Jump to content

Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Notable people issued visas by Sousa Mendes

I propose that the following passages be removed:

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 Habsburgs, the Rothschild, etc
In a recent interview,[75] Rui Afonso, Sousa Mendes first biographer and admiror, disappointed, said that after many years of investigation he had arrived at the conclusion that most of the people who received visas from Sousa Mendes were wealthy people: millionaires, bankers, aristocrats, diamond dealers from Antwerp, movie actors, pianists, etc. Some of the notable recipients include:

Reasons:

Paragraph 1 is an inaccurate, non-neutral and unsourced interpretation of the circumstances of individual visas. Paragraph 2 uses as its source an interview in Portuguese and twists the words of the interviewee, Rui Afonso. Afonso is not saying that Sousa Mendes gave preferential treatment to wealthy refugees, as JPratas alleges. Rather, Afonso is saying something very different: that among the refugee population as a whole, people of means had more of a chance to successfully escape, presumably because they were better able to obtain passports, train tickets, boat tickets, etc., and that this population more readily reached Sousa Mendes's door. In fact, one of the hallmarks of Sousa Mendes' action was that he accorded visas to all comers--everyone--without regard to race, religion, nationality, political convictions, etc. (This is in contrast to the Marseille group, the Emergency Rescue Committee, that had a particular list of intellectuals whom they were explicitly helping, with the goal of saving European culture, rather than the population as a whole.)

The sole purpose of the two above paragraphs is to denigrate Sousa Mendes and cast doubt on the significance of his action. They are the expression of a fringe POV. Beebop211 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me state clearly here that I do not speak or read Portuguese, and relied on Google Translate with full awareness of its limitations. That being said, I have to agree that it appears very likely that what Rui Alonso actually said in that interview has been skewed and misrepresented in the text discussed above, for what seems to be the purpose of making Sousa Mendes look bad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Cullen, for diving headlong into the fray. May I respectfully request that you remove the other paragraph in this section for the same reason? You are my hero today. ;-) Beebop211 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually Cullen328 , Google translator is not very bad. Below the translation
When I started my research in the '80s, I was more convinced than today of the diversity of the refugees that were helped. But after many years of research I have come to the conclusion that most of the refugees were people with means (money). Of course people like the Polish Rabbi Chaim Kruger, relatively poor man, were much more modest than millionaires and aristocrats who were also granted visas. There were businessmen, industrialists, many people who worked in the diamond industry in Antwerp, movie actors, pianists, painters, intellectuals, bankers etc.. At that time to get a passport and travel it was necessary have money. This is perhaps always the case ...
Sousa Mendes also said that he helped “statesmen, ambassadors and ministers, generals and other high officers, professors, men of letters, academics, journalists, university students, people from various red cross organizations, members of rulling families, princes of blood, ….
Let me know if you are still accusing me of skewing and misrepresenting.
I have two comments on this list. First comment: People like the Habsburgs or the Rothschild got a regular visa and paid for the visa. Rothschild even paid an extra-fee directly to Sousa Mendes pocket (which is fine because it was supposed to be like that). But if it is a regular Visa, what is so special about it? And in the Habsburgs’ case Hitler asked Salazar for their extradition and Salazar refused it. My second comment is that visas like the King Vidor’s, from April 1940, granted during the phony war, are perfectly regular and should not be mentioned. That, off course, if we are really striving for an unbiased honest article.JPratas (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Cullen, thank you for granting my request. Beebop211 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear JPratas, I object to the statement: "Rothschild even paid an extra-fee directly to Sousa Mendes pocket." Where is your proof? And what is your motivation for this brand new smear? Beebop211 (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No offense meant. Since this is the talk page I was not so careful with the language. The fact is that Consul’s received a percentage of the fees of the visas they granted. This was the ordinary procedure. Sousa Mendes in his defense says that on June 16th he granted a Visa to Rothschild and that he charged him his customary personal compensation fee because it was a Sunday. The Sousa Mendes process is available online and in English. It would be easier if you would please read it so I don’t have to be explaining to you these things all the time. If you want to edit you should do some homework.JPratas (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I have read it, JPratas, and a lot else besides. I have certainly done my homework. Sousa Mendes does not say in his defense that he received a "personal compensation fee" from Robert Rothschild. All he says is that he charged Rothschild the customary fee for visas. This does not mean that he lined his own pocket, as you are cynically suggesting. Your editing is very hateful, JPratas, and it needs to stop. Beebop211 (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Beebop211 This is not very important but I am afraid you did not read it carefuly. He says "according to the table of consular emoluments, I was allowed personal compensation for each service provided outside working hours...I recall one Sunday I thought it fair to receive some of these compensations...".
I dont see anything wrong with Mendes receiving what he was entitled to. The man was workin on a Sunday, the millionaire did not want to wait, it is jus fair that Mendes received what he was entitled too and he says so. All fine. I just don't think it is honest to say that if it was a Sunday and he was granting visas to the Rothschild family and he was receiving his personal compensation one cannot say that he was in a frenzy life saving operation. Can we? I don't think we would be doing a good service to the wikipedia if we would allow the article to say that on the 16th Mendes' was in a frenzy of Visas' knowin what we know JPratas (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, on the same day he gave visas to many people running for their lives, including many explicitly refused by Salazar: people named Buxbaum, Goldblatt, Kahn, and many many others. And did you read the sentences around the one you are so gleefully quoting? "I never levied any rate improperly." "I was allowed personal compensation for each service provided outside working hours but despite this I did not make use of this advantage as I thought that the fact that I was issuing visas outside regular office hours was not because the applicants came at those times but because service was piling up as I had never seen before." So, yes, it was a life-saving operation. This is well-known and well-documented. Beebop211 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Beebop211 Cullen328Before I leave you I will make clear that I am not going to question that Sousa Mendes' commendable actions did indeed save people's lives. But there is absolutely no need to twist, invent and hide facts and denigrate other people. I also don't think, just like Milgram, that there is any need to exaggerate the numbers. Even if he only had saved one person, let us say Goldblatt, that would already have been wonderful and praiseworthy. As Milgram says in his paper, and I agree with him, if he saved less it does not diminish his deeds. I also would like to make it very clear that I did not want to insinuate that Sousa Mendes was trying to profit from granting visas. I honestly believe in his statements . Although historian Saraiva says that Sousa Mendes was making illegal money with the visas ( and many other consuls were) I do believe in Mendes' word. I also believe that Sousa Mendes was a good man. I also see the incidents in San Francisco and the use of pubic money as minor, if you consider that he had a quixotic personality. And people new that, understood that and accepted that. That is why he was able to keep himself in service despite all incidents. And I don't think that there is a need to try to convey that he did not receive his salary until the day he died. What difference does it make? Didn't he save all those people? Does the salary make any difference? Twisting the facts will only back-fire. Speeches like that one you mentioned, in San Francisco, inventing that Circular 14 discriminated homosexuals are a bad service to your cause. A paragraph with false statements in the Wallenberg's foundation website only brings discredit to the Wallenberg foundation and Wallenberg does not deserve that nor Sousa Mendes needs to have in the Foundation website a false statement that Portugal was Pro-Hitler. Ironically I might end up being a good service to your cause. Why don't you do like Milgram and have the honesty to start trying to tell the story exactly like it was. It will be to your benefit.
I will be providing the references you asked for and I will be stepping back. I will leave a final statement on the talk page and. I will not be coming back to the talk page. I am in this for pleasure and you are both too emotional and blind with this story. I don't want to be a part of it. I will leave you with your consciences. I know you both mean well. Good Luck ! JPratas (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Goodbye! Beebop211 (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Trial and punishment

I request that the following passages be removed or rendered in neutral language:

Sousa Mendes faced numerous charges, including: disobedience, for issuing visas without permission; abandoning his post in Bordeaux; crime of extortion, based on an accusation made by the British Embassy in Lisbon; and passport forgery for issuing a false passport to Paul Miny who was running away from the army while the French were still fighiting, the Albuquerque family, and others.[citation needed]

Reason: The above is badly worded and should be reframed to accurately describe the charges.

