Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Suggestions of paragraphs that are good candidates for elimination and make the text shorter.

• Portugal's president Mário Soares called Sousa Mendes "Portugal's greatest hero of the twentieth century." -Soares opinion is biased. He is one of the biggest Salazar opponents. Off course he loves having people denigrating SalazarJPratas (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about Salazar but about Sousa Mendes. What does it matter if Soares was an opponent of the fascist leader Salazar. Isn't that a good thing? Beebop211 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Make the whole diference. Soares profits from having Salazar denigratedJPratas (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You must be one of Salazar's last defenders. Why? Beebop211 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211. Not exactly. Some people value more law and order and economic prosperity than they value democracy. That is why they love Salazar and that is why Salazar was recently voted in a TV show as the greater Portuguese of all times. I don’t particularly like some aspects of Salazar. For instance I don’t like censorship (something you obviously do). But even if I was a Salazar fan I would not go through his Wikipedia article and start cutting all the things I think are less commendable. (Something you have obviously been trying to do with Sousa Mendes’ article).JPratas (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Historian Avraham Milgram says that once Sousa Mendes returned to Portugal, the Portuguese government subjected him to "a severe crackdown"[74] and "a merciless disciplinary process.".[75] However it is important to clarify that in this harsh judgment Milgram took into consideration the false statement, conveyed by popular literature, that Sousa Mendes “lost his pension ― a situation that ruined him financially” something that today is known to be untrue. Dr. Nuno A. A. de Bessa Lopes, in a "meticulously documented"[76] 1976 report to the Portuguese government about the case, described the trial as "an inquisitorial farce, destined to justify the pre-fabricated decision of the Chief to destroy a man who had just committed an heroic and humanitarian act."[77] Bessa Lopes also erroneously asserted that Sousa Mendes had been deprived of his salary. Since Bessa Lopes had access to the files his error is less understandable than Milgram’s. – The paragraph adds no value. Both statements are annulled and discredited.JPratas (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to reflect the preponderance of the literature to respect the NPOV. Beebop211 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not quite sure of what you want to sayJPratas (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• According to the testimonial of one of Sousa Mendes's sons, there was also an unofficial punishment: the blacklisting and social banishment of Aristides de Sousa Mendes and his children. This meant that there was no possibility of earning a living for him or his older children, and the younger children could not continue their schooling. After the war, with the Allied victory, Salazar himself took the credit for Portugal having received the refugees, and the history books were written accordingly. Meanwhile, the only help that Sousa Mendes and his family received was from the Jewish relief agency Comassis that fed them in their Lisbon soup kitchen and paid their medical bills. Isaac Bitton, a fourteen year old boy, was the nephew of the soup kitchen's manager. He was helping her out one day when in came a nicely dressed gentleman speaking perfect Portuguese but asking for a meal. "I'm sorry, sir, but this soup kitchen is for refugees," said Isaac. "We too are refugees,"[81]9 replied Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Later, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) helped two of the Sousa Mendes children emigrate to the United States. – This all paragraph is biased, it is based on one of Sousa Mendes sons’ statements. It does not make sense in light of what we know today, that he lived for years in his mansion receiving a generous allowance. JPratas (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "what we know today, that he lived for years in his mansion receiving a generous allowance." Can you please point to any reputable source for this claim? Published literature only, please. Beebop211 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be so much easier if before editing you could please read one of the twe major Sousa Mendes Biographies. Either the one from Rui Afonso or the one for Jose Alain-Fralon. You should not be editing if you have not done some basic reading. No ofense meant. But it seems you need to do do some homework.

No offense taken. Please point to a page number where this claim is made, and I would be happy to check the reference. Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• In 1946, a Portuguese journalist tried to raise awareness for Sousa Mendes within North America by publishing the facts under a pseudonym – Does not add much value.JPratas (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does this not add much value in your opinion? Beebop211 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You are the one that wants to make the article shorter. This is a minor episode.JPratas (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor? How so? Beebop211 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ironically, the actions that caused Salazar to dismiss his diplomatic representative brought considerable praise to him and to Portugal, seen internationally as a haven of hospitality for refugee Jews; for example, the magazine Life praised Salazar as "the greatest Portuguese since Henry the Navigator" (July 29, 1940).[40][61] Salazar remained in power until his death in 1970. Four years later, with the Carnation Revolution, Portugal became a democracy. –Portugal was an escape route for hundreds of thousands of refugees and the portugese population was spared the horrors of the war. The few hundred visas granted by Sousa Mendes, long before the holocaust, are a drop in the ocean. The paragraph is therefore nonsense.JPratas (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get the figure a "few hundred visas"? This does not appear to be supported by the preponderance of the published literature. I would urge you to be careful not to insert a fringe POV on Wikipedia. Beebop211 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

At Bordeaux he issued aprox 600 visas on the 17th, 18th and 19th. That is what the records say. JPratas (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't some of these visas apply to entire families? And weren't there other visas that were not recorded anywhere? I don't think that any reputable source disputes the fact that there were thousands of visa recipients. Beebop211 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211. You don't think a study by and Yad Vashem historina is reputable?"JPratas (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is no consensus as to the number of refugees who used Portugal as an escape route in those early days of World War II. According to a 1941 report in The New York Times, 200,000 refugees escaped through Lisbon in the preceding year.[102] This figure is repeated by Howard Wriggins, an American refugee relief official stationed in Portugal, where he estimates that "perhaps 200,000 people had arrived after the shattering Nazi German victory over the French armies in June 1940."[103] Yad Vashem historian Yehuda Bauer surmises that the number of Sousa Mendes visas was closer to 10,000.[104] A search on ancestry.com reveals that 69,556 people traveled from Lisbon to New York from 1940-42.[105] One can presume that the vast majority of these passengers were war refugees. To this number should be added all those who traveled from Lisbon to South American countries, the United Kingdom, and other destinations.- This paragraph is very confusing and is just throwing dust in the air. It would be simpler to say that Portugal helped save hundreds of thousands and admit the 30,000 attributed to Sousa Mendes are a myth. In despair the author of this messy paragraph is already making searches at “ancestry.com” and making assumptions. All this to try to counter studies published by scholars. JPratas (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph appears balanced to me, as it cites a variety of unrelated neutral sources. Beebop211 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well. I think we can keep it. But if we are going to delete something this is less importante than the incidents Sousa Mendes had along his carrear. You are the one wanting to make the article shorterJPratas (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article should be shorter! Much shorter! Beebop211 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• In 2011, the Sousa Mendes Foundation embarked on an ambitious project to identify, locate and contact all Sousa Mendes visa recipients or their descendants worldwide.[106] By cross-referencing the Visa Registry Book with ship passenger lists, immigration records and other primary sources, the Sousa Mendes Foundation has to date succeeded in identifying around 3,000 Sousa Mendes visa recipients individually by name.[107] The exact number of Sousa Mendes visa recipients will likely never be known. However this list from the Sousa Mendes Foundation includes many visas that cannot be credit to Sousa Mendes' disobedience. Such is the case of: 1) Visas issued by Sousa Mendes, during the Phoney War, performing his regular consular duties; 2) visas granted to Portuguese political refugees that were living in France and that benefited from a special amnesty given by Salazar; 3) regular visas granted to non-refugees (e.g. British, American, Brazilian citizens returning to their home countries) and 4) Visas that Sousa Mendes had delegated powers to grant without having to ask previous permission to Lisbon (i.e. to refugees that gave sufficient guarantees that they possessed funds and could continue their journey to another country, the Portuguese territory serving only as transit or a short stay. Such was the case of the Hapsburgs, the Rothschild, etc. - Also no value added. Quoting a list that is biased and misleding.JPratas (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the article history you seem to have written much of this paragraph, so I am confused as to why you now feel there is "no value added." Beebop211 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct. I did right the second half. But I wrote it because the first half was there. JPratas (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Article length

