to clarify that Sousa Mendes was already disobeying in a time when hostilities hadn’t begun on the western front and that at that time on the French side people were optimistic that France would win the war.JPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This statement is too confused for a short response. It's widely accepted in all sources that Sousa Mendes' flat-out disobedience of Circular 14 happened after the invasion of the low countries. But it's true that various refugees had approached him for help prior to that point because whatever the supposed "optimism" of others, these people felt themselves to be in real danger. Sousa Mendes had been well aware of the Nazi threat for quite some time and had a brother who was Ambassador to Warsaw with whom he was in close communication. Unclear if JPratas' suggestion is that Sousa Mendes disobeyed for the fun of it rather than for humanitarian reasons. coimbralove 9:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed text that appears elsewhere in the article almost word for word:

"What is not disputed is that according to the Visa Registry Book issued in the Bordeaux consulate, Sousa Mendes granted 2,862 visas between January 1 and June 22, 1940. The majority, that is, 1,575 visas, were issued between June 11 and 22, in the last days of his consular career there, although we now know that many of these visas covered multiple recipients or even entire families."

Removed text that appears elsewhere in the article almost word for word:

"In addition, according to the report of the HICEM cited by Milgram, 1,538 Jews who came to Portugal as refugees without visas to other countries sailed from Lisbon in the second half of 1940, and 4,908 Jews, with the help of HICEM, sailed during 1941. To this number one should add approximately 2,000 Jews who came directly from Italy, Germany, and countries annexed by the Germans armed with American visas. In total, in the eighteen months from July 1940 to December 1941, the HICEM took care of the sea transport of 8,346 Jews who left Lisbon for trans-Atlantic countries. We must presumably add to the numbers above the Jews who transited and left Portugal by themselves. Therefore Milgram believes that the discrepancy between the reality and the myth of the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes is great. Nevertheless, we must conclude that the majority of Jews who, in the summer of 1940, succeeded in crossing Spain to the Portuguese border, did so thanks to Sousa Mendes."

coimbralove 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed text that belongs in other articles and is poorly written:

"The consular career is a different career path from the diplomatic one, not leading to the ambassador rank. Consuls do not deal with political issues they deal with bureaucratic issues to both the citizens of the consul's own country travelling or living abroad and to the citizens of the country the consul resides in who wish to travel to or trade with the consul's country."

Response: This is important to clarify exactly what kind of rank and responsibilities Sousa Mendes had. JPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I propose splitting the difference and using the phrase "foreign service career" to avoid the need to for an extra paragraph in an already insanely long article--twice as long as the article on Beethoven! coimbralove 9:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

coimbralove 20:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: The amount of false statements on Beethoven is much smaller. Also Beethoven was not used for political purposes (although he misjudged Napoleon). JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed vaguely sourced and poorly written text:

"In the disciplinary proceeding brought upon Sousa Mendes at the Portuguese Foreign Office, Count Tovar, opted for sparing Sousa Mendes from being trialed for passport forgery risking several year in prison and he wrote: “In my view the falsification of documents committed on 30 May does not fall within the scope of this Board.", therefore leaving the case to be handled by the police and regular courts. Sousa Mendes ended up never being trialed for this crime." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coimbralove (talk • contribs) 02:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: The Paul Miny case is absolutely critical. Sousa Mendes was committing a crime punished with prison. Falsifying a passport for a deserter to escape from fighting. It has been said that Sousa Mendes was ill-treated, when this shows that the regime was extremely benevolent. JPratas (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Not sure what to say to someone who believes that the Salazar regime "was extremely benevolent." This one leaves me stunned in light of the fact that Salazar was one of two world leaders (along with the Irish president) to send condolences to the German government upon Hitler's death and that he ordered a three-day period of mourning throughout Portugal. coimbralove 9:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Final Response The problem I have with shorted versions (of Coimbralove) is the following: On Revision as of 03:13, 18 November 2013 he added the following paragraph

”The Portuguese Ambassador to Spain, Pedro Teotonio Pereira, described the Jewish refugees as "the scum of the democratic regimes and defeated elements fleeing before the German victory."

And because I always try not to delete what other editors wrote, I had to clarify and wrote

" And unfortunately there are also some cases where words said were deliberately twisted with an obvious purpose. Such is the case of the words of the Portuguese Ambassador to Spain, Pedro Teotonio Pereira, that allegedly described the Jewish refugees as "the scum of the democratic regimes and defeated elements fleeing before the German victory.".[55] When his exact words were: “this disorientation has made a great impression on the Spanish side with a political campaign against Portugal being created immediately accusing our country of giving shelter to the scum of the democratic regimes and defeated elements fleeing before German victory.”. Pedro Teontonio Pereira words did not discriminate Jews and non-Jews and he is just describing what the Spanish side said.”