My understanding is that this was a disciplinary proceeding, not a criminal trial. Accordingly, all language that mentions crime or criminal charges should be removed from the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Paragraph rephrased and inappropriate language removed. Beebop211 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The accusation emphasized that Sousa Mendes started to grant visas long before the German offensive on France and long before chaos began to arrive in Bordeaux.

Reason: The phrasing of the above creates innuendo for the reader and appears designed to cast doubt on the story.

As already discussed, murderous oppression of the Jews of Germany began in 1938. The invasion of Poland and the brutal suppression of the largest Jewish community in the world began in September, 1939. The Jews of Europe faced a very grave crisis in 1940, and the war was by no means "phoney" for them at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Count Tovar also remarked that between November 1939 and June 1940, Sousa Mendes had enough time to inform the Ministry of his disagreement with the established policies and moral dilemmas and could have asked to be assigned to another position.

Reason: The reader is not informed that Count Tovar was one of Salazar's top henchmen and cannot be relied upon as an independent observer. The truth is that Sousa Mendes tried many times to obtain Lisbon's consent for the granting of visas but the answer in most cases was no.

If Sousa Mendes had asked to be reassigned and was replaced with a loyal functionary of the Salazar dictatorship, many Jews who survived would instead have perished. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This lighter penalty allowed Sousa Mendes to, after a one-year punishment with half-pay salary, recover his full Consul 1st Class salary for the rest of his life.[54]

Reason: No reputable source characterizes Salazar's decision as a lighter penalty; quite the opposite. No reputable source substantiates the claim that Sousa Mendes received his full salary for the rest of his life.

I will strongly oppose original research about this matter and will expect to read it in a reliable secondary source before supporting inclusion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Although this penalty was indeed lighter, it is a view from Ambassador Fernandes, JPratas (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

However the fact is that Sousa Mendes never lost his title as he kept on being listed in the Portuguese Diplomatic Yearbook until 1954 and after the one-year punishment, he ended up never retiring and kept on receiving his full Consul salary, 1,593 Portuguese Escudos,[56][57] until the day he died.[58]

Reason: The above is not a reflection of the preponderance of the literature.

The widespread version that Sousa Mendes was left unable to support his family of 13 children[60] is therefore groundless.

Reason: Wikipedia is not the place for someone to decide that the preponderance of the literature is groundless.

Where are the reliable, independent sources that use the word "groundless"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. It is a view from Ambassador Fernandes,JPratas (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In 1941 Sousa Mendes applied to the Portuguese bar association and he was admitted to the bar to practice law.[citation needed] But in 1942, he wrote a letter to the bar, explaining that since he was living in a small village (In his mansion at Passal) he wasn’t able to work as a lawyer and he asked for his license to be cancelled.[citation needed] Later, in 1944, he asked again for readmission and readmission was granted again.[citation needed]

Reason: The above is not a reflection of the preponderance of the literature and is designed to create confusion for the reader.

I fail to see the relevance of these excessive details about his attempts to re-start his legal career to this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You asked for the sources, I provided the sources. You could have said this before to avoid me the work of referencing. What do you want to do? go back to the original? and say "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". Or maybe quote the Sousa Mendes Foundation that says that he was "forbidden from earning a living". Or maybe we can completely eliminate the paragraph so that no one knows that what it is found in most websites is not true. Isn't the wikipedia about reliable information? this is also said in published secondary sourcesJPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


An explanation for Sousa Mendes dire financial situations can be found in the words of Jose Alain Fralon.:[62] "He [Sousa Mendes] was someone who always spend without counting the cost and believed that the mere idea of balancing one's budget showed lack of breeding."

Reason: This is not an accurate reflection of the totality of Fralon's judgment. It is cherry-picking to make Sousa Mendes look bad.

Lots of cherries have been picked here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Rui Afonso 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 SM’s children and how his children hated her and blamed her for making the last years of their mother’s life so miserable. 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. This is by no means cherry picking. If the article is going to say that Sousa Mendes died poor it must be explained why. JPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sousa Mendes second wife was even worse[citation needed] regarding spending.

Reason: Judgmental language inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

Agreed. We don't call anything "worse" in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
These are not my words are Fralon's words.JPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Until today[citation needed] the people of Cabanas do Viriato still blame Andrée Cibial for Sousa Mendes' dire financial situation.[63]

Reason: Sousa Mendes was ostracized for his actions during his lifetime, so it's not really important what "the people of Cabanas do Viriato" thought at that time or think today. In fact, I have been to Cabanas do Viriato, and can tell you that they are very proud of their native son and upset with the Portuguese government for letting his home fall into ruin.

How can we say "even today" and cite it to a source that is years old? And even if it is true, the opinions of unnamed people "today" about personal marital and financial problems of specific people 75 years ago have absolutely zero relevance in this encyclopedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
These are not my words are Fralon's words.JPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrée soon clashed with Sousa Mendes' sons who always considered her an adventurer.[citation needed]

Reason: The above is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

Why?JPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


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.[64] 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.[64]

Reason: The above builds on the fact that Sousa Mendes's children all left Portugal, but it is designed to give the impression that they left of their own free will, rather than as a result of the family being blacklisted. This assessment is not supported by the literature.

Yes it is supported by the most extensive biography ever written on Sousa Mendes. Rui Afonso'sJPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The people of Cabanas de Viriato also did not take much to Andrée, "the foreigner" whom they held responsible for the family misfortunes.[citation needed] They criticized her for having "ruined"[citation needed] Sousa Mendes and gradually sold off all the furniture in the family mansion, Passal.[65] This criticism was also shared by his brothers Cesar and Joao Paulo and his cousin Silverio.[citation needed] They all had serious disputes with Arisitides on account of Andrée's bad spending habits.[66]

Reason: The above is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

These are not my words are Fralon's words. What is the problem wiht having this on an encyclopedia?JPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

His main defense argument was that witnesses that testified both for and against Sousa Mendes agreed that the defendant could not be held legally responsible for his conduct because of his shocked state of mind under unusual circumstances.[citation needed]

Reason: The above is badly written and is not an accurate summary of Sousa Mendes' defense.


Only much later, in 1945, after the horrors of the Holocaust became known, Sousa Mendes, decided to change his line of argument and turn it into a Jewish rescue issue.[citation needed]

Reason: The above is flat-out untrue.

I can provide the citation and the original document. Will it make any difference? JPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

He further explained that he was now using this new argument[citation needed] in his defense and that he hadn’t used it before, for the only reason that should he have used it while the war was still going on, he could have then conveyed the idea that he was condemning Hitler’s policies against the Jews, and therefore could have interfered with the neutrality of Portugal in the war, something he didn’t want to do.[citation needed]

Reason: The above is incomprehensible.