I am trying to keep this article within reasonable limits so that the central narrative is not buried. Unfortunately these efforts keep being hampered by someone in Portugal. Why? Beebop211 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to be a recap of 20th century Portuguese history nor a mini biography of Salazar nor a critique of the various sources used in the article. It is not the job of Wikipedia writers to try to disabuse our readers of imagined stereotypes or misconceptions. This article is not the place to educate readers about the strengths and weaknesses of authoritarian government. It is not appropriate to delve into excruciating detail about people's character flaws, or to try to psychoanalyze them. This article is not the place for any judgments or conclusions or analysis by Wikipedia editors. It is not the place to refute comparisons to Wallenberg, as all people know that analogies have shortcomings. This Wallenberg content is especially inappropriate in the lead section, which should briefly summarize the man's entire life, not delve into sideline academic disputes. This article should be strictly limited to summarizing rather than replicating or synthesizing what the reliable sources say about the man. This article should be stripped of all extraneous content not directly related to the life story of Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hooray! Thank you Cullen! Beebop211 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Culleen328 for your feed-back. I have revised the article according to your suggestions, as I have done before, and I've stripped the article of all extraneous content not directly related to the life story of Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Looking forward for additional feed back.JPratas (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear JPratas, unfortunately this is not what you have done. Also, please note that Cullen's guidelines refer to "reliable sources," but you have reinstated the section summarizing self-published denialism. This section should definitely be removed. Thank you. Beebop211 (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Beebop211, You might have a point because the book from Ambassador Fernandes is indeed a self-published book. Although he gave several interviews to newspapers with the same statements. If Cullen328 tells me to remove it I will do it. No problem. But in my view this is a testimony from an Ambassador, the only one still alive that personally new Sousa Mendes. On Cullen’s last revision he did not tell me to delete it, but, again, if he says so, I’ll do it. The other two testimonies (Historian Saraiva and Ambassador Themido) are not self-published.

They still represent a fringe POV and not the NPOV of the predominance of the literature. They are smear pieces, pure and simple. Plus they are not in English, and are not accessible to English-speaking readers of Wikipedia. Beebop211 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to restrain, for a while, from deleting my material. As you have seen I am diligent in following advice from independent experienced editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to wait to implement cuts requested by Cullen. Beebop211 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear both. As I had done last December I’ve diligently followed Cullens328 advice and have stripped the article all extraneous content not directly related to the life story of Aristides de Sousa Mendes. I have although kept a minimum of historical context so that it is understandable to the reader to what exactly was Sousa Mendes disobeying to. I have also removed the opinions from Yad Vashem Historian Avraham Milgram and the views from Historian Douglas Wheeler. They both express the view that actions taken in June 1940, when France was negotiating peace with the Germans, and 8 million people in panic were irrationally trying to escape from France, two years before the Holocaust, cannot be compared with rescue operations performed at the very heart of the III Reich in 1944 (by Wallenberg or Sampaio Garrido in Hungary) . I think that both these views, published by reputed scholars that dedicated their lives to study Portugal and the Jews, do add a lot of value to the article and I don’t know of any other material published by an historian or academic saying the opposite. I therefore do not understand Cullen’s comment on “academic disputes” because, as far as I know there are no other academics saying the opposite. But if it is a Wikipedia policy not to express views from reputed scholars, that is ok for me.

However I must say that I’ve kept a list of important facts on Sousa Mendes early life. This are facts strictly related with his life and are enlightening on his personality and his relationship with several political regime’s under which he served. (facts on which I make no moral judgments). Sousa Mendes had disputes with all political regimes, not only Salazar, and it looks to me that if a consul was suspended for two years for abuse of public money, it should be included in his bio. If a consul was expelled by the United States Government accused of anti-democratic behavior, then this is also part of his bio. If a consul, known for helping refugees, also persecuted political refugees himself and asked for promotions invoking those persecutions then the info is also relevant. If a consul, catholic, father of 14 children had an affair and had a daughter with his mistress, this should be part of his biography. Finally if Sousa Mendes received a lifetime allowance (3 times the salary of a teacher) and because he had no money sense he died owing money to banks, this should also be stated. I therefore cannot agree with Beebop211 selective deletions, trying to omit these important facts.JPratas (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)|Let's discuss it before jumping into more massive deletionsJPratas (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have further deleted some of my own material. The article was now reduced down from 50 pages to 14 pages. It is now shorter than after the first revisions by Beebop211 and shorter than Salazar’s or Lord Wellington’s bio. I must recognize that although Beebop211's style (of massive deletion) was not very friendly, the article has improved thanks to his contribution. I think it could still benefit from further cleaning. I sugest we eliminate quoting blogs such as http://sebphilately.blogspot.com.es/2007/05/aristides-de-sousa-mendes.html or quoting a flight magazine http://upmagazine-tap.com/en/pt_artigos/joao-crisostomo-new-york/ or a lost link http://www.soroptimistisrael.org/international/asm_testimonial.htm

I also suggest that we eliminate the following “His twin brother, born a few minutes earlier, had a July 18 birthday. Their ancestry included a notable aristocratic line: their mother, Maria Angelina Ribeiro de Abranches de Abreu Castelo-Branco, was a maternal illegitimate granddaughter of the 2nd Viscount of Midões, a lower rural aristocracy title.” A maternal illegitimate granddaughter of a lower rank title is not something worth mentioning.)Let's discuss it before jumping into more massive deletions — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC) JPratas (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Early life

Following Cullen's advice on the Talk page that "It is not appropriate to delve into excruciating detail about people's character flaws, or to try to psychoanalyze them" I have removed all such material from the Early Life section. Beebop211 (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If Sousa Mendes was expelled from the United States for anti-democratic behavior on can hardly say that introducing a short paragraph in his bio is “delving into excruciating detail about people's character flaws” !!!! This incident is included in all Sousa Mendes published biographies.JPratas (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing is cherry-picking, and choosing to present Sousa Mendes in the worst possible light. Why? Beebop211 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Cherry Picking. Don’t you think that a consul being expelled from the US or suspended for two years is important enough? Why don’t we wait for some independent opinion?JPratas (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear JPratas, I believe that Cullen328 is an independent voice. Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The text that you’ve just deleted contains important facts about Sousa Mendes. I see you have decided to disrespect the warnings you’ve received by BigCat82 saying that you are engaged in an edit war and that you should stop editing. That is regrettable, but is in line with your past behaviour. I find it rather odd that a married man has a mistress and a daughter from his mistress but his biography ignores it! That a consul is expelled from the US and his biography ignores it! That a consul is expelled from service for two years because he was abusing of public money but his bio does not say anything about it…... 17:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)JPratas (talk)

These are not details that concern his noteworthiness as a historical figure. The essential goal of the entry should be to make sure that his story (what makes him a historical figure) is presented clearly and not covered in mud. Am I wrong? Beebop211 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that all mention of the San Francisco incident should be removed but rather that it should not be given undue weight and must be well-referenced and written with neutral language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can live with that. Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Currently there are numerous footnotes indicating the source but no page number, or indicating a general website but not the specific page. This makes these references unusable, as they are incomplete. There are also numerous references that have been used to house defamatory material that was (rightly) expunged from the text. Therefore, I plan to go through all footnotes and expunge extraneous, defamatory or sloppy material. Any objections? Beebop211 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there are a lot of bad references, but a reference should not be removed just because it lacks a page number. It is better to improve useful references than to delete them. Why don't you start by listing those you believe to be without value, as well as your reason why? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. Beebop211 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, here is the (long) list of trouble spots. Feel free to see for yourself. What next? Thank you. Beebop211 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC):

1. page number needed. 2. p# needed 3. Tangential text should be deleted. 4. p# needed 7. Tangential text should be deleted. 9. No need to cite so many sources for a simple fact. I suggest selecting a source that has a complete citation, with page number. 10. p# needed 11. Should be combined with n.10: "Letter from Secretary General to Sousa Mendes, date, as cited in..." 14. Citation is missing year of publication. 15. Verifiable source needed, with page number. 16. Verifiable source needed, with page number. 18. Same as above. 21. p# needed 22. p# needed 23. Should be put in body of text or removed. If put in body of text, should have attached footnotes to verifiable sources. 26. Badly written and without reference to verifiable source. 27. Verifiable source needed, with page number. Why is this in a footnote? 28. Same as above. 29. Same as above. 30. Same as above. 31. Specific p# needed, not just the range of pages of the entire article. 32. Substance of note should go into body of text, with note leading to a verifiable source. 34. Verifiable source needed, with page number. 35. Tangential text should be deleted. 36. Same as above. 37. Verifiable source needed, with page number. 39. Verifiable source needed, with page number. 41. Verifiable source needed, with page number. 43. Should be combined with note 39 and reference a verifiable source, with page number. 46. p# needed 47. Same as above. 56. Specific p# needed, not just the range of pages of the entire article. 57. Same as above. 58. Tangential text should be deleted. 63. p# needed 66. Reference is to a self-published book and should be removed, as this is not a reliable source. 67. Specific URL needed, not general website reference. 68. This material belongs in the body of the text, not the footnote. 73. p# needed 74. Same as above.

