The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And move to Paradisus Judaeorum. There is reasonably strong consensus to not delete this for notability reasons. A more difficult question is whether there is consensus to move the page to Paradisus Judaeorum. As has been pointed out, AfD is not the forum for renaming discussions, and a recent RM resulted in no consensus, but this AfD is (slightly) more recent and more well-attended. Ultimately, I consider this AfD to have more depth and detail than the earlier RM, and it more clearly indicates a consensus in one way or the other. The article is therefore moved. Any review of this closure in respect of the move should, in my view, take place at WP:Move review, not WP:DRV. Sandstein 20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIC and WP:GNG fail. The article also has SYNTH, OR, and NPOV issues (beginning with the title itself - a form of phrase in English not used outside of Wikipedia (googling the title in quotes leads mainly to Wikipedia clones), and use of an anti-Semitic phrase as a Wikipedia title) - however deletion is generally not cleanup.

Note that a recent RM concluded that this article is about the full phrase - "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" and not about "Paradisus Judaeorum". The full phrase is a DICTDF and GNG fail . Phrases, for Wikipedia notability, may be notable when they are discussed at length in secondary sources as a topic. This is even true for hate speech. However, this requires actual in-depth secondary analysis of the topic.

While the article contains a seemingly long list of references, they are in fact a WP:REFBOMB. Many references don't contain the phrase at all. Some references are PRIAMRY 17th-18th-19th century uses of this hate speech. Some references discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum" - but not the full phrase. In others, the full phrase is briefly mentioned as an introduction to "Paradisus Judaeorum" or to the status of nobility in Poland. In fact - of the sources available online - there is but a single source - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004) - which is a secondary source (in Polish) of a reasonable quality that discusses the phrase itself - and this in approx. 2 paragraphs - which would be stretching the definition of WP:INDEPTH.

Please see analysis of sources below (numbering - based on this version, from the time of the nomination):

ref1 - "You need to speak Polish": Antony Polonsky interviewed by Konrad Matyjaszek) - discusses "Paradisus Judaeorum". The full phrase is not present (though it is mentioned as anti-Semitic), there is a 4.5 line footnote mentioning the 1606 text.

ref2 - Krzy?anowski, Julian Madrej glowie do?? dwie slowie: Trzy centurie przys?l?w polskich (1960) - PRIMARYish collection of sayings, does contain the phrase.

ref3 - Adalberg, Samuel. "Ksi?ga przys??w, przypowie?ci i wyra?e? przys?owiowych polskich (1889 !!!) - dictionary style collection of sayings - entirely PRIMARY. Merely contains the phrase (under phrases beginning with Polska) - no analysis.

ref4 - Haumann, Heiko (2002-01-01). A History of East European Jews - The source does discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum" at length, however it does not discuss the phrase - it merely mentions it in a sentence as part of the wider discussion in the source on the Golden Age in Poland (with a question mark in the title).

ref5 - kinner, Quentin; Gelderen, Martin van (2013-03-07). Freedom and the Construction of Europe - merely mentions the saying, before discussing the status of nobility in Poland. The saying is not analyzed or discussed.

ref6 - Moskalewicz, Marcin. Jewish Medicine and Healthcare in Central Eastern Europe - does discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum", however the full saying isn't even mentioned.

ref7 - Janicka, El?bieta (2016-12-28). "The Embassy of Poland in Poland: The Polin Myth in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ) as narrative pattern and model of minority-majority relation - mainly discusses "Paradisus Judaeorum" as an anti-semitic trope (including by the Nazis and nationalists in the Polish second republic) and its questionable use in the Polin musuem. The full phrase itself is not even present, though Janicka does discuss its origin in an antisemitic 1606 pamphlet.

ref8 - Norman Davies (24 February 2005). God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795 - does not contain the phrase. It does mention "Paradise of the Jews" and says a better label would be "Paradise of the Nobles" - in any event it is not about the phrase.

ref9 - Garbowski, Christopher (2016). "Polin: From a "Here You Shall Rest" Covenant to the Creation of a Polish Jewish History Museum. An interview with Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett" - brief mention of the origins of the phrase in the context of the museum exhibit.

ref10 - Modras, Ronald (2000). The Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939 - quote of phrase (+short sentence it is an exaggeration) as a lede to a discussion on the state of Jews in Poland

ref11 - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004). Rzeczy mgliste: eseje i studia - discussion titled "Paradisium Iudeorum" of 1.5 pages in a paper on Polish antisemitic sayings. The 1.5 pages consist mainly of primary quotations and also discuss an unrelated "poem" of "Judas and his sack". In total, there are approx. 2 paragraphs discussing our phrase.

ref12 - Starowolski, Szymon (1636). Stacye zo?nierskie: Abo W wy?i?g?niu ich z dobr ko??ielnych potrzebne przestrogi. Dla Ich M?iow P?now Zo?nierzow st?rych, y inszych m?odych, co si? n? Zo?niersk? vs?ug? sposabi?? b?d? - anti-semitic tract from 1636 (!!!) - The saying is present - but is not discussed as a topic - this is a PRIMARY attestation of use - which is not relevant for notability.