I agree. We should indeed omit this paragraph that belongs in other articles and makes this one unnecessarily long and messy. JPratas (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted confusingly written paragraph:

"And unfortunately there are also some cases where words said were deliberately twisted with an obvious purpose. Such is the case of the words of the Portuguese Ambassador to Spain, Pedro Teotonio Pereira, that allegedly described the Jewish refugees as "the scum of the democratic regimes and defeated elements fleeing before the German victory.".^[4] When his exact words were: “this disorientation has made a great impression on the Spanish side with a political campaign against Portugal being created immediately accusing our country of giving shelter to the scum of the democratic regimes and defeated elements fleeing before German victory.”. Pedro Teontonio Pereira words did not discriminate Jews and non-Jews and he his just describing what the Spanish side said."

coimbralove 8:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Repaired text that was changed into gibberish (1938 is not an institution):

After almost ten years in Belgium, Sousa Mendes was assigned in 1938, a lower ranking institution[9], to be Consul-General of Bordeaux, France, with jurisdiction over all of southwest France.

coimbralove 20:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed redundant text as well as mean-spirited edits (vandalism):

"Andrée played the piano and was a singer," (redundant) and

Response: This is from Rui Afonso's book JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"After having 14 children Angelina was no longer very attractive, she was now fat, and sometimes Sousa Mendes would accuse Angelina of being provincial and short sighted, not very suitable to fulfill the social life of a consul. A letter with this complaints, written by Sousa Mendes himself, can be found in the archives of Cabanas do Viriato." ^[5] (mean-spirited--can JPratas sink any lower?) coimbralove 15:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: This is a translation word by word from Rui Afonso's book. "The Portuguese Wallenberg". If you think this is vandalism you will have to sort it out with the author. There are many views on this type of issues. Some people think marriage is a sacred institution, some don’t. Some see abortion as perfectly natural, other see it as a horrendous crime. We should stick to the facts and let the reader decide. You are making judgments. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced text that is not directly relevant and belongs in other articles:

"With Austria's annexation on 12 March 1938, the situation of the Jews living in the territory of the Reich changed dramatically. Germany's neighboring countries feared an even stronger flow of Jewish emigrants, which they tried to counteract by tightening immigration regulations. Unlike Switzerland, France or Great Britain measures taken in Poland were directed against their own citizens who resided outside Poland. The Polish Parliament approved a law to withdraw all citizens of Poland their citizenship, who had lived abroad for five years non-stop affecting approximately 30,000 Polish Jews in the German Reich and additional 20 000 Polish Jews in Austria."

coimbralove 15:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: The Polish act against its own citizens is relevant. It illustrates the dimension for the problem. JPratas (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Counting visas and lives saved - Research work by the Sousa Mendes Foundation

I don’t quite understand the rationale of counting the visas issued by Sousa Mendes, as “lives saved” when he was just doing his job (e.g the case of visas issued in 1939). Should we also say that Portuguese consuls in Paris, Antewerp, Berlin, etc.. at that time, 1939, issuing visas as part of their daily routine, were “saving lives”?JPratas (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear: I understand the rationale for visas issued in disobedience. I just don`t understand it for those issued in business as usual, as it seems to be the case of all, but two, visas issued until May 1940.

JPratas (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What else don't you understand, JPratas?

Response to Coimbralove>I don't understand why you keep on censoring and deleting information from Rui Afonso's book. E.g. The fact that Sousa Mendes left a letter where he complained that his wife was provincial and unsuitable to be a Consul's wife. Is Rui Afonso not a reliable source? The letter is in the archives of the Junta de Cabanas do Viriato. Censorship is totally agains the Wikipedia policies.

JPratas (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Complained about his wife in a letter to whom? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? And what is your reason for wanting to write this on Wikipedia?

combralove (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Coimbralove>I guess this is something that you will have to clear out with Rui Afonso. He is supposed to be one of the best Sousa Mendes biographer’s. I am also not going to make any moral judgment or use adjectives like “ridiculous” and “laughable” and include that kind of language in footnotes. I will allow each reader to draw his own conclusions and make his own judgments. JPratas (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Clear out? Do you mean clear up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coimbralove (talk • contribs) 03:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Another mess

Removed the following info which is already given elsewhere in the essay and is badly written:

Like Aristides but in Hungary, two other portuguese diplomats, the ambassador Sampaio Garrido and the Business Affairs Attaché Teixeira Branquinho both saved about one thousando jews.^[6]

˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coimbralove (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed text that belongs in other articles. There are plenty of articles on WWII, and there is no need to bog down this entry. Text below:

With Austria's annexation on 12 March 1938, the situation of the Jews living in the territory of the Reich changed dramatically. Germany's neighboring countries feared an even stronger flow of Jewish emigrants, which they tried to counteract by tightening immigration regulations. Unlike Switzerland, France or Great Britain measures taken in Poland were directed against their own citizens who resided outside Poland. The Polish Parliament approved a law to withdraw all citizens of Poland their citizenship, who had lived abroad for five years non-stop affecting approximately 30,000 Polish Jews in the German Reich and additional 20 000 Polish Jews in Austria.

On July 1938 US President Franklin D. Roosevelt worried with the Jewish problem in Europe took the initiative of promoting the Évian Conference. He then realized that the problem transcended refugees from the Reich and included masses of Jews in other central and Eastern European Coutries, thus as solution was needed not for tens of thousands or hundreds, but for millions! The conference ended up being a great fiasco, with delegates refusing to open their doors to the desperate refugees and the Australian delegate becoming famous for his unfortunate statement, "...we don't have a racial problem and don't want to import one". Since Portugal was not in a position to absorb masses of immigrants, and could not be a solution, Portugal was not even invited to the Evian Conference.

Coimbralove (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed text that is unsourced, speculative and badly written:

And in May 1940 two years earlier, no one, including Sousa Mendes, could have foreseen the Holocaust and it would have been impossible to pick and choose, form those eight to ten million in panic, the ones that would, much later, would became Holocaust victims.

Coimbralove (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

“What the heck? Is JPratas kidding”

This is becoming absurd. Editor Coimbralove (former Redmoon, also former “Sousa Mendes Foundation”) keeps on insisting in asking references for every phrase. But worse, also keeps on insisting in including his personal biased views in the article, using jargon.

One example: “reference needed for this sinister assessment” when the author of the assessment is Avraham Milgram, Yad Vashem Historian, and most of the other assessments are from Yehuda Bauer.

Another example is: “What the heck? Is JPratas kidding”. And his cooment is also made on another assessment from Yad Vashem Historian Avraham Milgram published by the Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust Studies. JPratas (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View – Salazar regime anti-Semitic?

Maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) is one of the five pillars and founding principles of Wikipedia. This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them. Our aim is to be informative, not persuasive.

When the subject of the article is a fringe theory, such as HIV/AIDS denialism or Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, the article should give much more weight to the mainstream view with the fringe view clearly described as such.

Therefore paragraphs such as the following, should not be place in the article:

“Throughout history, Portugal's relationship with Jews was either one of expulsion or of welcome. Augusto d'Esaguy, President of the Portuguese Jewish Community during World War II, described "the tragic night in October 1933 when the Portuguese Government decided to expel from Portugal all foreign Jews who had taken up their residence in Portugal after 1919, a night which still haunts me and which I shall never be able to forget." In 1937 the Portuguese government tried to justify the deportations "in recent years" by saying that the Jewish victims had been "undesirable.” Also, in 1937, the Portuguese government "instructed all its consulates not to issue visas to East European Jews" and "has forbidden the Marranos to build any more synagogues”

JPratas (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The above described event cannot be found in any other source and an event of that order of magnitude, if it were true, would certainly have left more traces.

All historians coincide with Avraham Milgram who asserts that modern anti-Semitism failed "to establish even a toehold in Portugal. JPratas (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"The government, embarrassed by the Bessa Lopes Report, suppressed its existence for more than a decade."

This assessment needs to be reviewed. From 1974 till 1986 Portugal had more than 10 different prime ministers. Some writers say the reason was that Portuguese Politicians did not think the Sousa Mendes story was robust enough to make a case against Salazar. The fact that Sousa Mendes was a supporter of the dictatorship, was no democrat, and had an impressive track record of incidents along his career, did not help to make a strong case. JPratas (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Disputed

Over the past couple of weeks this article had a major rewrite, mostly by two single purpose accounts: JPratas (talk · contribs) and Redmoon660 (talk · contribs) (note that Redmoon660 is a name change from "Aristides Sousa Mendes Foundation"). I do not have the time nor the will to review their edits, but knowing how Aristides Sousa Mendes is still viewed as either a hero saving thousands of lifes or a traitor, and the Portuguese government of the time as either secretly accepting his actions or punishing him disgracefully; I would advise taking extra care with the article's content. - Nabla (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey

I am JPratas. I dont have any dispute. I’ve been adding to the article facts based on available documentation and also some facts related by Fralon book. Fralon is a Sousa Mendes Biogropher and admirer of Sousa Mendes. I’ve also added some views from two reputed ambassadors and also views from History Porfessors: Douglas Wheeler and Hermano Saraiva.