In their current state, the references are completely messed up, and need to be cleaned up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Guidance would be welcome to avoid another battleground. Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Guidance can be found at referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A track record of incidents

Sousa Mendes accumulated incidents with all political regimes. Below is a concise list of those incidents (more concise is impossible) in a neutral language, without any comments or moral judgements.

"Along his career Sousa Mendes had several incidents with the Ministry. In 1919, while in Brazil he was suspended for two years because he used public money for his own private use. Sousa Mendes defended himself explaining he had financial problems and had been "forced to take out a loan in order to provide for his family needs".[Again in 1928 while in Vigo, 1932 while in Antwerp and 1938 in Bordeaux, he was subject to disciplinary proceedings because he had been late in transferring consulate funds to the ministry."

This facts are relevant because the were weighted in the disciplinary proceedings brought agains him. Any objections?JPratas (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Cullen?

Where are the reliable independent sources that discuss these incidents? The content you propose must accurately summarize what those sources say. What exactly is an "incident" in this context? What does "all political regimes" mean in this context? That seems strange wording. Please provide a reference to a reliable, independent source for this quotation and every single quotation you want to keep in the article. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fralon page 17 says the following

They could have stayed longer [in Brazil] if Sousa Mendes in August 1919 has not been temporarily suspended by the Foreign Ministry which regarded him as hostile to the republican regime…Sousa Mendes responded to the ministry in two stages. First, as an act of defiance, he emphasized his aristocratic origins by officially requesting that he should from then on be known as Aristides de Sousa Mendes do Amaral e Abranches and not just Sousa Mendes. Once he had done that he wrote to his superiors on 22 May 1920 explaining that he had financial problems and had been “forced to take out a loan to in order to provide for his family needs”.

Fralon page 39

He again ran into financial problems. On top of that he was subject to disciplinary procedures because he had been late in transferring funds to the ministry. In 1938..”

Spared Lives e-Book, the accusation says the following (pages 91 & 92)

As regards do his good professional conduct it should be noted that this is the 4th case of disciplinary proceedings brought against the defendant. One in July 1935 following certain statements made in public on the occasion of the Portuguese Pavilion at the Brussels Exposition, another brought by dispatch of 26-7-1935 owing to irregularities in the consular accounts. In the second case the accusations were considered proven and led the Instructor of the preceding to propose the penalty of a reprimand. A third case of disciplinary proceedings was brought by dispatch of 5 August 1938 because he left his post (Antwerp) without leave and without the knowledge of this Ministry or of the Legation in Brussels. The charge was considered proven...The proceeding als contain quite a long list of reprimands and censures against him between 1937 and 1939...When studying the porceedings I was particularly struck when noting that in 1917 the Defendant has been reprimanded for having left his posting (Zanzibar) and that in January 1938 proceedings were brought against him for precisely the same reason.

I can get more references from Rui Afonso, but there is already an extensive list that gives an idea of his tumultuous carrier.16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)JPratas (talk)

As mentioned above, I have no objection to the inclusion of any information or anecdote as long as its function is not to discredit Sousa Mendes. The essential is that in a time of crisis, he performed an act of great moral courage. How many of us could say the same? Beebop211 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Encounter with Rabbi Kruger

This section is essentially unreferenced, except for a general reference about the overall historical context. We need good referencing, especially to support the statement that his interactions with Kruger "plunged Sousa Mendes into a state of moral crisis". Where are the references for such a key claim? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Kruger's testimonial and another eyewitness testimonial are on the Yad Vashem website. Is that sufficient? http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/related/rabbi_krieger_ceremony.asp and http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/related/mendes_testimony.asp Otherwise, the encounter between Sousa Mendes and Kruger is detailed in several secondary sources (Clark, Fralon, and others). Beebop211 (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The primary sources are not adequate for referencing this section. If you have access to works by Clark and Fralon, then please reference this section properly. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Beebop211 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've just added the page references for Clark and Fralon. Beebop211 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Early life

This section is entirely unreferenced. Every factual claim in this section needs to be cited to high-quality, independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is basic biographical data that is taken from Fralon's biography. How/where should it be referenced? Beebop211 (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to referencing for beginners and feel free to ask me technical questions on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I see your referencing work and it is deeply appreciated. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added requested citations

... in the Early Life section. Beebop211 (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC) ... and elsewhere in the article. Beebop211 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Beebop211. If every sentence in this article accurately summarized what reliable secondary sources actually say, and all original research was removed, we wouldn't have such a serious problem here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Both involved editors need to stop the repeated reversions immediately, and only make changes which have received consensus on the talk page going forward. Edit warring can lead to blocks. You have both been warned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen. Could you please help us reach consensus? Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've stopped editing as soon as got the warning. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about Beebop211JPratas (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No one said to stop editing the article, JPratas, but rather to stop reverting without consensus. You are perfectly free to add page numbers and otherwise improve the poorly formatted references, or to add wikilinks, or to find and bring forward better references, or to add references to the many unreferenced claims in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me this Cullen328 but I feel very comfortable with having you balancing my editing. I do this as a hobby and want to keep it as an enjoyable experience. If you are willing to keep on helping I would rather prefer to work providing you references and views, if needed.JPratas (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

JPratas, you are asking Cullen to correct your mistakes? I'm not sure he is offering to do that. Beebop211 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I expect any editor to properly reference their own work, and to promptly remove all unsupported claims, original research and non-neutral language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Avraham Milgram

When Avraham Milgram reports that Sousa Mendes lost his pension, he is presented in this article as being wrong. When he questions the number of visas that Sousa Mendes issued, he is presented in the article as being right. Perhaps he is wrong about one point and right about the other. But it is not up to individual Wikipedia editors to decide that he is unreliable for one claim but not for another. We need a critique by academic researchers, published in a reliable source. Where is it?

Here is how a review of Milgram's recent book summarizes his conclusions about Portugal and the Jews during the Holocaust: "In sum, Milgram’s careful and compelling scholarship leaves a damning picture of a Portugal that, despite significant contradictions within its government and in its policies, could have saved far more Jews than it did. A huge gap remained between Portugal’s rescue potential after the war turned against Germany and the few thousand Jews who found a safe haven there. Milgram proves his point that one did not need antisemitism to turn away Jews." Interesting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Interesting indeed. Are you suggesting that Kaplan's review be incorporated, and if so, how? Beebop211 (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, although I think the book itself could be an excellent reference. I bring forward this review only for discussion purposes to indicate what seems to be Milgram's core argument. The review would be a good reference for an article about Milgrom or his book, but I don't think it is strong for this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed an interesting book and an excellent source Cullen328. I’ve read it and do recommend it. I guess that the accusation that Milgram makes could also be done to Sweden, Switzerland, UK, US or any other country. The holocaust was so awful that the terrible question will always be there. “Could Portugal have done more?” Milgram has intellectual integrity and he also says that Jewish organizations, HICEM and the JDC, also adopted themselves a pragmatic legalistic approach. Their actions were predicated on strict observance of Portuguese regulations and also did not want to risk their work for many thousands of Jewish immigrants in order to bring additional illegal immigrants from Spain of from France. And he recognizes that obviously it is easier and more convenient to investigate the behavior of non-Jews in rescuing Jews than to contend with ethical questions about the conduct of Jewish organizations during the Holocaust. In my view those statements are pure speculations. Portugal had to manage a precarious balance to avoid being dragged into the war. According to the British Ambassador in Lisbon, Sir Ronald Campbell, Portugal’s strict neutrality was the price the allies paid for strategic benefits accruing from Portugal's neutrality and that if her neutrality instead of being strict had been more benevolent in allies favor Spain would inevitably have thrown herself body and soul into the arms of Germany. If this had happened the Peninsula would have been occupied and then North Africa, with the result that the whole course of the war would have been altered to the advantage of the Axis.