ref13 - Palmer, William (1876). The Patriarch and the Tsar ... Tr?bner and Company. p. 58. - contains a markedly different phrase (Nova Babylonia) which contains some common (though modified) clauses, adds others, omits others. Connection to this article is WP:OR - and in any event there is no discussion in the source of the "Nova Babylonia" phrase - it is merely a PRIMARY attestation of use - and is not relevant for notability.

ref14 - Archivio storico lombardo (in Italian). Societ? storica lombarda. 1907 - old book containing the phrase and nothing else.

ref15 - Monumenta hungariae historica: Ir?k (in Hungarian). Magyar Tudom?nyos Akad?mia. 1894 - another reprint of one of the original 17th century "poems" in Latin.

ref16 - Polin. Basil Blackwell for the Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies. 1986. - seems to be a mere mention of an 18th century use.

ref17 - J?zef Ignacy Kraszewski (1875). Polska w czasie trzech rozbior?w 1772-1799: studia do historyi ducha i obyczaju. 1791-1799 - a reference to the phrase as "old proverb".

ref18 - D?blin, Alfred (1991). Journey to Poland. Tauris. - written in the 1920s (this is a 1991 reprint). Merely mentions this as an old saying.

ref19 - Walsh, William Shepard (1892). Handy-book of Literary Curiosities - old book, seems to be a brief mention.

ref20 - Proverbs of All Nations, Compared, Explained. W. Kent & Company. 1861 - contains a different phrase (with goldmine), attributed to a German source (no Latin or Polish). Connection to this article is WP:OR, and regardless - the source contains nothing beyond a German langauge sentence and a translation of it to English.

ref21 - "A Virtual Visit to the Museum of the History of Polish Jews". Culture.pl. - probably not a reliable source, but this discusses the "Paradisus Iudaeorum" musuem exhibit. The phrase isn't actually present, though it is discussed in the opening paragraph as the source for the two word term.

ref22 - Despard, Matthew K. (2015-01-02). "In Search of a Polish Past". Jewish Quarterly - contains a discussion of the Polish museum, not the phrase.

ref23 - Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. (2016-09). "Mixed Metaphors in Muran?w: Holocaust Memory and Architectural Meaning at the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews" - ditto.

ref24 - "Russia Gathers Her Jews. The Origins of the "Jewish Question" in Russia, 1772–1825. John Doyle Klier. Northern Illinois University Press - "Paradise for Jews" appears in a chapter heading. No indication the phrase is discussed at all.

ref25 - Hundert, Gershon David (1997-10-01). "Poland: Paradisus Judaeorum" - article is on the concept of "Paradisus Judaeorum". The Polish phrase is merely mentioned and then discussed in a single sentence.

ref26 - Byron L. Sherwin (24 April 1997). Sparks Amidst the Ashes: The Spiritual Legacy of Polish Jewry - a discussion on the history of Jews in Poland. A 3-term saying (varying from the one here - connection is somewhat WP:ORish) is mentioned as an introduction to a paragraph discussing Jewish life in Poland but not the phrase.

ref27 - "Paradisus Iudaeorum (1569–1648)". POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews - musuem exhibit on "Paradisus Iudaeorum". The full phrase is actually not present nor discussed on the linked webpage. The full phrase is present (one of many sayings presented) on the wall in the museum itself.

ref28 - Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna (2016-12-28). "Polin: „Ultimate Lost Object"". Studia Litteraria et Historica - paper on Polin museum. The phrase itself (which isn't even quoted) is discussed in a single sentence + in footnote8 the author devotes 4.5 lines to a previous 14th century Austrian use of "Paradisus Judaeorum" (but not the full phrase).

ref29 - Kijek, Kamil (2017). "For whom and about what? The Polin Museum, Jewish historiography, and Jews as a "Polish cause" - about the museum. Discussion of "Paradise for Jews" as a meta-narrative of the museum. Highly WP:SYNTH to include this (seems this was included to criticize Janicka by cherry-picking the author disagreeing with her that this is the sole narrative - while omitting the author's agreement that that is a narrative, a troubling use of words, and the author referring to "Janicka has compiled a much longer convincing enumeration of the elements of interwar antisemitism absent from the core exhibition"). In any event - this simply does not discuss the phrase.

Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is awkward. I think your argument based on analysis of the references is logical and pretty strong and it directs me to suggest that the clear way forward is for this to article to be retitled Paradise for the Jews or Paradisus Judaeorum. However, we just had a RM that found consensus against the former. But as I don't see the strong attention to the sources at that RM that you're presenting above, I'd stick with move to either of those two terms. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RM, while related, was on the primary topic of the article. Opposers of the move argued, correctly, that the present article is on the phrase (and this would not be just a move to Paradisus Judaeorum - but a major re-organization and re-write of the article (the phrase being merely background material for the concept - some discussions of "Paradisus Judaeorum" don't even mention it) - furthermore, many opposers mentioned that the present article could exist side-by-side with a Paradisus Judaeorum article. The RM, however, did not assess notability of the phrase itself. As an WP:ATD - I believe the RM discussion (to a topic that would clearly pass notability and is missing) was a correct first step to consider prior to nominating for deletion and assessing notability.Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Given there are so many reliable sources showing the notability of Paradisus, I'd be happy to roll up my sleeves and do the rewrite myself. We could !vote here for a delete and I'll rework it from the deleted text, I don't mind. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wow, excellent catch. You're right, I just finished reading 3 of the scholarly references which I'd searched for the fragment 'paradis' in order to get both Paradisus and paradise, and in over 150 pages none of the three actually talk about the proverb itself. All three mention Paradisus Judaeorum and/or some paraphrase of 'Jewish paradise' instead. One says the expression "Paradisus Judaeorum" was "a 17th century polemical concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels" and criticizing its use in a museum exhibit's title. Another mentions the proverb's roots, doesn't quote it but rather just refers to it as the "Paradisus Judaeorum" and mentions the original source is a 1606 antisemitic pamphlet, also using this to criticizes the museum for using it. That's it. Nothing about the proverb itself. I'm kind of gobsmacked, here. valereee (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Paradisus Judaeorum. My logic is this – deletion isn't cleanup, so the state of the current article isn't an issue, only the notability of the topic. Clearly, the phrase "Paradisus Judaeorum" and its variants is notable. The question is whether this larger proverb in which the phrase is embedded is notable enough for an article? I think, clearly it is notable enough to be mentioned, at least briefly, in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" article; but I think the nominator is most likely right that it isn't sufficiently notable for a standalone article. So, then should this article be deleted entirely, or survive as a redirect to "Paradisus Judaeorum"? I think, if the later article mentions the proverb (I think it should), this title should survive as a redirect to it. So, if this becomes a redirect to new article "Paradisus Judaeorum", do we need to wipe the history of this article? And must that new article start from scratch? I think, keeping the history isn't harmful, and some of the content (especially references) of the existing article might be useful for the new one. Given all that, Move/Redirect rather than Delete. SJK (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Paradisus Judaeorum. Agree with above sentiments, and will trust the literature reflects this. The few I double checked definitely lend notability to this term, which would necessitate a re-write of some sections in this article, but I feel the topic is notable, if inappropriately titled. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move I concur with SEMMENDINGER. I found the article very interesting and should meet requirements for scholarly articles on Wikipedia. Cleaning is necessary, but a simple move and cleanup should sufficiently rectify the biggest issues here. WillPeppers (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Golden_Liberty#Proverb which already contains details of another proverb about this political era. Having this as a separate page which focusses on the Jewish aspect rather than the other parts of society seems undue. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be considered undue? It's literally a page in regard to Judaism, so it makes sense it should solely cover just that one religion, no? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that Golden Liberty already mentions the proverb (it currently links to the article in its current title, but prior to creation of this article - version of 27 August - is contained a discussion on this: The Commonwealth was called Noble's Paradise, sometimes—the Jewish Paradise, but also Purgatory for the Townsfolk (Burghers) and Hell for the Peasants.[16] And even among the nobility (szlachta), the Golden Liberty became abused and twisted by the most powerful of them (magnates).[14][17] However, this "the Jewish Paradise, but also Purgatory for the Townsfolk and Hell for the Peasants" was retrospectively coined in the 20th century by Jewish-German novelist Alfred Döblin, not by the people of that time, and it should be evaluated whether this really reflects the fact of the age. In fact it is also true that a number of Russian peasants fled from their far more brutal lords to settle in liberal Poland,[18] which might stand out as example of counterevidence to the "Hell for the Peasants" claim.. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move with a redirect to Paradisus Judaeorum. I encourage those who are knowledgeable in this area to do a major rewrite. This has a good potential to become a GA or FA. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my !vote to Don't delete, Undecided on move while I watch and see where Pharos is going with the argument below. Free clue: I am looking for fewer comments about what other editors did and more arguments regarding why the present title is better than the proposed title. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unchanging my !vote. I haven't seen a single valid reason not to move this to the far less incendiary title Paradisus Judaeorum. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you agree that this is a notable topic, and that it should include coverage of the poem/proverb as well as the two-word phrase? I can understand objection to a name that sounds offensive, although I do disagree.--Pharos (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Guy Marcon: You do understand, I hope, that the current title is less incidental than the one you now support moving to? Not a single source has criticized the proverb as anything but an exaggeration (no stronger words were used), while (a single) source (Janicka) has explicitly called the term "Jewish Paradise" antisemitic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Guy Macon: Me and User:Pharos are the ones who wrote it, and we are quite well versed in this area (Polish literature and history). And we say the move/deletion is not a good idea, and is simply a POV argument by an editor who hasn't contributed much to the content except making the biggest WP:IDONTLIKEIT mess I've seen in my time here. Something you may want to consider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or minor move to something more search-friendly. The WP:NOTDIC argument is a nonsensical one, we have many articles in Category:Proverbs, and there are numerous RS that support the notability of this one. It is true that there are more sources for the popular two-word phrase than for the poem/proverb, but both aspects have scholarly sources and are notable, and clearly it make sense to treat the two together. The two-word phrase is covered in greater depth in the #Paradise for the Jews section as is appropriate for its historical resonance. For what it's worth, my original title for this article was Heaven for the nobles, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews, and many other variations in order and vocabulary also appear in the secondary literature in at least four languages, which is why it is not strange that "googling the title in quotes" of one particular version is not so simple. As the original creator of this article, I strongly object to the idea that I am somehow promoting an anti-Semitic idea by discussing the history of anti-Semitism and the anti-Semitic reaction to tolerant Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth policies of the 17th century.--Pharos (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "there are numerous RS that support the notability of this one" if you could present just two that would probably switch a lot of the !votes on this page. I don't think most of us are too fussed about DICDEF, it's GNG or rather WP:V that's the problem here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dweller: Please see two I link in my keep vote below. Let me know if you have questions, but check the article's talk page where I went into more depth on those two sources already (only to be ignored by this AfD's nom). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure how many people are worried about GNG, as the above sentiments seem to think it meets notability. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, don't move. First, a WP:RM just finished on article's talk with no consensus to move. Second, this is a bad faith nomination, as the nominator was told, multiple times, that they are in-depth, multiple, academic treatments of this very proverb - they just choose, again and again, to ignore this, up to and including this AfD. This is WP:POINT disruption and waste of community time. Anyway, the PROVERB is subject to in-depth treatment in a chapter of a book by one of most famous Polish language scholars, Julian Krzyżanowski and it has also been the subject of a dedicated article by Polish historian Stanisław Kot (both are present as refs in the article and have been pointed out at talk). As such, the proverb passes WP:GNG. If anyone feels the topic of 'Jewish Paradise' needs to be covered in a separate article, well, they can split it. But the proverb is the unifying element for the poem and the two-word construct. PS. I think some of the content from this article could be copied to POLIN Museum, as majority of discussion of the two-word construct seems to be concerned with the minor controversy over naming of one of their galleries (that never made it to mass media, just a few academic back and forth articles a few years back). On that note, please consider that the two-word construct of 'Jewish paradise' doesn't even seem to have, IMHO, independent notability outside this very controversy... Let me stress again: not a single, in-depth source have been presented about the two-word construct. Sure, it is used a lot in passing, but there's no in-depth analysis of its use, history, etc. The only in-depth treatments we have are (sadly, mostly offline and in Polish) works that focus on the longer phrase, i.e. proverb. Ideally, someone with access to a Polish library should read them and present a proper review for us, but it will be a month+ before I have the opportunity to do myself, at earliest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The 1937 source by Kot (a politician in the second republic and a historian) has not been seen nor analyzed by anyone involved here. The 1960 source by Krzyżanowski (which no one examined outside of snippet view, I believe) is a 609 page dictionary-style tome containing Polish sayings. Of the source actually in use in the article - the phrase is not even mentioned, or mentioned in passing by most. There is one source - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004) - that has 2 paragraphs of content (net). In the RM you argued that the anti-Semitic "poem" (actually a few different ones), the 4-clause phrase (title here), and "Paradisus Judaeorum" are 3 distinct topics - you can't have it both ways - if the 4-clause phrase is a distinct notable topic - you should present several in-depth secondary works on it, preferably modern pieces of scholarship. At present - most of the sources in the article that contain the 4-clause phrase in the article are neither secondary nor in-depth. Some of them are actually references to 17th century anti-Semitic works which just contain the phrase (or variant) as a polemic against Jews (and in some, but not all, also anti-Noble).Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Chipping back in here, I see no bad faith, only logical process. The RM was about one issue, an AfD is about others. I agree with Icewhiz that the sources currently presented do not warrant passing GNG and therefore point to delete. Much of the material present, however, is valid good content for the other title, which makes me suggest what I have. If you think this is a notable topic, we need multiple occurrences of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)r[reply]