The ill-treatment suffered by Sousa Mendes was not unique. Other Portuguese Consuls and Diplomats were also punished. Such were the cases of the Portuguese Ambassador in Berlin, Veiga Simões,[70] the Portuguese honorary consul of Milan, Giuseppe Agenore Magno,[71] The Portuguese Consul in Genova, Alfredo Casanova[72]

Reason: The above looks like an attempt to say that the Sousa Mendes story is not unique. None of the above figures performed actions analogous to that of Sousa Mendes, and none were punished as he was. According to Mordecai Paldiel of Yad Vashem, Sousa Mendes' case was unique in the annals of Holocaust rescue. He acted alone, against his government's direct orders, and paid a heavy personal price. This is the narrative that is reflected in the literature on Sousa Mendes, and it is why he is widely considered to be a beacon of moral courage. Beebop211 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Milgram says that Sousa Mendes case was not unique and that disobedience was widespread among all Portuguese consulatesJPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Why takin the credit of other people? JPratas (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Paldiel, who was the Director of the Department for the Righteous at Yad Vashem for 25 years, presents the Sousa Mendes case as unique in its magnitude and surrounding circumstances, and he should know since he presided over 16,000 cases during his tenure. Beebop211 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality 5 (March 2014) – Trial and Punishment.

Disputed Neutrality 5 (March 2014) – Trial and Punishment. The section Trial and Punishment (as well as the article) was rewritten omitting several charges that Mendes’ faced. Among others

  • The crime of forging a passport, before the exodus, to the Miny couple, Mendes’ old acquaintances, a crime punishable by prison and which Mendes confessed and could have cost him 5 years in prison.
The Miny case is discussed in the article. Beebop211 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that the British Embassy in Lisbon formally accused Mendes “of improperly charging money for issuing visas. The letter said that "The Portuguese Consul at Bordeaux has been deferring until after office hours all applications for visas and has then been charging them at a special rate; in at least one case the applicant has also been requested to contribute to a Portuguese charitable fund before the visa was granted.”
  • Etc.

This last accusation is particularly important because scholars like Milgram think that this was the major reason why Mendes’ was called back from Bordeaux.JPratas (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This was an accusation submitted without any proof and found to be without merit. Two Wikipedia administrators have already determined that your edits are designed to denigrate Sousa Mendes. Why do you keep doing so? Beebop211 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality 4 (March 2014) – Circular 14

The section about Circular 14 has been adulterated in order to make it look worse than what published sources say.

The document is quoted verbatim. It meant what it said. Beebop211 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that thousands of visas have been granted under circular 14, both at Bordeaux and other consulates in Europe has been deleted. (e.g. Between September 1939 and December 1939, approximately 9,000 refugees entered in Portugal.)

The largest influx of refugees into Portugal was in June 1940 because of the action of Sousa Mendes. This is why the Portuguese authorities sent their agents to France to seal the French/Spanish border on June 24, 1940. An estimated 10,000 were left stranded and unable to cross. See New York Times articles cited. Again your comments are intended to downgrade the action of Sousa Mendes. Why? Beebop211 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The historical context of Circular 14, namely the fact that it was less restrictive than the emigration policies of the allies and other neutral countries has been omitted.

This is a biography of Sousa Mendes. We were instructed to excise extraneous material that belongs in other articles. Beebop211 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Yad Vashem historian- Avraham Milgram’s view stating that Portugal’s regime did not distinguish between Jews and non-Jews but rather between immigrant Jews who came and had the means to leave the country and those lacking them and that Portugal prevented Jews from putting down roots in the country not because they were Jews but because the regime feared foreign influence in general, and feared the entrance of Bolsheviks and left-wing agitators fleeing from Germany, has been erased.JPratas (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you put that in the Portugal article? Why does it belong in the biography of Sousa Mendes? Beebop211 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality 3 - (March 2014)

Lead section, should briefly summarize Mendes’ entire life and not delve into sideline quotes from academics and politicians.

Both quotes are general, of a summarizing nature, and represent the preponderance of the literature. Beebop211 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Two quotes from two major scholars that consider Mendes’ as a lower figure have been removed while quotes from Yehuda Bauer (using a “perhaps”) and a quote from a Political politician, interested in denigrating the previous regime, have been kept.

Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram says that Portuguese journalists and writers often compare Sousa Mendes to greater figures such as Wallenberg and asserts that this has been done: “so as to raise up the figure and the deeds of Sousa Mendes” and he adds that “to the contrary of what is usually held, apart from the fact that Sousa Mendes and Raoul Wallenberg entered the diplomatic service and saved Jews during World War II, there is little in common between these figures”. Douglas Wheeler, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of New Hampshire, also shares this same opinion on his paper “And Who Is My Neighbor? A World War II Hero or Conscience for Portugal?” Luso-Brazilian Review XXVI, 1,1989”.JPratas (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As Cullen328 explained, comparisons of this sort are fraught with danger, as one cannot possibly compare the circumstances. Why confuse the reader? Beebop211 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality 1 - (March 2014)

After stepping back for a while, as wikipedia advices in cases of disruptive editing, I regret to see that Beebop211, an account less than one month old, created February 26, 2014, that most likely is a either a sock puppetry or meatpuppetry from Coimbralove and Redmoon660and, formerly named “Sousa Mendes Foundation”, and has exercised severe censorship on facts (verifiable both in primary sources available online and also published secondary sources) and severe censorhip on views from reputed scholars so as to raise up the figure and the deeds of Sousa Mendes. Just as an example, the Chapter “Trial and punishment” was trimmed in order to hide relevant facts. A few examples