Anyway Sousa Mendes actions happened in 1940. There was no Holocaust then. The Holocaust started in 1942. Sousa Mendes did not have a crystal ball. His actions never had much to do with saving Jews. 17:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)JPratas (talk)

The Holocaust started in 1942? What??? The Nazi rise to power was in 1933, the Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935 and Kristallnacht occurred in 1938. Hitler's plans were written black-on-white in Mein Kampf. You think the refugees were not running for their lives? Sousa Mendes makes clear in his defense that he knew exactly what was at stake. No crystal ball needed. And now you are claiming that "His actions never had much to do with saving Jews." What??? Beebop211 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Open murderous war against the Jews of Germany started on November 9, 1938 when the Nazis burned 1000 synagogues, arrested 30,000 Jews and murdered at least 91 outright. The father of the rabbi who later officiated at the wedding of my wife and I was arrested at that time, his synagogue was sacked, and the entire family was hounded out of the country. They were lucky that they had the means to escape to England. My father-in-law had dozens of relatives living in what is now Belarus. Mass murder of the Jews began there in the summer of 1941, and not a single one of his relatives there survived. I am really trying assuming good faith of you, JPratas and I am a patient guy, but your remarks above are stretching me to my absolute limit. Industrial scale mass murder began well before 1942, as shown also by what happened in Babi Yar in the Ukraine in 1941. Perhaps the time is fast approaching when I should step aside from this article and ask some administrators to look into the terrible mess that this article has become. The one thing that is certain is that I will not stand idly by and see this biography turned into a revisionist reimagining of history. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, at least JPratas had the good sense to ask you to intervene with this article! He deserves some credit! ;-) Beebop211 (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all Cullen328 please accept my apologies for causing you this distress. Second please take into consideration that I am not native in English and I have a cultural background completely different from yours. I come from a background where most people not only don’t understand why would someone be anti-Semite but more than that raised and educated admiring Jews. Almost all Portuguese, including me, have Jewish ancestors, and that is a reason of pride. For most Portuguese, a country spared to the horrors of world war ii, the holocaust is just beyond comprehension, while for you is your life story. So I asked your help and contribution to this article not only because you are experienced but also because you are a Jew. Maybe it was too much to ask and if you want to step out it is understandable. But your contribution so far has been outstanding and your help is needed and deeply appreciated. It would be a beautiful Wikipedia story if you Beebop211 and myself, with different perspectives and backgrounds, would be able to get along and enjoy a few weeks (or months) working together. Are you in?

p.s. I can try to better explain the point I was trying to make but I don’t want to generate more controversy at this point in time.JPratas (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The San Francisco incident

Please find below the proposed language:

"In 1923, while posted in San Francisco, Sousa Mendes clashed with the local Portuguese community, because he was enforcing a contribution to a charity institution to which the American Portuguese refused. He attacked the directors of the Cult of the Holy Spirit and outraged the Portuguese colony severely counter attacked Sousa Mendes in a local newspaper. Sousa Mendes defended himself making public statements to local newspapers, his statements were considered, anti-democratic and anti-American, and the US Department of State canceled his consular exequatur, expelling Sousa Mendes from his consular services in the US."

It is a short concise paragraph. The language is as neutral as the language found in the article by Milgram or Rui Afonso's book. Any objection?JPratas (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Words like "enforcing", "attack", "outraged", "severely counter attacked" are certainly not neutral, they are deeply judgmental. Which local newspapers? Who says his statements were considered "anti-democratic and anti-American"? His opponents back then or modern scholars? What did he say in his defense? Why do you use the strange word "colony" to describe Portuguese people living the the San Francisco area? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Milgram’s exact words are: “In 1923, while posted in San Francisco, Sousa Mendes clashed with the local Portuguese community over a contribution to a charity institution to which the American Portuguese refused. The affair, which was not reported to the MNE, reached the press in the form of insults and the MNE, which considered it a serious error. “ Milgram tell this story when he mentions the aide memoire from the British Embassy that accuses Sousa Mendes of improperly charging money and Milgram says that “This was therefore not the first time that Sousa Mendes had struggled for a charitable cause. On this occasion he did so in extremely delicate circumstances.” However as much as we may find admirable struggles for charitable causes, a consul, a public official, cannot engage himself in those struggles while performing his official duties.

There are several articles that can be found on newspaper archives, but most of them are gathered in the Sousa Mendes Virtual Museum, example: http://mvasm.sapo.pt/bc/FichaDoc.aspx?DID=640&CID=3

The language used to accuse Sousa Mendes is extremely violent and insulting. Sousa Mendes is accused of being a liar and also accused of canceling the notaries’ licenses with the aim of making more money for himself as a consul (as a consul he got money for issuing visas and other bureaucracies).

You will find letters from the Portuguese Embassy in Washington to Lisbon alerting to the Sousa Mendes conflict and his imminent expulsion from the US (March 14). Three days later, March 17, Sousa Mendes writes to the ministry, a very passionate letter (quixotic) , saying that he is aware that he had been officially notified (in January 2) that his conduct was not approved by the minister, but he thinks he has won the battle and has left clear his love to his country. He ended up being expelled. From this letters One can see that 1) He disregarded his instructions; 2) He was not able to foresee the consequences of his behavior, something that his colleagues in Washington were able to foresee.

I am telling you all this only because you asked. No need to remind me about primary sources.

Rui Afonso also dedicates some pages to this incident.

I think the article would benefit if we include a paragraph something like:

“In 1923, while posted in San Francisco, Sousa Mendes clashed with the local Portuguese community over a contribution to a charity institution to which the American Portuguese refused. The affair reached the press in the form of insults and the American government canceled his exequatur and expelled him from the US.”16:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)JPratas (talk)

The entire episode is described here, starting at about 5:50 to about 11:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfqZEktUYk0 It's amusing but completely benign, and certainly tangential to the events of 1940, except for the fact that it gives some early hints that he was his own man. Note from the story that over 100 people from the Portuguese community in the Bay Area came to his farewell dinner to wish him well. I have no objection to the inclusion of any information or anecdote as long as its function is not to discredit Sousa Mendes. Beebop211 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

JPratas, did you know that 100 people came to that farewell dinner, and if so, why did you omit that fact? Since I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, I still want specific citations to the San Francisco newspaper articles in question. I will then go to the San Francisco Public Library, read the actual original articles and all available articles about the incident, so that I can be sure that this article accurately reflects both sides of the controversy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool! Beebop211 (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I watched that part of the video, which is very interesting. Certainly, any coverage of this incident in this article needs to include both sides of this story. It seems that the farewell dinner was held at the Palace Hotel, San Francisco, one of the grand old hotels of the city, built right after the 1906 earthquake. It still stands and I know it well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not know about this video Cullen328 but I did know that part of the Portuguese community took the Sousa Mendes side because, among other original documents, he says so in his letter (that can be found at the Sousa Mendes Virtual Museum). It is a very emotional letter, in a crusader tone, where he says he was able to gather hundreds of people in his fight against his enemies. You can find the letter and all articles in here http://mvasm.sapo.pt/bc/FichaDoc.aspx?DID=644&CID=3 I limited myself to what Milgram says and that is in line with your recommendation of using secondary published sources. I never tried to hide anything I have several times provided this very complete primary source.(the virtual museum) JPratas (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sousa Mendes Political views and Sousa Mendes as an early supporter of the dictatorship

The below paragraph provides an important idea of Sousa Mendes political views and actions in his early years.

With the coup of May 28, 1926, Sousa Mendes was appointed consul in Vigo, Spain. Sousa Mendes was a monarchist, and while in Vigo he collaborated with the dictatorship. In 1929, when he was stationed in Vigo, he referred to himself as “the right person to oversee and annihilate all the conspiracies, conducted by Portuguese political refugees, conspiring against the Portuguese dictatorship". In this letter Sousa Mendes requested to be appointed to Antwerp and his request was granted. There, as Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, he met Nobel Prize winners Maurice Maeterlinck and Albert Einstein. After almost ten years in Belgium, Sousa Mendes was assigned in 1938 to be Consul-General of Bordeaux, France, with jurisdiction over all of southwest France, a lower rank institution.