  Errr, so what? We still have two in-depth sources about this proverb by top-notch academics (yes, the sources are a bit dated, but notability is not temporary, and the subject is pretty obscure). A 20+ page monograph and a 2-3 page analytical entry in a dictionary are quite sufficient for this. If someone wants to create a separate article about the two-word saying, it's not like anyone is stopping that person from copying relevant content there, if you think that topic is notable and needs to be separated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  We have? Have you examined Stanislaw Kot's piece from 1937? Is it on the phrase? The "poems"? We do not know it is in topic beyond a few brief quotes of it elsewhere. Futhermore is the 1937 publication a RS for antisemitism? I would doubt it. Kot is far from being a detached scholar - beyond being a leading member of the Polish Peasents Party - and his extremely nationalist politics, filling various government posts in the 30s and 40s (exile) - Kot himself is a topic of study in Polish antisemitism. For instance, in 1940 he is on record saying Jews are a "foreign body" in Poland and that there were too many Jews in Poland - he was "generous" in that he thought a third could remain, the rest should go elsewhere."stanislaw+kot"+third+foreign+body&source=bl&ots=xmgDnoAQQG&sig=Fl_8DRYI1a_6UluMNRsqkEY6ow8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYvorV5vzeAhUD3KQKHaiDDUcQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="stanislaw%20kot"%20third%20foreign%20body&f=false He also promoted Judeo-communism in concert with Jews and money stereotypes - in Nov 1941 he was concerned of "international financial Israelite magnates excessive power" and the possibility of Poles being subjugated to "economic Jewish slavery"."international+financial+Israelite+magnates+excessive+power+…”"+kot&source=bl&ots=rsa9OPi5t0&sig=8ZFgZEjcrwBawQ_n6Il_gc_PiBg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjByoyo6vzeAhUCsqQKHffGANoQ6AEwCnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q="international%20financial%20Israelite%20magnates%20excessive%20power%20…”"%20kot&f=false Kot is featured extensively in modern works which study Polish antisemitism - to use him as a secondary RS for Polish antisemitism? Truly novel.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything to you is about antisemitism. Well, face it - this proverb is not about antisemitism. As majority of sources show, it is about the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Antisemitism is only a side issue here. To the anonymous author of the 17th century poem, dislike of Jews was just as important as dislike of nobles, for example. And sny negative exaggerations became forgotten since as the proverb, detached from its xenophobic roots, is used in positive context to talk about vibrant Jewish medieval culture. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You actually raised a 1937 source, as in indication of notability, whose author was advocating in his rather major political role (at the same time it was written) mass expulsion of the Jews in Poland (to be precise - 66% of the Jews of Poland) as they were a "foreign body". What's next? Janicka says the Nazi IDO institute in Krakow published a paper on Polish expresssions and Jews in 1942, and came to the conclusion that this saying provides a "valid insight" - are we going to try and pass that off as a secondary RS? Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't believe you are serious - everything to you is Reductio ad Hitlerum, or rather, Reductio ad Antisemitium. Kot is good enough for Janicka - she treats him as a perfectly reliable source. When he says and she repeats that the author was likely a Catholic and the proverb is not favorable to Jews, you accept him. But if someone wants to use his to support a claim you disagree with, Kot is an unreliable antisemitie. Kali's morality, eh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Piotrus if I may -- while I would never want to reduce peoples' statements/views/etc to their backgrounds in any way, perhaps at times it also must be acknowledged. Whether it is anti-Semitic, unintentionally perpetuating anti-Semitism by making Jews sound as if they were some socioeconomic class (Jews/money, you know … :/), a case of white-washing, or totally innocent, citing an anti-Semite saying someone else is "unfavorable" to Jews for that point specifically is quite different from using what he says for almost anything else where Jews are concerned, and using sources from the 1930s/1940s is a thing that will instinctively put Jewish editors and also readers, even those who are perfectly in control of their emotions, on edge, whatever the intentions are. Perhaps it is similar for Poles regarding sources coming from Germany or Russia in those times. Personally, editing in my main area currently which is the Balkans, I prefer to avoid anything that is before 1945 and published in the area, and also anything from former Yugoslavia between 1985 and 2000, for similar though less drastic reasons. Admittedly, I'm saying this without having kept up with the exact specifics on your past spats with Icewhiz, but just one perspective, which is admittedly a Jewish one.--Calthinus (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Kot's monograph as cited by several modern scholars does I think do much to establish the general notability of the topic. I don't think "unfavorable" is a quote from Kot, and that's not what Wikipedia or modern scholars have cited from him. Instead they've referred to his scholarship on the original authorship of the poem. Certainly modern scholars should be given precedence on the issue of anti-Semtitism or related topics.--Pharos (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Calthinus: Of course if we were discussing anti-semitism, a 1930s source is too obsolete to be considered. But we are not. We are discussing an obscure literary construct, a poem or a proverb, and for that, an old but in-depth monogoraph (~20 pages) by a respected historian seems perfectly feasible. The only thing under discussion here is whether the proverb, which is in the monograph title and is discussed by it in-depth (as suggested by modern scholars like Janicka who cite it, presumably having accessed it offline) is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus: (Straying into WP:NOTFORUM territory, but still) I've no doubt everyone here are acting in good faith, but this treatment of a clearly anti-Semitic phrase is reminiscent of how many white Americans treat blackface: "Insulting? I don't think it's insulting at all!" Sometimes the bigotry and prejudice are so deeply ingrained in a culture, that they becomes nearly invisible to anyone not experiencing them. Here we have a populist phrase contrasting the elites with the people, and who are the elites? The nobility and the Jews; the Jews - a marginalized, abused and historically persecuted minority - are placed on the same pedestal with the privileged landed gentry. Does this ring a bell? Perhaps it reminds you of some stereotype or conspiracy theory? This phrase wasn't born in a societal vacuum, and is no more an "innocent representation" of reality than blackface was; but for those who never experienced the other end of it it looks as normal as to be perfectly benign. François Robere (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @François Robere: Except that for blackface we can find plenty of academic discussion of how this concept can be seen as offensive, pejorative, etc. and there is consensus in literature (and media) for that view. For this proverb, the best we have is pretty much a single source that makes such a claim in passing. All other sources treat the proverb in a neutral or positive way, as the Golden Age reference. Arguing that it is offensive is an extremely fringe OR. And if you want to talk about OR, I'd argue that this proverb, while originating from a xenophobic (and among others, antisemitic) poem, has been subject to reappropriation and obliteration by incorporation and that arguing otherwise is doing a disservice to the Jewish culture, by refocusing the public attention away from the positive (the Golden Age) to the negative (intergroup hatred). Here's food for thought.