  • The fact is that Sousa Mendes never lost his title as he kept on being listed in the Portuguese Diplomatic Yearbook until 1954
  • The fact that after the one-year punishment, Sousa Mendes ended up never retiring and kept on receiving his full Consul salary, 1,593 Portuguese Escudos. The amount of sources where this can be verified is overwhelming. Some examples are:
  • Official documents form Portuguese treasury department, today available online that include, among others, a list to payments made to Sousa Mendes along his life and can be found at: http://badigital.sgmf.pt/Arquivo-DGCP--07---005---003/1/ (Documents from Arquivo Digital Ministerio das Financas ACMF/Arquivo/DGCP/07/005/003)
  • A letter that Sousa Mendes wrote to the Portuguese Bar Association, Ordem dos Advogados - where he says that he is receiving a monthly salary of 1,593 Portuguese Escudos. The letter can be read online in the Sousa Mendes Virtual Museum
  • Scholar Wheeler, Douglas L., "And Who Is My Neighbor? A World War II Hero of Conscience for Portugal," Luso-Brazilian Review 26:1 (Summer, 1989): 119-39 also mentions a monthly allowance of approximately 1500 Portuguese Escudos. This article is also available online.
  • Rui Afonso, a Sousa Mendes biographer, also cites in his book, pag 257, the monthly 1,593 Portuguese Escudos and remarks: "although it was not a salary of a prince, one should not forget that at that time, in Portugal, the salary of a school teacher was only 500 Escudos. Sousa Mendes was therefore receiving a salary that was three times the salary of a school teacher.[1]
  • Jose Alain-Fralon also mentions a letter written by Sousa Mendes to his twin in 1952 where Sousa Mendes mentions that he is receiving a salary.
This is unclear and could refer to the modest charity funds that Sousa Mendes received from the Jewish community of Lisbon. What is incontrovertible is that Sousa Mendes descended from pre-war opulence to post-war destitution. Beebop211 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Therefore The widespread version that Sousa Mendes was left unable to support his family of 13 children[2] is therefore groundless. Not only Sousa Mendes kept his salary but of these 13 children only 4 were still underage in 1940. Of these 4 children still underage, the 4th, Marie Rose, was yet to be born. When Sousa Mendes returned to Portugal in July 1940 he left behind his mistress, Andrée Cibial, six months pregnant, living in Nazi occupied France.
She went to Portugal. And why are you obsessed with her? Furthermore, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a preponderance of the literature. Beebop211 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that since Sousa Mendes was receiving a salary without having to work and he therefore considered the possibility of using his time to work as a lawyer. In 1941 he applied to the Portuguese bar association and he was admitted to the bar to practice law. But in 1942, he wrote a letter to the bar, explaining that since he was living in a small village (In his mansion at Passal) he wasn’t able to work as a lawyer and he asked for his license to be cancelled. Later, in 1944, he reconsidered his decision, asked again for readmission and readmission was granted. Just before the war's end in 1945, Sousa Mendes suffered a stroke that left him at least partially paralyzed and unable to work.
"Without having to work?" You think that Sousa Mendes did not want to work? Beebop211 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Furthermore the two major Sousa Mendes biographers (Rui Afonso and Fralon) clearly state that “He was someone who always spend without counting the cost and believed that the mere idea of balancing one's budget showed lack of breeding." And Rui Afonso is very precise about holding Andrée Cibial responsible for Sousa Mendes dire financial situation and for the family misfortunes.
They also say lots of glowing things about Sousa Mendes that either you didn't read or won't accept. Beebop211 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Purging all this information out of the article while keep the testimony from teenager telling a story of a meal that Sousa Mendes decided to take at a canteen in order to to turn him into a martyr is not rendering a good service to wikipedia.

"Turn him into a martyr"? Are you claiming that Sousa Mendes was not punished? If so, your view is a fringe POV. Beebop211 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This version is not supported either be published sources neither by primary sources.JPratas (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Isaac Bitton has the advantage of having been an eyewitness. His testimonial is accepted by all of the sources that you cite and is not controversial in any way. Beebop211 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality 2 - (March 2014)

Important facts on Sousa Mendes early life are being censored on the grounds that Sousa Mendes is being denigrated. This censorship makes as much sense as obliterating Oskar Schindler’s early life (omitting that he was a Nazi, drunk, etc.) The censored facts are

  • Disciplinary proceedings were brought against him for leaving his post without authorization both in 1917 (Zanzibar) and in 1938 (Antwerp). The first of these cases concerned an episode when the Consul needed to take one of his children for urgent medical care.
What is your purpose in dwelling on this other than to denigrate Sousa Mendes and present him in the worst possible light? Do you know all the circumstances or are you only presenting one side? Nobody claims he was a saint, but it's a fact that he was a hero. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? Beebop211 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In August 1919, while he was in Brazil, Sousa Mendes also faced disciplinary proceedings, for using public money, from the consulate, for his private use.[3] 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".[3] He was suspended for two years.
Do you know the full circumstances? And what is the relevance to the rescue action of 1940? Beebop211 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 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.[3] He attacked the directors of the Cult of the Holy Spirit, outraged the Portuguese colony insulted Sousa Mendes in a local newspaper [4]. Sousa Mendes defended himself making public statements to a local newspapers, his statements were viewed as 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.[5]
This has already been discussed and settled. Beebop211 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Again in 1928[6] 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.[3]
Do you know the full circumstances? And what is the relevance to the rescue action of 1940? Beebop211 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 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 managing this delicate mission I have made countless efforts with the Spanish authorities in order to provide the Portuguese dictatorship with the information needed to destroy all revolutionary maneuvers”.[7] In this letter Sousa Mendes requested to be appointed to Antwerp and his request was granted.JPratas (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to do a smear job on a figure who is widely revered. Are you accurately and neutrally presenting the sum total of his activities in Vigo? Or are you cherry-picking in order to make him look bad? Why??? Beebop211 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality 6 (March 2014) – General Statement and Reminder of guidelines.

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant. Currently the article in NOT compliant because important information is being deliberately omitted. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.

Where accusations are contested in a reliable source (e.g. that Sousa Mendes punishment was a “severe crackdown” or that Circular 14 was worse than the way it is being presented), it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation, and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. The challenge should be attributed to the source. Give the facts to the reader to decide for them. The article had been edited as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:

  • Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
  • Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this is being done on spurious grounds).
  • Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.JPratas (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Circular 14 was a death sentence for many refugees. You wish to sugarcoat it? Why? Beebop211 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality 7 (March 2014)Number of visa recipients

The article says the following “The generally accepted figure is that he issued visas to approximately 30,000 people, of whom around 10,000 were Jews”

It was ommited that According to Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram in a study from 1999 published by the Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust Studies (Milgram, Avraham. "Portugal, the Consuls, and the Jewish Refugees, 1938–1941". Source: Yad Vashem Studies, vol. XXVII, Jerusalem, 1999, pp. 123-56) a slight analysis of the list of visas granted by Sousa Mendes to Jews and non-Jews in May and June 1940, shows — without diminishing the greatness of his attitude — that the number of visas granted by the consul was lower than the numbers mentioned in the literature, raising a series of questions relative to Portugal and to the entry of Jewish refugees. Milgram concludes that "the discrepancy between the reality and the myth of the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes is great."

Even Milgram agrees that the figure was in the thousands. This POV is reflected in the summarizing statement, and it is a fact that 30K/10K are the generally accepted figures. This is an accurate summary of the literature. Beebop211 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And ommited that records from Bordeaux show that after June 16, a day when Sousa Mendes was still legitimately charging extra-fees to issue Visas (e.g. the Visas issued to Rothschild family) the Bordeaux consulate issued a total of 617 visas of which many were regular visas granted to non-refugees, such was the case of Portuguese, British and American citizens returning to their home countries.

Perhaps you are unaware that many visas covered entire families and that many were not recorded. Beebop211 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And ommited that again in 2011, Milgram published a densely researched book, “Portugal Salazar and the Jews” where he challenges again the long-established but fuzzy numbers of the Sousa Mendes disobedience episode. To make his point on the exaggeration of the numbers Milgram also cross checks the Bordeaux numbers with those of the HICEM reports. According to HICEM reports, only 1,538 Jews who came to Portugal as refugees without visas to other countries sailed from Lisbon in the second half of 1940, and an additional 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.JPratas (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

He also claims that all the visas were issued from June 11-12. Clearly there are mistakes in this source. Luckily there are many sections of the book that are highly reliable, but not this one. Beebop211 (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality 9 - (March 2014) - Denigrating Teotonio Pereira and other people

People that had a notable work in preserving Portuguese neutrality, and that were also involved themselves in large scale refugee rescue operations are presented in the article as despicable.