Other user, former called “Sousa Mendes Foundation” and now Redmoon has been actively deleting facts and inserting his views as the final truth. Even articles published by the Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust Studies are classified as wrong on the grounds of a so called research investigation being conducted by the Sousa Mendes Foundation

1) One of the facts that Redmoon has been disputing is that Sousa Mendes was paid his full salary until the day he died.

You can find all the documents related with the payments made to MR Sousa Mendes in here. When Mr Sousa Mendes died he war receiving 2,304$60/month http://badigital.sgmf.pt/Arquivo-DGCP--07---005---003/1/DGCP-07-005-003_PDF/DGCP-07-005-003.pdf

This is the Sousa Mendes file that you can find online (it is heavy 60MB) in the website of “Ministerio das Financas”. You will find there all documents related with the payments done to Mr Sousa Mendes by the “Ministerio das Financas”. In the first pages you can find records of the payments made to him. You will see that in 1948, Mr. Sousa Mendes was receiving 1,728 Esc. + 260 Esc “de subsídio”. And that in 1949 is was receiving 2,160 Esc.

And then on the 5th page you will find a letter to Andrée Cibial in reply to her request for Money from Sousa Mendes Salary. The letter explains to Andrée Cibial that since Sousa Mendes on April 4 1954. The payment due for that month is 307,20 Esc. But that they have a court order from the 2º “Juizo Civil da Comarca de Lisboa” that orders them to retain 750,60 Esc per month (this court order was related with debts thar Mr Sousa Mendes had). You can cross check these documents with the archive from “Juizo Civil da Comarca de Lisboa”

Many literature states that Sousa Mendes was expelled from the Foreign Office, sacked from his salary and pension. Which is false. And this false accusation is already being tought to children in shools. And as much as you repeat a lie, again and again, the lie does not become true.

There is no animosity from my side. I have not deleted one single view even when I feel the view is personal and not sustained. I just want the facts to be known.

JPratas (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Olá @JPratas:. The {{disputed}} tag does not mean a personal dispute, only that the *content* may be questionable, which you just pointed (some) is. At the present moment I have nothing compeling me to engage in any kind of fact checking or mediation, I don't have the time nor the energy for that. I'd recommend that if there is only two editors contending for inclusion or exclusion of some content, that you try asking for help at the third opinion page. The Neutral Point of View Noticeboard may also be helpful. Nevertheless, I did a quick check on the given reference - as it is in Portuguese it would be harder for a 'random' editor to check it. The site seems to be a legitimate site from the Portuguese Minitry of Finances (I checked the whois record) and the documents content is as reported by you, it shows records of wages from 1948 and 1949, and the letter from the services does mention payments up to April 1954. Anyway, it would be much much better to present secondary sources, as we are not supposed to be checking primary sources - Nabla (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: Thanks again for the heads up. I've just added two secondary sources. Besides the Amabassador Fernandes book, I've added the Douglas Wheeler article (Wheeler is endorsed by the Sousa Mendes Foundation) and I've added a letter from Sousa Mendes himself where he sais that he was using his salary to help his son Pedro Nuno. (the letter is from 1950 and is referenced in Fralon's book, (Fralon is also endorsed by Sousa Mendes). The problem with secondary sources is that most of them are wrong. Like Avrahm Milgram says: Someone printed the 30,000 and bum, from then on 30,000 is the undisputed truth, even when the "Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust Studies" publishes a study saying that 30,000 it is a myth.

Nobody wants to raise his voice and run the risk of being accused of being Fascist or anti-semit. I've already been tagged of "Salazar admirer", which I am not. Salazar was for "censor" I am not.

Anyway the "dispute" ended up being good. A lot more information surfaced.

Maybe one day someone will update the Portuguese, French and Spanish pages, with a lot of facts that have been kept hiden.

JPratas (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the dispute on if the Portuguese Government had, or had not, kept on paying to Mr. Sousa Mendes is full salary is now over. Sousa Mendes kept on receiving his full salary until the day he died and that salary was updated every year according to inflation, just like the salary of any other consul. In 1940 Sousa Mendes was being paid 1,523 Esc and the day he died he was receiving 2,304 Portuguese Escudos. Now that Mr Redmoon (former “Sousa Mendes Foundation”) had a week-end to analyze the documents that are very difficult to dispute, and is now editing again the article but not disputing this fact, it seems we can close it.