Any objections? if so please explain why. Cullen? What is your view on this?JPratas (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Where are the references for this material? Was it unusual for civil servants to support the Salazar government when it came to power? Was monarchism an unusual political view for those of his class and background? Please be aware that all quotations must be referenced, without exception. Has this particular quotation been analyzed by independent reliable sources? If so, what did they say? Why is it worthy of mention that he met two famous people? Did he have substantive interaction with them? Don't diplomats meet famous people routinely during their duties? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Southwest France is not "a lower rank institution." Beebop211 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Professor Wheeler says that “Sousa Mendes was a lower-rank official”. Pag 120. And anyone familiarized with Portuguese diplomacy know this. Sousa Mendes was not form the diplomatic career he was from the consular carrier. There is quite a difference between diplomatic officers and consular officers. Diplomats deal with politics and have diplomatic immunity. Consuls deal mostly with bureaucracy and have limited diplomatic immunity. If you google Sousa Mendes everybody says he was a diplomat but he wasn’t. Milgram says that Bordeaux was a lower-rank institution and he is right.17:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)JPratas (talk)

Unfortunately what you wrote was that Southwest France was a "lower rank institution." This doesn't make any sense. Bordeaux is also not an institution. Please JPratas: Wikipedia is not the place to practice your English. Beebop211 (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong Beebop211. Southwest France not my editing.17:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)JPratas (talk)

This is exactly the text you are proposing above. Beebop211 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference Cullen328. for "With the coup of May 28, 1926, Sousa Mendes was appointed consul in Vigo, Spain. Sousa Mendes was a monarchist, and while in Vigo he collaborated with the dictatorship. In 1929, when he was stationed in Vigo, he referred to himself as “the right person to oversee and annihilate all the conspiracies, conducted by Portuguese political refugees, conspiring against the Portuguese dictatorship". is the attached letter.

In this letter Sousa Mendes requested to be appointed to Antwerp and his request was granted." is the this letter that can be googled or found in the Sousa Mendes Virtual Museum.

You have uploaded a fragment of a letter as "my own work" and labeled it as a letter by Sousa Mendes. What is this document, and where does it come from? And how is it yours--do you own it? Beebop211 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As to mention that he met two famous people I agree with you. But it was not my editing. I was just respecting other editor's material.JPratas (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

How can this letter you uploaded be "your own work", JPratas? You didn't write that letter so that appears to be an erroneous claim, which I formally request you to correct immediately. The letter is a primary source and is not by any means an adequate source for this section. We need a reliable secondary source. If we say he was a monarchist, we need a reliable secondary source for that. If we say he "collaborated", we need a reliable secondary source specifically discussing his collaboration in the context of what other members of the consular corps did when Salazar came to power. We need a reliable secondary source saying that it was significant or unusual for him to have requested a posting to Antwerp. Wikipedia articles should not report run of the mill matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a snapshot (a photo) of a publicly available letter from 1929. It is the same situation as if I had taken a photo of Sousa Mendes Mansion at Passal and upload it. But I admit I am not a copyright expert and I might be mistaken. I uploaded it because you said you wanted the exact reference. I am not particularly interested in having it displayed on the talk page. JPratas (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Circular 14

This section has been edited in such a way that the reader has no idea what Circular 14 is. It's hardly quoted, and it's presented in the most benign language possible. In fact, this Portuguese government regulation, forbidding Portuguese visas to almost every category of refugee, was a death sentence for thousands. Since this is the regulation that Sousa Mendes defied, it needs to be clarified. In order to eliminate the possibility of misleading interpretations being presented, I propose simply reinstating the exact text of Circular 14 and eliminating any explanatory material. Any objections? Beebop211 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The exact text is a primary source, and instead we should summarize what one or more high-quality secondary sources say about Circular 14. Quoting a sentence or two may be appropriate, but all quotes must be properly referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Beebop211 (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Taken for Milgram - Circular no. 14 of November 11, 1939. These instructions forbid fourth-class consuls to grant passports or consular visas without first consulting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Without first consulting the Minister of Foreign Affairs, consuls will not be able to grant consular visas to: foreigners of indefinite, or contested nationality or one under litigation, to displaced persons, to holders of Nansen passports and to Russians; to foreigners whose reasons for coming to Portugal the consul does not consider satisfactory, and furthermore, those on whose passports a declaration or some sign states that they will not be able to return to their country of origin; consuls should try to find out from all foreigners whether they have means of subsistence; to Jews expelled from the countries of their nationality or from those they come from; to those, who invoking their sailing from a Portuguese port, do not have in their passports a visa valid for the country of their destination, a ticket by sea or air, or one which the respective companies guarantee. The consuls will, however, be very careful not to hinder the arrival in Lisbon of passengers going on to other countries and especially those travelling on trans-Atlantic air routes or to the Far East.JPratas (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence, the way it is rendered here, is problematic and should either be deleted or properly explained. The meaning, and the government policy at the time, was that refugees with boat passage or air passage (very expensive on Pan Am Clipper ships) already booked could be given visas without hindrance. In practice, this was a draconian requirement and applied to the tiniest fraction of the refugees. It should not be read to mean (as JPratas is suggesting) that any refugees desiring to go to other countries could be given visas no questions asked. Beebop211 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Beebop211 This is an exact copy paste from Milgram. All works by scholars coincide in that Circular 14 aimed to facilitate visa’s to people in transit and make it difficult to all those that could not prove that they were in transit. Portugal did not want refugees that could settle down or stay for a long time. The regime was also especially concerned with left-wing elites that could agitate the country, etc. I believe and can help you source it that Milgram`s book specifically mentions the bureaucratic hurdle you are mentioning. I can provide the paragraph and the page number, tomorrow. Let me know if you want it. JPratas (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sousa Mendes' Disobedience

I removed the phrase "escaping from Franco" in the first paragraph, as it was already stated that the visa recipient was an anti-Franco activist. I have also removed the last paragraph, which had no bearing upon the subject at hand. Any objections? Beebop211 (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine Beebop211JPratas (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy within Portugal

This section should be removed because it casts doubt where none exists. Does anyone believe that there would be all those posthumous honors including a week-long national homage (1995) if there were doubt about who he was and what he did? It's insidious to include this section and gives undue weight to a fringe POV. Beebop211 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

This is the reality and the article should not ignore it if it is supposed to remain neutral. If the idea is to write something to make Sousa Mendes look like an hero, then off course we should hide this and all the other facts that might seem less commendable. JPratas (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course Sousa Mendes was a hero. Beebop211 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an extremely controversial section which is entirely unreferenced. The only footnote is mention of the unreferenced San Francisco incident. That's not an acceptable reference. The section includes unreferenced non-neutral praise of João Hall Themido as "one of the most respected Portuguese diplomats". Maybe true, but what reliable source said that? That biography includes an unrefrenced description of the chapter in question, added by JPratas. The section mentions comments made by José Hermano Saraiva, and the section about that chapter in that article, added a few months ago by JPratas is also entirely unreferenced. Part of this section relies on claims in a self-published book by Carlos Fernandes, but does not even cite the book in question. Self-published books are very rarely reliable sources for anything, especially controversial claims such as these. Why is this content in the article?

As presented now in the article, these all appear to primary sources by people advancing an agenda, as opposed to independent secondary sources by professional historians. As such, they are inappropriate for making such controversial assertions.

Do these critics represent a legitimate mainstream view by modern historians? Or do they represent a fringe, revisionist point of view? Without referencing, we can't even begin to evaluate that. In my opinion, all of these unreferenced sections should be removed from all three articles promptly, until secondary sources can be provided that place this controversial material into historical context.