A clear example is the ambassador Pedro Teotonio Pereira

The article omits that Teotonio Pereira acted under pressure from Spanish Authorities with whom Portugal (and the refugees as well) needed to be in good terms. Spanish authorities were complaining that Portugal was putting Spain in a difficult situation. Teotonio Pereira also says that a “conflict with the Spanish authorities was eminent” and that he found Mendes “disturbed and not in his right mind” and the article also puts in Pereira’s mouth the words that were said by the Spanish authorities. All this with the aim of framing a situation where Mendes was surrounded by terrible people.

However the truth is that Teotonio Pereira was a highly respected ambassador. The testimony from Carlton Hayes, lecturer at Columbia in European history, and Pereira's American Colleague in the diplomatic corps in those days, is eloquent. The American ambassador writes of Pereira in his book, “Wartime Mission in Spain” the following:

  • The Portuguese Ambassador, Dr. Theotonio Pereira, who, next to the Papal Nuncio, was dean of the diplomatic corps, proved to be a good friend and very helpful associate. Still youthful in years as well as in spirit, he, like the Portuguese prime minister, Dr. Salazar, had been drafted from a professorship (that of mathematics) at the University of Coimbra into his country's public life.
  • After serving in cabinet posts at Lisbon, he had been accredited to General Franco early in the Spanish Civil War; and his protracted stay in Spain, together with his continuing personal intimacy with Dr. Salazar, enabled him to exert a significant influence in both countries. His strong patriotism was at all times evident as was also his loyalty to the historic Anglo-Portuguese alliance. He recognized, as fully as we did, the danger both to Portugal and to the Allied cause in any Axis intervention in Spain or in any unneutral collaboration of Spain with the Axis. Though he distrusted Serrano Suñer and heartily disliked the Falange, his long and close association with other influential advisers of General Franco and with large segments of the Spanish people stood us, as well as himself, in good stead. In his constant endeavor to draw Spain with Portugal into a really neutral Peninsular bloc, he contributed immeasurably, at a time when the British and ourselves had much less influence, toward counteracting the propaganda and pleas of our enemies.
  • I had to see my friend, the Portuguese Ambassador, at once. Finding that he had gone to Portugal for a few days to visit his family and confer with Dr. Salazar, I took the Spanish plane at Madrid and flew down to Lisbon. There I enjoyed the hospitality of our American Minister to Portugal, Mr. Bert Fish, and had a good long talk with Dr. Pereira. The latter was quite understanding and sympathetic and agreed to seek Dr. Salazar's approval of the French refugees' passing through Portugal.p. 139

Later in the same book, Mr. Carlton Hayes writes of Pereira’s decisive intervention in favour of the thousands of French military refugees who were trying in 1943 to get from Spain to North Africa in order there to join the Allied forces. Mr. Carlton Hayes was trying to arrange for them to be evacuated from Spanish ports, but the Germans told the Spanish Government that if this was done the boats used might be torpedoed while still in the Spanish ports. Count Jordana, the Spanish Foreign Minister, then suggested that the Frenchmen might be taken across the western frontier and embarked from Portuguese ports instead, where the danger from the Germans would be less than in the Mediterranean. Senhor Pereira obtained the agreement of the Portuguese Government and gave invaluable help in all the arrangements. The Spaniards and Portuguese had to provide the visas and the railway transport, the French had to provide money and food, and the British had to provide the ships. Eventually, on the morning of April 30th, a first party of 850 Frenchmen, all soldiers, crossed the Spanish-Portuguese frontier, and shortly after midnight they sailed from Setubal to the battlefields of Tunisia. Others followed throughout the spring and summer, and altogether sixteen thousand Frenchmen reached North Africa in this way during 1943, there to join the Allied forces, with the active help of the Spanish Government, and thanks largely to the man who is now being deigrated.

  • In the Portuguese capital we were pleasantly surprised to receive flowers from Dr. Salazar as well as from Nicolas Franco,1 and a call from the charming family of our good friend the Portuguese Ambassador to Spain, Dr. Pereira.p.292

This book is available online for free and has no longer copyright.JPratas (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Teotonio Pereira, the Portuguese ambassador to Madrid, was a Nazi sympathizer. Go ahead and defend him if you want, but don't pretend that you represent a NPOV. It is incontrovertible and not in dispute that he accused Sousa Mendes, in a communication to the Lisbon authorities, of "giving shelter to the scum of the democratic regimes and defeated elements fleeing before the German victory." Also incontrovertible and not in dispute is that it was on this man's instructions that the French/Spanish border was sealed on June 24, 1940, blocking an estimated 10,000 refugees from crossing to freedom. I bet you believe that WWII was started by Poland. Beebop211 (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Portuguese Historian, Manuel Braga da Cruz, wrote a biography on Teotonio Pereira where he makes it very clear that even before the war started Teotonio Pereira was already maneuvering in favor of the British and in detriment of Germans and Italians. Because his important role was recognized by the allies, after the war, he was made ambassador in London and also Washington. When he was made ambassador in London, in 1953, the British press said the following “One of Dr. Salazar's young men," as Lord Templewood has called Senhor Theotonio Pereira, presented his credentials on Wednesday as the Portuguese Ambassador at the Court of St. James. Senhor Pereira has much in common with Dr. Salazar, having come to the Government in Lisbon as a very young man from the University of Coimbra, having been a Professor in that University, and having shown there a special distinction in economic and social matters. Made Minister of Commerce in 1935, he left that post in 1938 to become Ambassador to Spain, where he remained throughout the war. Among other things shared with Dr. Salazar he had, and has, a profound attachment to the historic Anglo-Portuguese alliance, and during the war years in Madrid he proved himself a good friend of Britain” Braga da Cruz also says that in June 1940, with German tanks on the Pyrenees, Teotonio Pereira was extremely worried with the likelihood of Germany invading the peninsula. JPratas (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The biography, in Portuguese, is available online
http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/4982.pdf JPratas (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Given his past behavior I will not be surprised that editor Beebop211 will keep on insisting that Teotonio Pereira was a Nazi.JPratas (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, see Fralon, p.106, where he explains that Teotonio Pereira, in an act of brazen chutzpah, took credit for Sousa Mendes' rescue operation in his 1973 memoirs. Beebop211 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality 8 (March 2014)

The article says that “In a letter to the Portuguese Parliament, he [Sousa Mendes] explained that he had disobeyed orders because he had considered them to be unconstitutional as the Portuguese Constitution forbade discrimination on the basis of religion. “ The article deliberately omits the following facts:

  • This was the first time that Sousa Mendes presented this line of argument (a religious issue) and until then he had only alleged extraordinary psicological circunstances.
Not so. Here is Sousa Mendes' defense from 1940: "It was indeed my aim to save all those people whose suffering was indescribable: some had lost their spouses, others had no news of missing children, others had seen their loved ones succumb to the German bombings which occurred every day and did not spare the terrified refugees.... There was another aspect that should not be overlooked: the fate of many people if they fell into the hands of the enemy.... eminent people of many countries with whom we have always been on excellent terms: statesmen, ambassadors and ministers, generals and other high officer, professors, men of letters, ... officers from armies of countries that had been occupied, Austrians, Czechs and Poles, who would be shot as rebels; there were also many Belgians, Dutch, French, Luxembourgers and even English... Many were Jews who were already persecuted and sought to escape the horror of further persecution." etc. Beebop211 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, 1941 letter from Sousa Mendes to his lawyer, as cited in Dias, "In truth, I disobeyed, but my disobedience does not dishonor me. I did not respect orders that to me represented the persecution of true castaways who sought with all their strength to be saved from Hitler's wrath." I am not sure what reason on Earth you have to doubt that Sousa Mendes acted with the best of intentions to save innocent victims. Beebop211 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This argument was only presented in 1945, when the was over.
It is stated in the article "Throughout the war years and beyond...." Beebop211 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The argument he used is given above. Beebop211 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Warnings

User Beebop211 an account less than one month old, created February 26, 2014, that most likely is a either a sock puppetry or meatpuppetry from Coimbralove and Redmoon660 formerly named “Sousa Mendes Foundation” has been consistently deleting the following warnings from the article’s talk page.