Anyway I am also organizing the documents of the court order of “2º “Juizo Civil da Comarca de Lisboa” that ordered to retain 750,60 Esc per month from Mr Sousa Mendes Salary because of legal action raised by Sousa Mendes creditor’s. (Banks)

What we should now dispute is the number of visas. The 30,000. Well, Mr Redmoon is constantly quoting a research that is being conducted in the USA but that until now has not yet been published and the information available online only points in the same direction as the study published by the "Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust Studies" that tags the 30,000 as a myth.

JPratas (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nabla – November 16, you’ve tagged the “Sousa Mendes” article as disputed. The dispute was if Portugal kept (or did not kept) on paying to Sousa Mendes a monthly allowance until the day he died. Since then I’ve added to the article several secondary and primary sources that prove that Sousa Mendes kept on receiving a generous monthly salary for the rest of his life. The other editor (Redmoon660 (note that Redmoon660 is a name change from "Aristides Sousa Mendes Foundation), probably because of the discredit that fall upon him, stopped editing on that same day and I suspect he resurrected as editor “Coimbralove” also on the same day.

The Sousa Mendes article is now one of the Wikipedia articles with more references. I wonder if it makes sense to keep on having the article as “disputed”.

Pls feel free to delete this after you've read it.

JPratas (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

above question copyed from my talk page - User talk:Nabla#Disputed - Sousa Mendes - as I think this is best kept here, at the article's talk page

The disputed tag was not about that small detail, it was about suspicion that there were two biased editors each trying to push his own view on the subject, you and Redmoon660/Aristides Sousa Mendes Foundation. The wage issue was addressed on that very same day, as may be seen above, and I acknowledged that the primary source you pointed to seems to support that claim. The fact that the article eventually was expanded only by one user does not diminish my suspicion of biased editing, it enlarges it. Also having a whole lot of references does not diminish it at all, only makes it virtually impossible to check the source, looking for all those books in libraries would take years of work. Months ago, the article was a poor smallish one, now it is a unreadable wall of text, it as large sections not specifically about Aristides Sousa Mendes (which even in a fast reading seems to be written with the exclusive intention to denigrate Aristides Sousa Mendes. "Desobedience" is mentioned often, it says that "Luckily these events did not impact the Portuguese neutrality" (my bold, and the problem is not the concept, the problem is the assuption that there was one 'right' thing to do - not to endanger neutrality - and a wrong thing to do - to endanger it. And of course "many of those refugees did not need to be saved at all", evidently so because afterwards we know that only some of the ones not fleeing got killed. A whole section on having a mistress. And so on, and so on... The article does not feel like trustworthy at all, just as it wouldn't either if it only stated he was a glorious hero saviour of hundreds of thousands. As far as I read it, the article's content is highly disputable, so I will not remove the tag. (note that you can remove it, it doesn't have to be me) - Nabla (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I’ve seen your response on the article talk page. Thank you for your feed-back. Since I have no interest whatsoever in denigrate Sousa Mendes figure (although I believe Sousa Mendes has been used, most of the times with lies or half-truths to denigrate Salazar, Surfing the wave of empathy that holocaust victims generates.) I will be working on the feedback you kindly provided. Would you have some more time to help me with improving the article? Making sure it is not biased.

JPratas (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for your feedback. Pursuant to your feedback I’ve considerably shortened the article and tried to eliminate what could seem an attempt to denigrate Sousa Mendes figure (but I've done it without avoiding the facts). Most of the text in the article, that was added by me, is sourced from two Sousa Mendes biographers and admirers ’ (French journalist Jose-Alain Fralon and Rui Afonso)and for context I’ve used mostly the Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram. I understand that when you put the facts in context and in chronological order, one realizes that the story is not as rosy as the often simplified versions that one can read in newspapers. But those are the facts. Anyway I would be very thankful if you could give it another revision and provide additional feedback. Since you are not particularly interested in the subject, your view is of great value. BTW thanks for letting me know that I can eliminate the “disputed” tag. However I’ve no intention of doing it. My goal is to reach a neutral article, therefore I would not feel ok deleting the tag myself. JPratas (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My evaluation of the article

Jpratas asked me, on my talk page, to take a look at this article. I believe that this is an important article, but I want to state that I have no expertise in Portuguese history and haven't read the source material. So my comments are based on questions and issues that jump out at me when reading this article as an experienced Wikipedia editor. These are my opinions, and I acknowledge in advance that I might be wrong about some of the points I make.

A disputed number of people rescued should not be listed in the infobox. Simply omit the number.