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Which has more to do with the lack of sources on this phrase, than with its supposed neutrality. However, just like "blackface" is part of a wider topic, so is this phrase - and the research on that wider topic supports this "fringe" claim very clearly. But regardless, if you want to concentrate (or have more sources on) only a part of the phrase, which may or may not be related to the xenophobic and anti-Semitic original (does any of the sources actually relate the two?), then why object to the rename? François Robere (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move, and hand over to User:Dweller. If their rewrite results in anything more than a stub, then deletion can be reconsidered. François Robere (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While User:Dweller is welcome to work on this or any other topic, Francois, you should be aware of WP:OWN. We don't "hand" articles out or "take them away" from anyone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course we do! We just go on doing something else and wait. François Robere (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move relevant/valuable material to Paradisus Judaeorum -- a much less and incendiary title -- and also potentially Antisemitism in Poland and History of Jews in Poland. There is certainly useful material here but I'm not sure a whole page on the concept is necessary and useful, while on the other hand there are some issues that arise with the sourcing (so far, that is -- to give Piotrus and Pharos the benefit of the doubt here, it is possible that more sources in Polish exist I suppose) and the topic itself seems a bit hard to uncontroversially define. Is it one poem that became a proverb? Is it an -- alleged -- feeling among the ethnic Polish/Catholic majority? Is it an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? There seems to be uncertainty here, which is really not great given the nature of the topic and past conflicts in the "Jewish-Polish" bilateral area on wiki -- lots of room for misunderstanding both by editors and more importantly readers. Paradisus Judaeorum -- the idea that Poland was a Jewish "paradise" and discourse about that idea through the subsequent ages -- is notable, from a Jewish as well as a Polish perspective. --Calthinus (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or minor move to something more search-friendly per User:Pharos. The subject is clearly notable as demonstrated by Piotrus. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for nominating an article for deletion.--Darwinek (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to just Keep. I think the article is well-sourced to stay with the current name.--Darwinek (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't move. No good reason for deleting this article. Piotrus makes valid points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatzref (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Welcome back from your 5 month wikibreak. @Tatzref: - please confirm that in endorsing Piotrus's reasoning, that you consider a 1937 paper written by a politician who at the time was advocating for the mass expulsion of Jews from Poland - a secondary reliable source? Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move or Delete I think it should be deleted per WP:TNT or moved to moved to more appropriate title.Right now its reads like one big WP:OR essay most of the sources doesn't even mention the topic of the article.Some of the sources are 400 years old and hence WP:PRIMARY.There is no modern scholarship that discuss the topic of the article. --Shrike (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shrike: The primary historical sources added by User:Pharos are just for the samples of original poem text. The proverb itself is discussed by in-depth 20th century sources (Kot and Krzyzanowski). Two in-depth sources (academic monograph and a 2-3 pages dedicated chapter is a book discussing famous Polish proverbs) should be sufficient to prove notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of which anyone here read. Krzyzanowski is a 1960 dictionary style collection of sayings. Kot wrote his paper in 1937, in modern use he is used attributed, and Kot himself is better known for his politics (one of the leaders of the Peasent Party, ambassador to Soviet Union, Propaganda minister) than for scholarship - he is a topic of study in regards to his stmts on Jews - which included advocating the mass expulsion of most of Poland's Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your attempt to discredit Kot because at some point in life he made some comments during his political career that others have criticized is simply irrelevant. What matters here is that he was a historian, and modern scholars cite him and consider him a reliable source. Notably, Tokarska-Bakir, wrinabout antisemitism in Poland, cited from Kot, calling his literature review and study of the proverb in question 'solid', and she did not deem it relevant to discuss any biases of his. Ditto for Janicka, who quotes Tokarska-Bakir's assessment of Kot. Neither of those tw modern scholars of antisemitism seem to have any problems considering Kot reliable. You are trying to me more holy that the proverbial Pope and presume you understand which sources are good or not better than experts - to me this is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since this AfD has a possibility of overturning the prior, recent RM I am going to ping each editor who took part in that RM but has not posted here. @Catrìona, StarryGrandma, GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek, Serial Number 54129, Thryduulf, and Xx236: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move for the reasons I gave in the RM - the "Paradise for the Jews" is the only part that has apparently gained significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Even in the article as it was then, the rest of the phrase was just background context. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - (and a strong one) per my argumentation at the RM (just recently closed!), I also just added an additional reference to the main body of the article [1]. I'll continue my remark later (sorry I'm busy at the moment) GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move or delete. I think Icewhiz has presented a strong argument that the article has been ref bombed and the full phrase is not notable. Catrìona (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a separate article. This is a proverb with ample references for its use as a proverb in the way that the articles in Category:Proverbs are written. Those articles also note how much proverbs vary in phrasing. Much of this article is about the historical topic of Paradisus Judeorum, the Jewish Golden Age, a term which is used by both Jewish and non-Jewish historians. That material should be moved to its own article instead of being in this one. Even if the historians just used the proverb in passing, one would like to be able to find out more about it by looking in WIkipedia. However the analysis of the historians' references given above is not correct:

• One of the references in the article (ref4 above), A History of East European Jews by the German historian de:Heiko Haumann, goes into the economic role of the Polish Jews in detail on pages 4-18 and 27-29, including their relationships with the nobles, peasants, and Christian merchants and craftsmen before citing the proverb. And he cites the proverb as an introduction to explaining exactly what happened as feudal control was extended: Jews were caught between the lords of the manor and the peasants.^[1]
• Another (ref25 above), by the Canadian Jewish historian Gershon David Hundert also uses the proverb as a introduction to a detailed discussion of the economic role of the Jews as intermediaries between the landowners and the peasants.^[2]

In neither case is the proverb just a "mention in passing". These references are readable online and worth looking at.

The proverb at the time was a satirical but largely true statement, and this has been supported by historians. The proverb has been used both in praise of Jews and by those who are anti-Semitic. I am sorry that Icewhiz is uspset by the phrase, but normally we don't censor Wikipedia in this way. In some circles there is a feeling that anything about the Jews coming out of Poland must be anti-Semitic. However Hundert, in his article Paradisus Judaeorum says:

The third problem or obstacle is what might be termed the conventional wisdom of contemporary Jews, which has it that the terms Pole and anti-Semite are synonymous; indeed, as a former Prime Minister of the State of Israel so memorably phrased it, that Poles receive anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk. It is this conception that I wish now to contest. Whatever its accuracy in the context of twentieth-century Poland, it is a fundamental distortion of Jewish experience in the Polish Commonwealth of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.^[2]

StarryGrandma (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StarryGrandma, I don't believe that the references you mention give in-depth coverage to this phrase, only passing mentions. I'd be very happy if you proved me wrong and told me that there were several that offer in-depth coverage. I'd soon switch to keep, and so would others, I'm sure. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet sources about "Jewish Paradise" provide at most as much or less coverage. I can't understand why you can criticize the sourcing for the longer proverb, without criticizing the even less in-depth discussion of the two-word phrase. As I noted, the proverb at least seems to have in-depth coverage in the 1937 monograph and the 1960 (reprinted in 1994) book (both cited by modern scholars). The two-word phrase has not been subject to any in-depth treatment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dweller, in-depth varies with the topic. The proverb part of this article, which is under consideration here, consists of just a few words. Looking at Category:Proverbs, most of the articles there have two or more of the following types of references:

1. listing in a dictionary or collection of proverbs
2. history of the proverb
3. brief explanation of the proverb
4. various versions of the proverb
5. famous peoples' use of the proverb
6. use of the proverb as the theme in subsequent writing