JPratas (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying to undo the damage you are continually doing to this page. I don't really think you are the appropriate person to be posting warnings, in view of what neutral editors have observed about your editing patterns. I know that you like to issue warnings, such as the unsigned threat you posted on my Talk page. Beebop211 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Long story short. If there are reliable independent sources explicitly saying he was a hero, any editor can put that information into the article. If there are reliable independent sources questioning it, or even calling him traitor, instead of deleting the content saying he was a hero, the additional information should be added to achieve NPOV. Note that if most sources say he was a war hero and only a few saying he wasn't, it is acceptable to include only the majority view and avoid giving any undue weight to the minority views. BigCat82 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hooray! Thank you, BigCat82! I think the fact that Portugal held a week-long national homage to this man in 1995 settles the issue as to whether he was a hero. In 2005 Portuguese President called him "Portugal's greatest hero of the twentieth century." But just as there are still Stalinists in Russia, there are still pro-Salazar forces in Portugal who can/won't accept it. But there are no reliable, independent sources that present this viewpoint. It does a disservice to the encyclopedia to insert fringe POVs because it introduces doubt where none exists. Must there be climate change deniers represented in the Climate Change article for a NPOV? Must there be Holocaust deniers in the Holocaust article to achieve NPOV? Forget about "undue weight"--these fringe POVs don't deserve any weight at all. Beebop211 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I don’t think the issue is limited to determine if he was or wasn’t a hero. I am not questioning that. Many people consider that Oskar Schindler was a hero but still they don’t hide that in his early life he was a Nazi, drunk, unfaithful to his wife, etc. And if the majority of sources say that Mendes’ received a lifetime allowance 3 times the salary of a teacher, then it should be included in the article. His complete payroll is available online. This dispute had been closed in November!!! Should I upload the letter where Mendes’ himself writes that he is receiving $1593/month? don’t want to drag you into this dispute. The thing is that the dispute sign is being removed.JPratas (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The majority of sources do not say that. Furthermore, I don't know why you are denying that the issue is whether he was a hero. Every single one of your edits appears to have as its goal to question that, whether you admit to it or not. Beebop211 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

I see that single purpose account JPratas has again added a neutrality tag to this article. Please explain how your edits are neutral, JPratas, when any neutral editor reviewing your edit history can see that you are here for one purpose, and one purpose only: to denigrate the reputation of a man who saved the lives of many people when the Nazis were attacking and engaging in mass murder on an industrial scale? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with almost all you said Cullen328 and for the past two weeks I’ve restrained myself from editing and have been limiting myself to editing the talk page. I agree with your suggestion of using Oskar Schindler’s article as a model (actually I’ve been saying that for a long time). I just don’t think that one can write a chapter trial & punish and ignore the fact that Mendes’ received a lifetime allowance 3 times the salary of a teacher. I also think you cannot call Nazi a man that helped thousands of French military refugees who were trying in 1943 to get from Spain to North Africa in order there to join the Allied forces (Pedro Teotónio Pereira) and that played a decisive role in keeping Portugal as a neutral country, therefore providing a safe haven for more than 100,000 refugees. This is not being anti-Mendes this is being factual. I understand that for people that only know Mendes’ through popular literature these facts might shock them, but it is just the reality, and telling it in a neutral language is not denigrating Mendes. I do believe, just like historians Milgram and Wheeler that popular literature has been trying to “raise up the figure and the deeds of Sousa Mendes”. I do believe that wikipedia should not be the echo of popular literature and should favor what scholars have said.
I do believe that Mario Soares’ opinion should not be included in the lead section due to the fact that Soares was on of Salazar’s major political opponents and, for decades, has been using the Mendes story to denigrate his political opponent. I also don’t’ think that a quote with a “perhaps” should be included in the lead section when there are quotes from other scholars saying the opposite and are being deleted. That is not neutral.
I subscribe your own words, “If the preponderance of the literature is repeating a myth, and more recent scholarship shows he was paid, then we should state that in a neutral, well referenced way”. I am astonished to see how Milgram’s voice, a Yad Vashem historian, and and scholar that dedicated a significant part of his life to study Portugal the Consuls and the Jews, and published extensive literature on Mendes, was completely, silenced and obliterated.
I also subscribe your comments on "Further reading" and on references. Actually I’ve writen the exact same comment on this talk page some days ago. I have long ago disclosed the short list of the sources I am using. It is limited to 5 or 6 major books.
Currently the article in NOT compliant because important information is being deliberately omitted. Wikipedia says that the remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. And wikipedia says that where accusations are contested in a reliable source (e.g. that if Sousa Mendes punishment was a “severe crackdown” or that if Circular 14 was worse than the way it is being presented), it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation, and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral.
Wikipedia also says that we should give the facts to the reader to decide for them. The article has been edited as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
  • Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
  • Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this is being done on spurious grounds).
  • Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value
This is why I’ve included the tag.JPratas (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Someone listed a request at Third Opinion, but the kinds of opinions and services which are provided by 3O are already being provided here by Cullen328, a highly experienced and capable editor, so a 3O would be inappropriate and the request has been removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

Expanded section on World War II and Circular 14

My edits add a few lines about Salazar's police apparatus, PVDE, and explain its role in deciding which refugees were "undesirable." My sources are the book Spared Lives published by the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000 and Milgram's book, Portugal, Salazar and the Jews, published in 2011. Beebop211 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