The lead section of the article should summarize the entire life of Aristides de Sousa Mendes. The current lead section devotes far too much attention to the dispute about the number of people rescued. That should be covered in the body of the article, and only briefly summarized in the lead. The lead says he "ignored and defied" the governments regulations. It should be one or the other. I think "defied" is more accurate.

The number rescued is described as "countless" although 30,000 is the high number, and that is a countable number. Perhaps something like "can't be accurately determined" would be better.

There is a problem with usage of evaluative, judgmental language in Wikipedia's voice that violates the neutral point of view. Examples include "frantically", "frenzy", "great fiasco", "fatal flaw of this biased list", "necessarily wary", "with great scandal", "provoking great scandals", and so on. Any such evaluations must be cited to a reliable source, and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

The section called "Portugal and the refugee crisis - Circular 14" starts with a lengthy lecture in Wikipedia's voice about "stereotypes" regarding reader's possible assumptions about the nature of dictatorships. It is not our role as editors to guess what reader's stereotypes might possibly be, and lecture them to abandon such imagined stereotypes. All of this language should be removed entirely.

This is a biography of a person, Aristides de Sousa Mendes. It is not an article about Portugal's response to the refugee crisis of 1940. Of course, the person's life needs to be placed in context. But the information about Varian Fry's rescue work simply doesn't belong in this article. And any content not related to the life of Aristides de Sousa Mendes should be trimmed to an absolute minimum. Always keep in mind that this is a biography.

The statement about possible legal penalties commenting what they might be "if it were today" is not appropriate. We discuss things as they were at the time discussed in an article, not as they are in the present day.

There is a mention of "S. Francisco". Shouldn't this be "San Francisco"?

Every single quotation must be cited to a reliable source, immediately following the quotation. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Do not use exclamation points for emphasis. Quotes are the only exception.

Do not render "NAZI" in capital letters.

It is clear that much of the text has been written by editors who are not completely fluent in English. After substantive changes have been made, the article should be copy edited by a fluent English speaker. I am willing to assist with this if asked.

I hope that the comments I have made will be helpful to the editors involved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Cullen328! Thank you so much for accepting my request. Thank you also for your time and valuable, constructive feed-back. I’ve substantially edited the article trying to follow your suggestions and guidance. If it is not too much to ask I would like you to give it another review and provide more feedback. I am the one to be blamed for the poor English. I am not native speaker; therefore your help would also be much appreciated on this matter, but I guess the article will still need some rework before we start worrying about form. JPratas (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Reinstating facts on Sousa Mendes' early life

I’ve reinstated several episodes of Sousa Mendes' early life that give an idea of the complexity of his psychological profile. All this facts are in easily verifiable sources. I’ve provided the references and can provide more information if necessary.JPratas (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The Refugee Crisis and Portugal

I’ve reinstated several facts on Portugal’s lack of anti-Semitism and neutrality during the war. All facts are from verifiable sources. I will be happy to provide more information if required. The facts are key to understand the context of Sousa Mendes’ disobedience.JPratas (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers required

I am going through the article and finding many references without page numbers. Since such references are unverifiable I am deleting them. Beebop211 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211. It looks like you are new to wikipedia. That is not a usual of friendly procedure. If you want a specific page number you can ask for it, but that is not a reason to just go and delete the text.JPratas (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Because it was easier I’ve basically quoted the book from Le Monde’s journalist, Jose Alain-Fralon. But the exact same incidents can be found in Rui Afonso's major biography. Last but not least you can also verify these incidents online. Just download Spared Lives, The Action of Three Portuguese Diplomats in World War II – Documentary e-book edited by the Raoul Wallenberg Foundation and available online at the Wallenberg foundation website. JPratas (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)All this early life facts are important to understand the complexity of the Sousa Mendes psychological profile. JPratas (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

One minor issue. You've just wrote on the article's introduction that Wallenberg operation occured in Pague, in fact it was in Budapest. You might want to correct this. JPratas (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Correction gratefully accepted and implemented. Beebop211 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Salazar

There is a lot of material in this essay about Salazar that is not directly relevant to Sousa Mendes. I suggest transferring this material to the Salazar page and deleting it here. Any objections? Beebop211 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Massive deletion

On February 27the the article suffered a massive deletion by user “Beebop211”, a deletion performed without using the talk page. I’ve noticed that the account was new (Created on the same day) and it seemed it had been created with the sole purpose of perform a mass deletion. This was not the first time that something like this happened. I now know that Beebop211 is willing to contribute to improve the article and I would like to welcome his contributions. The more people contributing to the article and scrutinizing it the better. That is one of the strengths of wikipedia.