Isn't it true that the vast majority of reliable secondary sources describe Sousa Mendes as a hero? If so, then that is the core message that this article should present. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hooray! Thank you, Cullen. You mention "all three articles." Which three? Beebop211 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This article, plus the articles about João Hall Themido and José Hermano Saraiva, which are part of the ongoing effort to criticize Sousa Mendes on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to disagree Cullen328. I believe the main works published on Sousa Mendes are: By scholars 1)Portugal Salazar and the Jews, Milgram 2011 & Portugal the Consuls and the Jews, Milgram 1999 2) And Who Is My Neighbor? A World War II Hero of Conscience for Portugal, Douglas Wheeler 3) Album de Memórias, Jose Hermano Saraiva. By Journalists Two books 1)by Fralon and 2) Rui Afonso. By Diplomats: O Cônsul Aristides Sousa Mendes-a Verdade e a Mentira – Ambassador Carlos Fernandes (Self published): Uma Autobiografia Disfarçada, Hall Themido, Published by the Portuguese Foreign Office in 2008 ISBN 9789898140012. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I therefore believe that Saraiva’s view and Themido’s view (this last one published by the Portuguese Foreign Office) should have a place (even if minor) in the article. Wikipedia policy also states that “there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. And only “Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted”. If the problem is references (they have been deleted over time) I can provide them. We can also rephrase.I also do not agree that if these people decided to make a stand and publish something, in their memoires, for posterity we now want to go to their articles and erase what they said.JPratas (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we stick to English-language sources. Any objection? Beebop211 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

High quality English language sources are preferred. I do not object to citing mainstream Portuguese language sources written by professional historians, but expect a convincing and persuasive argument here on the talk page that these are sources of impeccable academic credibility. Use of advocacy sources by those who aren't respected historians should be kept to a minimum, and used only if other reliable sources verify that their views are a significant part of the academic discussion. Self published sources need to pass a very high bar, and I see no evidence that the mentioned self-published source is acceptable for any contentious claim in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That is going to be a problem. I don’t think there is any work by a scholar, in English, other the ones from Milgram’s and the paper from Wheeler. Probably the most complete work is Rui Afonso’s, in Portuguese, who is not a scholar, and the biography his extremely biased, starting with the title. Fralon’s book is not from a scholar and although written with the aim of glorifying Sousa Mendes it is an honest work. The book from Themido, is from an Ambassador, published by the Portuguese Foreing office in 2008, can hardly be considered as unreliable. Saraiva is a well know historian recognized both in Portugal and Brazil. Therefore neither Fralon, Afonso or Themido are sources of impeccable academic credibility. To the best of my knowledge the only two scholars that wrote about Sousa Mendes in Portuguese are Saraiva and Fulsner (She published a study on Portugal and the Jews).JPratas (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources in English (see article bibliography). Beebop211 (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Trial and punishment

This section is filled with defamatory material. What to do? Beebop211 (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Carefully identify the unreferenced or poorly referenced material, and bring it here for discussion. Any contentious material cited to primary sources like legal codes or government pay records is original research. If reliable sources conflict, we must report what both say, without favoring one over the other. We will discuss all of it and remove anything that does not achieve consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see new section below on this topic. Beebop211 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

War begins on the western front

I deleted this heading and merged this section with the preceding one, since they are both about the same subject: Sousa Mendes' disobedience in the period prior to June 1940. I also made a few small stylistic changes. Any objections? Beebop211 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I do object that you keep on deleting text after have being warned no to do it. I do object that you’ve just completely erased from Sousa Mendes life the fact that in June 1940 Sousa Mendes had a French mistress, 5 months pregnant of him. JPratas (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this info? Beebop211 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that if a father of 14, devoted Catholic, is having an affair and his mistress gets pregnant the fact must have had impact in his life and his actions. What is the point of erasing it?It is included in all his biographies. Even with quotations from his son, Pedro NunesJPratas (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the fact that he recognized his daughter and married her mother after he was widowed is a positive trait, but either way it's not relevant to the article, much less to the subject of "War begins on the western front." Beebop211 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In my view, all that is necessary is to say that he was married twice, mentioning both wives, and that he had X number of children. You say, JPratas, that this "must have had impact in his life and his actions". If so, then that "impact" should be described in reliable, independent sources. By whom, and in what fashion? If you can't cite those sources, then it doesn't belong here. Many people have marital problems and it is rarely appropriate to describe such problems in detail in a Wikipedia biography, although book length biographies may give a bit more attention to this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

All the Sousa Mendes’ biographies mention that he a had a nervous breakdown and retired to his room for 3 days and nights. Acording to Rui Afonso Andrée, whose freedom and disregard for the proprieties set her at opposite poles from Angelina, got pregnant and she did not try to hide it, quite the contrary, she made a public announcement, with great scandal, during a Sunday mass at Riberac`s cathedral. (Afonso, Rui - Um Homem Bom, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, O "Wallenberg" Portugues, Ed Caminho, pag 39) In those days of June Andrée, his mistress, now pregnant did, not become more serene, quite the opposite, she would constantly show up at the consulate provoking scandals. (page 65) In one of these occasions it was Sousa Mendes son in law that had to expel her from the office. Andrée’s scandals assumed such proportions that she ended up being imprisoned. While she was in prison, Sousa Mendes visited her and brought her some oranges (page 65) it was under this pressure, and the refugees issue that Sousa Mendes had a nervous breakdown and retired to his room where he stayed in bed for three days and nights. Andrée would keep on playing an important role in his life. She went to Portugal to have the baby and she then returned to Vichy France. When Angelina died Sousa Mendes married Andrée. After their marriage Andrée soon clashed with Sousa Mendes' sons who always considered her an adventurer. The couple moved to Passal, Sousa Mendes' imposing mansion in the town of Cabanas de Viriato. It did not take long for Andrée to show to Sousa Mendes's sons that they were not welcome at Passal and soon the youngsters were separated from their father (pag 303) . John Paul joined other brothers and sisters already living in California. Pedro Nuno left to the Congo. Geraldo went to Angola and Clotilde went to Mozambique. (pag 303). The people of Cabanas de Viriato also did not take much to Andrée, "the foreigner" whom they held responsible for the family misfortunes. They criticized her for having "ruined" Sousa Mendes and gradually sold off all the furniture in the family mansion, Passal. This criticism was also shared by his brothers Cesar and Joao Paulo and his cousin Silverio. They all had serious disputes with Arisitides on account of Andrée's bad spending habits. (pag 307)

Jose Alain Fralon dedicates more than 10 pages to the description of life with Andrée. He says that Sousa Mendes had always had financial problems, but now they were getting steadily worse. He never had any money sense, and Adrée [his former mistress and later second wife] even less so than he. They were similar in other aspects, for instance in their love for music. Andrée was not an easy stay at home sort of person… Jose Fidalgo who had worked as their chauffer at cabanas [now a taxi driver] would come almost every day to pick up Aristides and Andrée and take them to Viseu or some other destination…Marie-Rose met her father [Sousa Mendes] for the first time in 1951…Andrée sold the whole contente of the house for 15,000 Portuguese escudos, the banks were bombarding them with final demands….Sousa Mendes insisted to travel to France again. Marie-Rose her uncle and her aunt came to fetch him in Perigueux and they took a taxi to Riberac…When Sousa Mendes died Andrée was the only one by his side.

Can we honestly say that none of this had an impact in his life? This was his life. This was the life he chose. Telling it as it was is not to denigrate him. We cannot reduce all this to a sentence. 14:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)JPratas (talk)

And why is all this being deleted without further discussions?

Here is a suggested two-sentence version, minus all the judgmental language: "In 1949, following the death of Angelina, Sousa Mendes married Andree Cibial, a French musician. Together they had a daughter, Marie-Rose." Beebop211 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That is concise, neutral and excellent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that both of you Cullen328 and Beebop211 got the idea that I want to denigrate Sousa Mendes and you are both working under this mindset. Your eyes and brains are contaminated. I kindly ask you to please step back and rethink the way you are approaching this early days chapter. Have you read the Oskar Schidler’s early days on wikipedia? “Schindler was arrested several times in 1931 and 1932 for public drunkenness also around this time he had an affair with Aurelie Schlegel, a school friend. She bore him a daughter, Emily, in 1933, and a son, Oskar Jr, in 1935. Schindler later claimed the boy was not his son. Schindler's father, an alcoholic… Schindler became a spy for the Abwehr, the intelligence service of Nazi Germany, in 1936… he did it because he needed the money; by this time Schindler had a drinking problem and was chronically in debtetc…etc…” This is his life story. Telling like it was is not denigrating him. Is it? St Paul, one of the most admired figures of the Christian religion started as a persecutor of Christians. If the end product of our work gives the impression that we have been deliberating omitting facts about Sousa Mendes, the article will be weak and susceptible of being considered biased. You both know that the sentence does not reflect that she was is lover and got pregnant in 1940.