An unseemly battle, and an article in desperate need of neutral editing

We have two editors here, JPratas and Beebop211, both of whom are single purposes accounts (SPAs). The first can be called the "anti Sousa Mendes" editor and the second can be called the "pro Sousa Mendes" editor. Neither shows any signs of being here to improve the encyclopedia as a whole, and both show all the signs of being here to push a point of view against neutrality. Both are displaying many of the negative behavioral characteristics that experienced editors associate with SPAs. I have given edit warring warnings to both. It is time to stop pushing points of view, and instead, it is now time to compromise and build consensus. Thee two editors have a much better command of the sources about Sousa Mendes than I do. I strongly urge both of these combative editors to take a long and careful look at our Good Article Oskar Schindler, including the lead section and the section Early life and career. Emulate that example! Take a look at the references section of Aristides de Sousa Mendes, filled with Bare URLs and mediocre references, despite my requests to the two editors most conversant with the source material to clean it all up. Take a look at the "Further reading" section. I don't have the time and patience to count up all that garbage. Why can't that be trimmed to the best ten sources? Are you two editors so committed to fighting with each other that you can't do the basic, obvious work needed to make Aristides de Sousa Mendes a good article like Oskar Schindler, summarizing the best sources with well-written prose? Or do either or both of you have a stake in keeping it a lousy article? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328 I have said exactly the same thing on the list of "Further Reaings" and have long ago made a proposal in this talk page. I wrote that the list "could also be significantly reduced to a core set of major works, such as the masterpieces from scholar Avraham Milgram and the two major biographies by Rui Afonso and Jose Alain Fralon. And then to keep a neutral point of view, the deniers: Ambassador Carlos Fernandes and Ambassador Hall Themido" and scholar Saraiva. You should tag the article for clean-up. JPratas (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I have not been editing, so if you think the article is "lousy" I am not the one to be blamed. The article has been activelly edited by Beebop211 who has formally declared the article as "cleaned up" and does not even allow other editors to include tags in the article.JPratas (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am pro-Sousa Mendes, that's true. And yes, I created this account in order to undo the horrendous damage that was being done to the Sousa Mendes article. But more broadly I am against Holocaust denial and will not stand by while someone who openly states on this Talk page that the Holocaust began in 1942 and that Sousa Mendes was not out to save Jews decides he wants to make mincemeat of this article. (And by the way, he is busy defaming Sousa Mendes in other Wiki articles as well.) I would welcome the help of any third party editor to make this article the best it can be. And then this page needs to be protected and the other editor should be banned. Thank you to Cullen328 and anyone else who accepts to jump into the fray. Beebop211 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason whatsoever to fully protect the page as there is no pattern of true vandalism but rather a routine content dispute between two editors who both seem incapable of editing as required from the neutral point of view. Full protection would prevent any of the three of us from editing the page, which makes no sense. Semi-protection would prevent IP editors from contributing but they aren't anyway, so why bother? I encourage both of you to read that NPOV policy and commit to it. As for "banning" JPratas, that is extremely unlikely to happen based on the editor's behavior to date. Bannng requires much more serious misbehavior. However, both of you are at very high risk of being blocked for edit warring, which simply isn't allowed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Fleshing out references

In response to a request by Cullen 328, I have been trying as much as possible to reduce or eliminate "Bare URL" references. Wherever possible I have found a written source to support the online source. There's still a little of this work to be done, but I think it's much improved. At least I hope so. In a few cases there is only an online source for a piece of info, and no written source; in such cases the "Bare URL" will have to suffice. This is particularly the case with recent news, such as the naming of the Sousa Mendes jet by the Portuguese airline Windavia. The airline's site is the handiest source for this info outside of the Portuguese press (to which I don't have access in the US). Similarly, the info concerning the Sousa Mendes letter delivered to Pope Francis links to a TV news report. It's the best I can do, and I think it's reliable enough. Beebop211 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Bare URLs are never acceptable and should always be fleshed out. Reliable websites can be cited just as we cite printed sources. Unreliable websites should be removed, as should unreliable printed sources. I will take a look at those remaining. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Beebop211 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at how I have fleshed out references 84, 87 and 92. And I don't even read Portuguese, except with the help of Google Translate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for showing how this is done. I'll work on the remaining items. Beebop211 (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC) OK, I've done them all. Please see what you think. Beebop211 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed abridged bibliography

I propose cutting down the bibliography to the following sources, all in English, and many of them clickable:

In my opinion, this is still WAY too long. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Anything already used as a reference in the article should be removed. This is further reading. Items primarily about his descendants should be removed. Anything that does not offer in-depth information not covered in the article should be removed. All low quality sources should be removed. Do I have to start the trimming myself, or can I ask the editors who are most familiar with the source material to do so? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, here is what I came up with (below). It's shorter than the bibliography in the Schindler entry--is this OK now? Beebop211 (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Much better. Unless the Guy Wright item is available online, I recommend removing it for accessibility reasons. That newspaper has been defunct for at least 40 years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will substitute this new list for the old one. I would like to keep the Guy Wright item in because it's the only item on the list that dates from the Salazar years, so it's of great historical interest. Also, it is readily available via interlibrary loan (which is how I obtained it). Hope that's OK. Beebop211 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable recipients

I am expanding the list of notable recipients. My only fear is that I don't wish to obscure the fact that the vast majority of visa recipients were ordinary families, and that about half of the known visa recipients were children. I find it interesting to see the variety of notable figures--which makes one realize the "ripple effect" of each act of goodness. Beebop211 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to differentiate between those recipients whose visa requests were routine and would have been granted by any Portuguese consul, and those cases where granting the visa was an act of civil disobedience? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a great question! Obviously Circular 14 is a good guide to providing an answer. The refugee had to be: not Russian, not stateless, free to return to his/her country of citizenship or origin, plus had to be already in possession of an overseas (such as US) visa PLUS a boat ticket! These were pretty difficult requirements under the circumstances for anyone!
The proof is that even refugees who would pass muster re: Circular 14 had a hard time. A good example is the Rey couple, authors of Curious George. Soon after Hitler's rise they left Germany, moved to Brazil, and became Brazilian citizens. (Curious George is based on a pet monkey they had in Brazil!) By all rights they should have had no trouble getting Portuguese visas in 1940 when they found themselves in France and needed to return home to Brazil. But the evidence shows that they tried on multiple dates to obtain Portuguese visas in Paris, but were unsuccessful. This is perhaps because the consul there took into account that they had originally been German citizens, and/or perhaps they had a hard time reserving boat passage while they were still in France. It was only when they encountered Sousa Mendes in Bayonne that they were able to get the needed visas.
Another case is Salvador Dali, the painter. In his case the need for the visa was that his wife Gala was Russian so would have been ineligible for a visa according to Circular 14. Also, the French (Catholic) actress Madeleine LeBeau could have gotten a Portuguese visa if not for the fact that she was married to the (Jewish) actor Marcel Dalio. Otto von Habsburg, heir to the Austrian throne and obviously not Jewish, was on Hitler's blacklist since he had opposed the Anschluss, and the Portuguese authorities were supposed to be careful not to allow in enemies of Hitler.
Some British or American visa recipients appear to pass the test re: Circular 14, but were explicitly denied by Salazar for unknown reasons. (See Hubert O'Brien: http://sousamendesfoundation.org/obrien/.) Perhaps this person was politically outspoken, as it is an accepted fact (even admitted by JPratas) that the PVDE considered "political refugees" to be the most undesirable of all. For the majority of visa recipients the full circumstances of their cases aren't known, or aren't mentioned in the available sources. For this reason, I would suggest that we speak broadly (and neutrally) of "visa recipients" rather than "rescuees" or people "saved" in finalizing the list of notable figures. This way we cover all bases. What are your thoughts? Beebop211 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

On Sources to solve disputes

I would like to remark that both Fralon’s book (in French with English translation) and the Rui Afonso’s two books, the first “Injustiça” and the second “O Wallenberg Portugues” (in Portuguese) are commercial books written to sing the deeds of Sousa Mendes. Nevertheless they both had the intellectual honesty to describe the San Francisco’s episode, the track record of incidents, the formal complaint sent by the British Embassy, the way he handled money, and the role of his mistress (and later 2nd wife) in the fact that he died isolated from family and friends. Books say that he died only with his 2nd wife by his side. Fralon does not mention the salary but the proofs that he was receiving a full consul salary are overwhelming and this should no longer be in dispute. Now, Portugal was a poor country and a Consul’s salary was certainly not enough for Mendes to live the life of opulence he was used to. We can engage ourselves in original research and try to determine if $1,593 PTE was good enough or not. I can easily provide evidence that it was and I can upload the page where Rui Afonso says that it was three times the salary of a teacher.