Thank you for your message. The deletions were made because the article was well over 50 pages and completely unreadable.Beebop211 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211 I will be glad to work on making the article shorter. As I have done in the past when Cullen328 made some suggestions. I just dont' agree with some of the cuts you've made. I already provided some suggestions for cuts. We can both wait for someone like Cullen328 to give us an independet view. Thoughts?JPratas (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Since over the last months I did some major edits, I would like to clarify the following. 1) Until today, apart from minor obvious undisputable mistakes, I have not made any deletions. 2) Most of my editing’s have 4 main sources: The two major Sousa Mendes’ biographies (one by Jose Alain Fralon and other by Rui Afonso, both these books are endorsed by the Sousa Mendes Foundation). And the works from two Scholars: Yad Vashem Historian Avraham Milgram and Historian Douglas Wheeler. I have also sometimes quoted some primary sources that are available online, as it is the case of the Virtual Museum Aristides Sousa Mendes http://mvasm.sa/JPratas (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is important to use a wide variety of sources to maintain Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Beebop211 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211. I am not quite sure what you mean by this. What other sources are needed?JPratas (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that some of the facts that were deleted might seem like an attempt to denigrate Sousa Mendes but the same logic also applies to other facts that might also seem as an attempt to denigrate other people (Secretary General Teixeira de Sampaio, Ambassador Teotonio Pereira, etc.). But the facts are what they are and should not be deleted. The facts allow us to understand Sousa Mendes in all his psychological complexity.

Yes, I would agree, and I don't think it's appropriate or necessary to denigrate a great man. Beebop211 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211. Many people will say Salazar was a great man. Life Magazine said so. Those people will say that Sousa Mendes' story is being used to denigrate Salazar. Why don't we just present the facts and let the reader classify who was great, in some aspects, and maybe was not that great in many other aspects? JPratas (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The Life magazine article appeared during the war, and before all the facts were known. I doubt you could find a mainstream publication today that would make that claim. Do you have any examples? Beebop211 (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Some users (e.g. Coimbralove and Beebop211) have been complaining that the article is now too long.

It was well over 50 pages when I started editing it, and the Sousa Mendes story was completely buried under a layer of mud. Beebop211 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems of writing about Sousa Mendes is that there is a lot of erroneous information, published on websites and newspapers. Some examples are:

“Portugal, officially neutral, yet unofficially pro-Hitler” (Sousa Mendes Foundation Website)
“In all, Sousa Mendes issued some 30,000 visas, including about 10,000 to Jews, over the period of a few days” (Sousa Mendes Foundation Website)
“Aristides de Sousa Mendes, the Portuguese Righteous Gentile who saved the lives of an estimated 30,000 Jews and others during the Nazi Holocaust,” – (Raoul Wallenberg Foundation Website)
“Some 30,000 refugees, including 10,000 Jews, congregated at the Portuguese consulate in Bordeaux and applied pressure to obtain the piece of paper that would extricate them from France… Between 15 and 22 June 1940 Sousa Mendes issued a total of 1,575 visas.” (Yad Vashem web site).
“For his act of defiance Sousa Mendes was severely punished by Salazar, stripped of his diplomatic position and forbidden from earning a living” (Sousa Mendes Foundation website)
“He was buried in a Franciscan tunic for lack of appropriate clothes of his own” (in fact it was a habit of Portuguese Catholic upperclass to be buried in a Franciscan tunic.)
“Back in Lisbon, Sousa Mendes was brought before a disciplinary panel and dismissed from his position in the Foreign Ministry. This left him destitute and unable to support his family of 13 children” (Yad Vashem web site)

No wonder people get confused. The Sousa Mendes foundation says that Sousa Mendes saved 10,000 Jews. The Wallenberg foundation quotes not 10,000 but 30,000 jews! But then Yad Vashem website says that 30,000 is the number of people queuing (not "saved") and says that only 1,575 visas were granted (without mentioning that many of these visas were regular visas granted to Portuguese, British, Americans, etc..) and then finally a Yad Vashem historian, that dedicated almost all his career to study Salazar publish two studies, one in 1999 and the other in 2014 where he openly admits that the 30,000 figure is a myth. And in 1940 Sousa Mendes did not have a Crystal ball and could not forsee that America and Russia would be entering the war in 1941 and the the Nazis would start the extermination of Jews in 1942...