Rui Afonso thinks that part of his decision after the 3 days breakdown had to do with his catholic faith and need to be closer to God.

Your choice.JPratas (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Either way, you are trying to cast doubt on the motivation for Sousa Mendes' action. But instead, the reader is left wondering about your motivation. Beebop211 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Provinding the page numbers requested by Beebop211

Please find below a list of page numbers of facts that have been recurrently deleted. The page number are from “A Good Man in Evil Times: The Story of Aristides de Sousa Mendes -- The Man Who Saved the Lives of Countless Refugees in World War II” by Jose-Alain Fralon. The author says that “ It would have not been possible to write this book without the help of Aristides Sousa Mendes’ children…..

Such details might have a place in a full-length monograph, but as Cullen explains in crystal-clear language, on Wikipedia "It is not appropriate to delve into excruciating detail about people's character flaws, or to try to psychoanalyze them." Why is it that after reading these books about Sousa Mendes and his heroism that you cannot find a kind word to say about him? Beebop211 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This book is endorsed as a good reading by the Sousa Mendes Foundation Website.

A few examples on how Sousa Mendes managed money:

• “They could have stayed more [in Brazi] if Sousa Mendes, in August 1919, had not been temporarily suspended…he wrote to his superiors on May 22 1920 explained that he had financial problems and had been forced to take out a loan in order to provide for family needs”." (Pag 17)

• “He was someone who always spent without counting the cost and believed that the mere idea of balancing one’s budget showed lack of breeding” (pag 18)

• “after asking his brother for a further loan to help pay for the statue of Christ the King”. (pag 38)

• “He again ran into financial problems. On top of that he was subject to disciplinary procedures because he had been late in transferring funds to the ministry. In 1938..”

• To have an idea of the fortune he spent in 1935 on transforming his wife’s “bourgeois building” into a “palace” please read pag 30. He had 12 children to raise, not a wise number of children for a diplomat, he was constantly asking for “loans”, it seems unreasonable to spend a fortune in building a palace. It looks rather odd that the Portuguese public money is being used to rebuild a palace where Sousa Mendes spent a fortune, ruining himself, instead of saving money to educate his children. But this is just my personal opinion…I will not include it in the article.

• “Sousa Mendes had always had financial problems, but now they were getting steadily worse. He never had any money sense, and Adrée [his former mistress and later second wife] even less so than he.” Pag 136

• “Jose Fidalgo who had worked as their chauffer at cabanas [now a taxi driver] would come almost every day to pick up Aristides and Andrée and take them to Viseu or some other destination”. – If he was having money problems how was he taking these daily expensive taxi rides? (pag 137)

• On his lack of respect for protocols:

• “Aristides would also sometimes ask his elder children [underage] to replace him or his wife at official functions…we spend the whole night dancing and swinging music and wolfing the buffet to the astonishment of the governor and his suite, Pedro Nuno [his son] remembers” pag 26

• On his mistress personality.

• “She met an African diplomat in Bordeaux. But they did not get on…He too was attracted by Andrée, whose freedom and disregard for the proprieties set he at opposite poles form Angelina, his loyal devoted and devout wife.” (pag 43)
• There is also a letter written by Sousa Mendes where he severely criticizes his wife Angelina for being narrow minded and not suitable to be a consul's wife ( I have excluded it from the article)

Rui Afonso provides a much more extensive list. But the book is in Portuguese. I don't think the book was translated to English. I have included in the article a super concise summary. Have in mind that Rui Afonso and Fralon are both Sousa Mendes admirers. They did not try to denigrate Sousa Mendes. But they have intellectual honesty.

You seem consistently tempted to engage in original research with the comments you make about this material, JPratas. It is not up to us as Wikipedia editors to make inferences and draw conclusions that are not made by the reliable sources themselves. How do you know whether or not he could afford taxi rides, or what number of children was "wise" for a diplomat to have? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry Cullen328 I thought that with this being just the article talk page one could express his own views more freely. I know that a 20 mile ride (40 both ways) in Portugal, 194x was very expensive and only wealthy people could afford it. I also know that Portuguese diplomats tend to have less children than most people. The government does not support their children’s education outside the country and diplomat’s children usually study in expensive private schools, and study in English, French or Spanish for mobility reasons. (Until today there has been some debate because the constitution says that these children are entitled to free education but in this special case that is not happening unless families are separated). JPratas (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that the prohibition on original research does not apply to discussion on the talk page for the purpose of improving the article. But talking about expensive taxi rides seems only an indulgence of what seems to me to be your desire to denigrate Sousa Mendes, which also seems to me to be your only reason for contributing to Wikipedia. Perhaps in your mind, that serves a broader agenda concerned with Portuguese honor and patriotism? I do not know for sure, but your editing pattern gives me great concern. We need editors who are here for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, not those who show signs of being here to grind axes or advance a partisan agenda. What is your actual reason for editing Wikipedia, JPratas? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I like Portuguese history,Cullen328 , especially 20th century. I like good objective history. I’ve seen the Sousa Mendes story beeing twisted, saying, among other things, that he was stripped of his salary, all in order to denigrate Salazar’s figure. At the same time I’ve been assisting to vicious attacks to people like Moses Bensabat Amzalak that was the leader of the Portuguese Jewish Community for over 50 years and probably one of the people in Portugal that helped more Jews. He is attacked only because he was Salazar’s friend. I’ve seen other Portuguese politicians and diplomats suffering the same sort of attacks. At the same time I see that heroic figures like Sampaio Garrido and Teixeira Branquinho that put their lives in danger to save Jews in Hungary 1944 being completely ignored. And they are ignored because they worked in cooperation with Salazar and therefore they are useless for the campaign to denigrate him. The same thing with Leite Pinto a man that organized dozens of trains coming from Berlin loaded with refugees. Because he worked under Salazar orders he is completely ignored. I am not particularly fond of Salazar and I admire Sousa Mendes’ courage. Everybody says he was a very good man. I never heard one single person saying he wasn’t. I would like to bring back the Sousa Mendes’ story closer to reality purging the dishonesties and I would like also that Garrido, Branquinho, Amzalak, Esaguy, Leite Pinto, etc. would get the credit for what they did and in order to do that I need your help. I am striving for having in Wikipedia reliable information. Is this a crime? May I remind you that you are working on this article because I've asked for your help? JPratas (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the article on Sousa Mendes. It's not an article on Garrido, Branquinho, Amzalak, Esaguy, Leite Pinto, or Salazar. I'm sorry that you feel that sources on 20th century Portugal are wrong. Wikipedia is not the forum to correct the judgment of history. Why don't you publish an article on the subject yourself? Then everyone can footnote it and you will have achieved your dream. Beebop211 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Below are some extracts from Portugal the Consuls and the Jews, by Avrahm Milgram

• “It was probably Harry Ezratty63 who was the first to mention in an article published in 1964 that Sousa Mendes had saved 30,000 refugees, of which 10,000 were Jews, a number which has since then been repeated automatically by journalists and academics. That is, Ezratty, imprudently, took the total number of Jewish refugees who passed through Portugal and ascribed it to the work of Aristides de Sousa Mendes. According to the visa lists of visas issued in the Bordeaux consulate, Sousa Mendes granted 2,862 visas between January 1 and June 22, 1940. The majority, that is, 1,575visas, were issued between June 11 and 22, in the last days of his consular career there.”

• “In order to have an idea of the extent of the exaggeration in the number of Jews who actually entered Portugal on the one hand, and the number that is believed entered thanks to Sousa Mendes on the other, it is sufficient to cite that, in the report of the HICEM, 1,538 Jews who came to Portugal as refugees without visas to other countries sailed from Lisbon in the second half of 1940…. the discrepancy between the reality and the myth of the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes is great”.