Besides this two major books from Mendes’ worshipers I have used the following scholars

  • Milgram. The 1999 paper is available online. In the 2011 book he says almost the same thing and adds: “Journalists and authors, especially those who wish to sing the praises of Aristides de Sousa Mendes, tend to overstate the number of visas he gave refugees in the summer of 1940….writers interested in lionizing Portugal for its humanitarian actions, Consul Sousa Mendes for his extraordinary feats, the Portuguese people for their humane attitude toward the refugees, etc..cite figures who not satisfy research criteria, but rather correspond to their wishful thinking…” Milgram p 121.
  • Wheeler, Douglas – You can read it online. Free. Just have to register. Follow this link. [1]
  • Neill Lochery's - PhD from Durham University and currently The Catherine Lewis Professor of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean Studies at University College London. He wrote a book titled “War in the Shadows of the City of Light, 1939-45” that dedicates several pages to the Mendes’ episode.

Google books allows you to read a limited number for pages, you should be able to read online most of the Mendes’ episode. The episode is described in neutral language, also says the numbers are a myth and provides a neutral rationale for why exactly did Salazar recalled Mendes and why Teotonio Pereira declared the Visas null and void. I hope you can read it for yourself. (I have a Kindle version, cost $ 11). Follow this link [2] And if you click on the page numbers you will be allowed to read the full page. You can also find a fairly complete, extensive and enlightening, review of this book in this link [3] It provides a fair description of Salazar and his policies and his strugle to keep Portugal out of the war. I hope you find this useful. Let me know if I can be of further assistance with sources.JPratas (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Added photos...

... of notable visa recipients. Beebop211 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that the Sousa Mendes foundation says that “Portugal, officially neutral, yet unofficially pro-Hitler and under the dictatorial rule of Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, issued a directive – the infamous “Circular 14″ – to all its diplomats to deny safe haven to refugees, including explicitly Jews, Russians, and stateless persons who could not freely return to their countries of origin”
However Circular 14 allowed consuls to keep on granting visas with the exception: of foreigners of indefinite, or contested nationality or one under litigation, to displaced persons, to holders of Nansen passports and to Russians, etc.
... and to anyone who did not already have an overseas visa plus a boat ticket! Do those sound like easy criteria to meet? Would you want to find yourself in that situation as the Nazis are steadily moving south and catching up to Bordeaux while the Portuguese ambassador to Madrid is about to seal the French/Spanish border? Beebop211 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In these cases the consuls needed previous authorizations from Lisbon. I haven’t seen the statistics but is seems that some were granted and same weren’t.

Therefore cases such as the Rothschilds (French) just does NOT fall into the category of those exceptional cases where Mendes needed to get a previous authorization from Lisbon. In the case of Rothschild we even know that Mendes’ charged him a personal fee he was entitled to because it was a Sunday.
The same goes for Otto von Habsburg. He also doesn’t fall into the category of those cases where Mendes needed to get a previous authorization from Lisbon. In fact while he was in Portugal, Hitler asked for his extradition and Salazar denied it.
Other case is King Vidor, American Citizen, born in Texas. Visa granted in April 1940.
As Cullen328 wrote before “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?”. I believe the same applies to visas granted when he was just doing his job.
Wasn’t the article criticized for being too long? Why are we now walking in the opposite direction?
A lot of time is being wasted...JPratas (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Still the number of Visas

What Beebop211 is suggesting is to simply eliminate one of the best works by a reputed scholar because of a typo. In his 1999 work Milgram wrote that “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”. And in fact the number 1,575 visas matches the number of visas that were issued between June 11 and 22.

In my view Milgram says “slight analysis” because you don’t need to dig too much to spot the exaggeration. He probably also knows that in those 1,575 is included a long list of regular visas. Actually the counting should be June 17 to 20. Because Sousa Mendes said that on June 16, a Sunday, he was still granting regular Visas and charging customary personal fees for doing so. Primary sources (Mendes’ defense) and many secondary sources state that he started to grant Visas without asking any questions on the 17. Therefore the number of visas granted between the 17 and 20 was approximately 600. Many of these visas were regular visas. It should not be very difficult to come with a more accurate number. But the number is less than 600.

Have in mind that Milgram also cross checked these numbers with those of HICEM.

More recently Professor Neill Lochery also said “Myth” and he also advised prudence with comparisons with Wallenberg. Neill Lochery quotes Milgram but he also adds that he has done an additional cross-check. He cross-checked the numbers with the police files.

The same exercise has been done by Portuguese scholar Irene Pimentel in what is probably the most extensive work on Portugal and the Jews during the Holocaust.

And yes to the Bordeaux visas we need to add the children and the visas granted in Bayonne, but those numbers can be estimated based on the police files and HICEM reports. JPratas (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also Jose Seabra, the Mendes’ second in command at Bordeaux always said a few hundreds. In the 1980s when Mendes was being rehabilitated Seabra was called as witness and again he said a few hundreds. (This is in Rui Afonso’ book). JPratas (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So you would not count any visas issued before June 17? Not even visas granted to refugees who were explicitly refused permission by Salazar, such as the Ertag family discussed in the article? Really? Beebop211 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not saying that. All I am saying is that all those visa’s that Mendes issued in disobedience have a rational to be counted. All those visa’s he issued just doing his job should not be counted. I have not studied it, and I might be wrong on this, but I believe that visas before the June 17, in disobedience, are not many. In his defense Mendes said he didn’t. He said that “in any case I can assure you that I granted no visa after 29 May which had not been previously authorized or in any way justified in view of the Ministry’s instructions”. I don’t think that counting the exact number is worth the effort.JPratas (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
If it's not worth the effort why are we spending so much time debating this? Beebop211 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Because of the order of magnitude. If between June 17 and 20 Mendes issued 600 visas of which, let’s say, 400 visas required authorization from Lisbon, give or take a few, it does not make a difference if you then add 50 visas that were issued prior to June 17. The important fact is that you have three reputed scholars (Milgram, Lochery and Pimentel) saying that there is a big gap between reality and the 30,000.JPratas (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
None of these authors wrote books on Sousa Mendes. I don't know where you are pulling the numbers 600, 400 and 50. No author proposes those numbers so you are once again blowing smoke. I guess this is all a joke for you or something. Beebop211 (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Afonso, Rui - Um Homem Bom, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, O "Wallenberg" Portugues, Ed Caminho, pag 257
  2. ^ e.g. http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/mendes.asp
  3. ^ a b c d Fralon, Jose Alain (author) and Graham, Peter (translator). 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. Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2001, ISBN 0-7867-0848
  4. ^ Articles available online at the ASM Virtual Museum http://mvasm.sapo.pt/
  5. ^ Afonso, Rui - Um Homem Bom, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, O "Wallenberg" Portugues, Ed Caminho, pag 193
  6. ^ Arquivo Contemporâneo do Ministério das Finanças, Carta dactilografada, fls.1, Processo/Cota ACMF/DGCP/07/005/002A
  7. ^ Arquivo Histórico Diplomático
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes/Archive_3&oldid=1084062973"