The article has one or more references of each of these types. The two historians I cite above use the proverb as the theme of their article or chapter section. Rather than use the proverb to take off into a related area, they go on to explain in depth exactly what was going on at the time that led to the proverb. Please give me an example of the type of reference in use in proverb articles that you feel we are missing here. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that being included in a dictionary of proverb, with several paragraph of discussion of the proverb (and as I said, probably 2 if not 3 pages based on snippet view of ToC) seems like more than most proverb articles can expect. Then there's the usual 'rule of thumb' - if something is good enough for a specialized encyclopedia or similar work, it is probably good enough for us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this proverb seems reasonably well sourced. The fact that it might have been occassionally had negative aspect is no reason for deletion of a well sourced article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  MyMoloboaccount Personally, I don't care a jot about the negative aspects, but if you read the discussion above, you'll see it's not clear that this proverb is well sourced, even though the article is very well sourced. Most of the sourcing is about a different, albeit related, topic. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 00:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the sourcing is about the controversy over a gallery naming related to POLIN Museum, which is about as related to the proverb as to the two-word phrase (since the museum displays the entire phrase, and uses the two-word part as a gallery heading). Then we have two older in-depth sources about the proverb, and a bunch of examples of the proverb or (I agree, mostly) two-word phrase used in passing. What am I missing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • If most of the references are about the museum controversy, and we've only got two sources on the subject of this article, then why not move the whole museum section to POLIN Museum and mark this article as a history stub? François Robere (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• François Robere, I think you may be confused. The two sources that I listed are not the only sources for the proverb. If you look at the article and at my list of the types of references for proverbs, you will see that the article contains one or more separate sources for the proverb of each of those types. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm referring to Piotr's listing. How many of the sources you mention use the whole phrase, and how many just the "paradise for Jews" part? Also: Can you classify the sources Icewhiz lists? François Robere (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• François Robere, editors contributing to an AfD discussion are expected to have read and analyzed the article themselves rather than just relying on the nominator's and other editor's assessments. Many of the sources are linked online and you can check this for yourself. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm asking that you follow up on your classification. If you don't want to then that's okay, but I'm not convinced. François Robere (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. The topic is obviously notable. There already was an RM on the name. The whole rename thing appears to be an attempt to circumvent the usual RM process. Keep it as is, and then maybe revisit the issue of the name at some point in the (not so immediate) future. Volunteer Marek 03:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject is notable. Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this article offensive? --Jirangmoon (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't really matter. If an article is completely on-point, well sourced and well written and still offensive, then there's no grounds for deletion. But if an article is biased in such a way as to be offensive, then there is. In either case the emotional response of the reader is secondary to the informative value of the content. That being said, there could be multiple ways to present the same content, and we should tend towards those that keep the reader engaged. François Robere (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotion of antisemitic hate speech should not be tolerated - such topics should be covered in a neutral and balanced manner that clearly states that the topic is hate speech. In this particular case this particular phrase does not have INDEPTH secondary coverage. Suggestions to use the writings of an antisemitic Polish politician who advocated the mass expulsion of Jews, written in 1937, as a secondary source is a travesty. The article is full of OR, quoting hate speech at length, and lacks proper balance due to the lack of reliable secondary sources that actually treat the chosen topic in a secondary manner.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Paradisus Judaeorum. Since we have already came this far, moving seems like the best alternative to deletion. Orientls (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is this an authentic, documented text? Yes. Does it exist in variant versions? Yes, as do many texts. Is it of notability in the country to which it refers? Yes. Is it a commentary, a satire, a proverb, a poem, a saying? It may be one or all of these, depending on how one is inclined to view it. Some here have called it a poem. Are poems not, by their very nature, often ambiguous in their interpretation? Leave the text under its most complete title, and add any worthwhile interpretations to the body of the article. Transfer the massive POLIN discussion to the POLIN Museum article. Write, if you wish to, a separate article on "Paradise for the Jews", an expression which may or may not have been cognate with the principal saying under discussion here. Nihil novi (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move after reading this wall of text I am concluding that many of the keep votes didn't actually read the sources closely. Many of these sources are being used for original research and synthesis to support the idea that this title is the correct title. Yes, this is a notable subject, but the sources don't talk about this title. They talk about Paradesus Judaeorum so that is where the article should be. That is the most important point, and I feel like people are taking a quick look, seeing there are multiple long scholarly sources, a wall of text at the talk page, and assuming those sources are being used according to wikipedia policy. I feel the article's primary editor is operating in good faith but has an unconscious conflict of interest that is causing him, in all good faith, to push an agenda. Check the talk page; it's a war of attrition. valereee (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Paradisus Judaeorum and then merge usable content to History of the Jews in Poland. Neither the full saying nor the shorter phrase appear to be independently notable. On the 1960s source, it's unclear what's in it and whether it's "academic"; it cannot be used to establish notability. On Stanisław Kot, in addition to being a scholar, he was also a politician, who "joined the right wing of the People's Party". Related to the age of the source, if other sources are discussing Kot's approach to the topic, I would consider these sources to be secondary, while the source they are analysing (Kot) is primary. Resulting in much of the content about the entire saying being OR, in addition to what's cited to 19th-century sources. Lastly, the 1930s source would obviously not be authoritative on whether the saying is antisemitic or not, resulting in WP:NOPAGE situation; there's insufficient sourcing to develop an NPOV article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In full disclosure, I know the author, and he's anything but anti-Semitic. I agree with him that the article is notable, and scholarly discussion of this unpleasant historical work is not an endorsement of its meanings. I concede that it might be better labeled as satire (perhaps in the title?) or even categorized explicitly as anti-Semitic literature. Ken Eckert (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move what is valuable content to Paradise for the Jews or Paradisus Judaeorum. The rest should be deleted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Paradisus Judaeorum and then merge usable content to History of the Jews in Poland. Precisely as User:K.e.coffman suggests, and for very much his reasons. The sourcing alleged to support notability for this phrase is highly problematic, not least because of the extremely politically inflected nature of Stanisław Kot's writing, and, as Coffman wrote above, unreliable nature of Polish sources about Jews from the anti-Semitic 1930s. This is a WP:NOPAGE situation; not to mention the demonstrated impossibility of developing a NPOV article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.