• “In 1923, while posted in San Francisco, Sousa Mendes clashed with the local Portuguese community over a contribution to a charity institution to which the American Portuguese refused. The affair, which was not reported to the MNE, reached the press in the form of insults and the MNE, which considered it a serious error. “

Let me know if you need more page numbers. JPratas (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Does Milgram revisit these points in his lengthy, more recent book? Has his judgment changed on any of them? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe, Cullen328 , that Milgram basically repeated the same things. I can check it if you want me to. Note that the Yad Vashem website (I believe after an email I’ve sent them) has changed their position “the 30,000 refugees, including 10,000 Jews, congregated at the Portuguese consulate in Bordeaux”. Have in mind that Yad Vashem recognized Sousa Mendes in 1966 and at that time the Sousa Mendes' files were not public. JPratas (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You actually wrote to Yad Vashem to ask them to change their position? Beebop211 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I did. I respect Yad Vashem. I believe that I rendered a good service to them. It is very important that they maintain their credibility. JPratas (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And did they answer you? Beebop211 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing that is striking to me is the difference between the way that Milgram himself described the San Francisco incident, and that far more negative and alarmist language that JPratas used to describe it. Obviously, the bare facts of the incident are not good for Sousa Mendes and his reputation. What is the motivation to make the incident read far more dramatically and negatively than Milgram portrays it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I urge you to watch the 5-minute YouTube segment describing the incident from beginning to end. It's really quite a benign episode. This is from a symposium held last year in the Bay Area. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfqZEktUYk0 The relevant segment begins at around 5:50. Beebop211 (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw the video. I’ve noticed Cullen328 and Beebop211that the speaker also mentions that Circular 14 also aimed to prevent homosexuals from entering the country. First time I have ever heard of it. Cannot find it anywhere in the text of Circular 14 or any published work. Probably a nice thing to say in Frisco if someone wants to gather sympathy but gives an idea of the credibility of the speaker.JPratas (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, JPratas. That was a mistake. But the rest of the story is accurate. Beebop211 (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bessa Lopes report

Removed redundancy and cleaned up a reference. Any objection? As for the description of Bessa Lopes' views of Sousa Mendes' financial situation, as well as the assertion that the view is in error, these are unsourced pronouncements and should be corrected or removed. Beebop211 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the whole paragraph. The Bessa Lopes report does not deserve much credibility. The report makes groundless accusations such as that “Sousa Mendes was persecuted because he was a Jewish descendent and "apparently, the poor Consul Sousa Mendes was unable to escape the claws of the new inquisition which stubbornly persists in :Portugal” and also that he was deprived of his salary.

The statement that: “The report was suppressed by the government for over a decade” is ridiculous. Portugal had more than 10 prime ministers in those 10 years! Mario Soares was prime minister twice in that period.

All this chapter only discredits the article, the Wikipedia and Sousa Mendes. JPratas (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with both your assessment and your recommendation. Beebop211 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, but at least you should say which government (out of the 10) JPratas (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Reese Erlich is my source, and he doesn't specify. This means that we cannot specify. Beebop211 (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Does not seem very reasonable to kind of "copy paste" things that don't make sense just because someone said so.JPratas (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearing Sousa Mendes' name

I would just like to say something general here about what's been going on with this page. For decades following 1940 and particularly after Sousa Mendes' death in 1954, his family and others worked tirelessly to clear his name. This finally happened in 1987, when the Portuguese government reversed course and apologized to the family for the injustices they had endured. All of this is well-documented in the bibliography attached to this article (see especially articles by Erlich, Jacobvitz and Smith, as well as the 1986 New York Times article). What is so exhausting about the Wiki battle that is going on now is that it's like a replay of what happened prior to 1987. The time of suffering and injustice is over for the Sousa Mendes family, whom I greatly admire and respect. History has made its judgment. This page should do honor to the memory of a great man. He deserves no less. Beebop211 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what the article said before I edited:

“He saved an enormous number of lives, but lost his career. In 1941, Salazar lost political trust in Sousa Mendes and stripped the diplomat of his title, subsequently ordering that no one in Portugal show him any charity.[6] He also found he could not resume his law career, as he was blocked from registration, and he was forced to surrender his foreign-issue driver's license.[4] Just before the war's end in 1945, he suffered a stroke that left him at least partially paralyzed. In his later years, the formerly much-honored diplomat was abandoned by most of his colleagues and friends and at times was blamed by some of his close relatives.[7] Aided by a local Jewish refugee agency — which had begun to feed the family and pay their rent upon discovering the situation — the children moved to other countries in search of opportunities they were now denied in Portugal, though all accounts by them indicate they never blamed their father or regretted his decision. His wife, Angelina, died in 1948. Stripped of his pension, he died in poverty on April 3, 1954, still in disgrace with his government."

And this is what you can read in the web (example from the Wallenberg Foundation website)

“After the war, the Consul-General was stripped of his title for taking action against the ideals of his successor and became extremely impoverished. He could not find work and by order of Salazar, no one was allowed to show him charity of any kind. Sousa Mendes and his family were destined to starve for their compassion, and on April 3rd, 1954, Sousa Mendes died.”

But If you read any secondary reliable source (e.g. Fralon, Rui Afonso and Scholar Douglas Wheeler) they all say he was receiving a salary. Rui Afonso even says that his salary was 3 times the salary of a teacher. Rui Afonso also dedicates 20 pages to a detailed description on how his second wife ruined him, and describing all her unreasonable spending and even her character flaws when dealing with Sousa Mendes’ children and how his children hated her and blamed her for making the last years of their mother’s life so miserable(sic.). I have no idea why Rui Afonso dedicated 20 pages to the description of this despicable scenes when his purpose was to glorify Sousa Mendes and he is probably the man that most fought for his rehabilitation.

What I would not like to see in the article is, unsourced, defamatory paragraphs as the ones above that denigrate Salazar, Teotonio Pereira, Texeira de Sampaio, Count Tovar, Paula Brito, etc.. Most of these people also had children and grandchildren.

I also don’t think it is honest to say that the Portuguese government Sousa Mendes him to "a severe crackdown" and "a merciless disciplinary process." without mentioning that he forged passports to an army runway and a personal acquaintance (a crime that could have cost him several year in prison), without mentioning the formal accusation made by the British Embassy, without mentioning his track record of indiscipline, etc.

Issues as the salary or the admission to the bar association are not strong views. Are facts.

All this mess would be avoided if so many false statements weren’t being published. His grand-children don't need to go to TV to say nation-wide that their grandfather never received one penny from the government. You would be doing a favor to those you admire if you would stop striving to have in the wikipedia the defamatory paragraphs such as the one I showed you or restrain from bringing defamatory videos from the youtube.

If you want to denigrate Salazar you have pleeeenty of material. Don’t need to invent new ones.JPratas (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fralon and Rui Afonso both had the decency to list the track record of incidents (and crime) and also had the decency to explain that if Sousa Mendes died without money was because his second wife was a spender Not because the government didn’t give him money or his friends and people he saved didn’t help him and turned their backs to him.JPratas (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Original research vs primary source

I think that Beebop211 is confusing Primary Sources with original research. According to Wikipedia guidelines original, secondary, and tertiary sources may all be appropriately used. Primary sources may also be used as references for specific uncontroversial facts that require no interpretation, such as names and dates. I believe this is the case for the letters to the Portuguese bar association and for the case of Sousa Mendes payroll. In my view, given the misinformation that still exists around the Sousa Mendes story, the possibility of seeing the original document clears all doubts and ends any discussion. Nevertheless, to avoid discussions, I will also be providing references from both Fralon, Rui Afonso and Douglas Wheeler. Anyway on the payroll issue you can also read in the talk page the article “Disputed”. I believe the both editors “Sousa Mendes Foundation” and Nabla have already accepted this. Nabla said he was fine and "Sousa Mendes Foundation” never edited again. I believe it came back under the name Coimbralove (my assumption).JPratas (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the salient excerpt from the "Disputed" section, from Wiki administrator Nabla: "Months ago, the article was a poor smallish one, now it is a unreadable wall of text, it has 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." Beebop211 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I oppose use of primary sources in these matters because it is controversial and most certainly involves interpretation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case (Mendes' salary) it does not make a difference because Fralon, Rui Afonso and Douglas Wheeler they all say he was receiving a salary. But I disagree with you. Since this is still a source of discussion a primary source such as a letter written by Sousa Mendes himself where he says, black and white, that he is receiving a salary and he quotes the exact amount, it is a source that not only kills any discussion but also adds value to the article and to wikipedia as a reliable source of information.JPratas (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)