Most published sources agree that Sousa Mendes rescued thousands of people. That is the consensus in the literature, and it's what should to be reflected on Wikipedia. Beebop211 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211. Thank you for using the talk page. I just gave you a few examples on how fuzzy is the information published so far regarding figures. However, according to wikipedia, material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars. I believe that the Shoah Resource Center, The International School for Holocaust Studies falls into this category. It is a good source. And they say the 30,000 figure is a myth. On this specific issues I agree with Cullen328 perhaps something like "can't be accurately determined" would be betterJPratas (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if a specific number cannot be determined, it is possible to determine the order of magnitude. No reputable source claims that the number of visas was in the hundreds. No reputable source claims that it was in the millions. The correct order of magnitude is the thousands, and it's a figure that encompasses the range of estimates given in the literature. Beebop211 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that people that always heard that Sousa Mendes was a martyr that died in absolute poverty get shocked when they are told that Sousa Mendes received a generous lifetime allowance (3 times the salary of a teacher) and if he died penniless that was because he was a victim of himself and his longtime mistress. But that is just reality. The problem is that other editors that cannot speak Portuguese and don’t have access to original documents, now available online, are misled by this erroneous literature and quote it as an absolute truth.

There is an easy solution. Has this information been published anywhere? If so, please provide a citation, with page number. Beebop211 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211. I will provide the required information. (the page number)but please stop performing massive deletionsJPratas (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We could have a much shorter article if for instance no one would no insist on quoting the fallacious list provided by the Sousa Mendes foundation. A list that goes back to 1939 and includes regular visas to Portuguese, British, Americans, etc.

I see a link, but I don't see any undue length added. Beebop211 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211. There is a lot of wording in the article because of this list being mentioned. See my suggestions below.JPratas (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Every time erroneous or misleading information is published more must be written to preserve a neutral point of view.JPratas (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Or, the erroneous/misleading information could be deleted. Wikipedia needs to reflect a preponderance of the literature to preserve a NPOV. Beebop211 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211.Not sure what you mean by this.JPratas (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I simply mean that Wikipedia is not a place for fringe POVs. Beebop211 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sousa Mendes and Wallenberg

I would like to suggest that this section be moved out of the introduction and moved below into its own section. Any objections? Beebop211 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not hearing any objection, I have implemented this edit. Beebop211 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The Refugee Crisis and Portugal

This section is almost verbatim the same wording as the WWII section of History of Jews in Portugal. I suggest we simply link from this page to the other one to avoid duplication. Any objections? Beebop211 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on this section right now, with the goal of shortening it drastically. This is because this section precedes the telling of the Sousa Mendes story, so it delays the reader from reaching the heart of the essay. Beebop211 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

^ Life In Occupied France, 1940-1944:An Overview of Attitudes, Experiences and Choices - Professor Rod Kedward, University of Sussex
^ The Holocaust Encyclopedia
^ "The Story: The Voyage". Voyage of the St. Louis. Washington, DC: United States Memorial Holocaust Museum. Archived from the original on 2012-08-30. Retrieved 2012-08-30
^ Spared Lives: The Actions of Three Portuguese Diplomats in World War II, Lisbon: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2000, p.85.
^ Afonso, Rui - Um Homem Bom, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, O "Wallenberg" Portugues, Caminho, pag 24
^ Hungria homenageia diplomatas portugueses que salvaram judeus na II Guerra Mundial

[1] Life In Occupied France, 1940-1944:An Overview of Attitudes, Experiences and Choices - Professor Rod Kedward, University of Sussex

[2] The Holocaust Encyclopedia

[3] "The Story: The Voyage". Voyage of the St. Louis. Washington, DC: United States Memorial Holocaust Museum. Archived from the original on 2012-08-30. Retrieved 2012-08-30

[4] Spared Lives: The Actions of Three Portuguese Diplomats in World War II, Lisbon: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2000, p.85.

[5] Afonso, Rui - Um Homem Bom, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, O "Wallenberg" Portugues, Caminho, pag 24

[6] Hungria homenageia diplomatas portugueses que salvaram judeus na II Guerra Mundial

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes/Archive 1

Not just Jews

Jewish Origin?

No other country did as much to help the refugees as Portugal

Honor and disgrace

news article :Aristides de Sousa Mendes

Article very messy

Counting visas and lives saved - Research work by the Sousa Mendes Foundation

Another mess

“What the heck? Is JPratas kidding”

Neutral Point of View – Salazar regime anti-Semitic?

"The government, embarrassed by the Bessa Lopes Report, suppressed its existence for more than a decade."

Disputed

My evaluation of the article

Reinstating facts on Sousa Mendes' early life

The Refugee Crisis and Portugal

More ideas to make the article more concise (2)

Page numbers required

More ideas to make the article more concise

Salazar

Massive deletion

Sousa Mendes and Wallenberg

The Refugee Crisis and Portugal