User talk:Coimbralove
Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]
|
Hi Coimbralove! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
PVDE was not secret[edit]
Just one comment the PVDE was not secret. It was public. They were in charge, among many other things, of emigration control. Nobody in Portugal has good memories of this police or PIDE, but they were not secret. If you can read Portuguese this was the law that created this police http://www.oocities.org/heartland/garden/4462/dgspvde.htm JPratas (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi JPratas. How are you today? In the English language "Secret police" = "Political police." This is exactly the correct term for the PVDE. Are there any other English expressions that you need help with?
Reply to Coimbralove (Olivia)
That is not what Merriam Webster says. "a police organization operating for the most part in secrecy and especially for the political purposes of its government often with terroristic methods" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secret%20police
also not what Longman says " a police force controlled by a government, that secretly tries to defeat the political enemies of that government"
Yes they had a political branch. But they had many other functions, all far from secret. One of those branches was immigration and emigration control services. JPratas (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"Secret police" is the correct expression in English. There is no better expression, and the Sousa Mendes entry is not the place to be getting into semantics about the PVDE. Best to send people to the PIDE page.
Response to Coimbra Love ->For someone that lived in Portugal in those times, calling PVDE “secret police” makes no sense at all. It looks like you want to paint a horror story where there was none. Throughout the war Portugal allowed thousands refugees in. Maybe could have allowed more. Milgram says it could, other people argue it could not because it would compromise neutrality and the country could not be the solution for a problem of millions. But Portugal allowed more than most other countries. Trying to paint the police as a “gestapo” does not make any sense.
“The assigned functions of PVDE were many and went beyond that of defense or attack on political oppositionist; that function was fulfilled by only one section...PVDE combined functions of criminal investigative police, international police, internal security and counter intelligence, foreign intelligence, immigration and emigration control services, border surveillance, and prison administration services.” - In the Service of Order: The Portuguese Political Police and the British, German and Spanish Intelligence, 1932-1945, Douglas L. Wheeler Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan., 1983), pp. 5
As you can see most of the functions has no secrecy at all. JPratas (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Please learn some history. Here is the Wiki entry on Delgado:
Delgado and his Brazilian secretary, Arajaryr Moreira de Campos, were murdered on 13 February 1965, after being lured into an ambush by the regime's secret police (PIDE) near the border town of Olivenza, while trying to enter Portugal clandestinely. The official version was that Delgado was killed in self-defence, but he was not even armed when he was shot, and his secretary was strangled. Their bodies were found only about two months later, near the Spanish village of Villanueva del Fresno.
It was Casimiro Monteiro, a PIDE agent, who shot and killed General Delgado, and strangled his Brazilan secretary (Monteiro was also involved in the killing of Eduardo Mondlane, founder of Frelimo, Mozambique's Liberation Movement). Salazar, who approved the operation, when was told about the killings, said simply, "Uma maçada" ("Such a bother"). He later appeared on national television claiming to be ignorant of the political police's involvement and blaming quarrels between opposition forces for the event.
Some historians claim that the Spanish authorities knew about the involvement of the Portuguese secret police and staged the finding of the decomposing corpses by two local boys.
Coimbralove (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Olivia I know this fact. This was in 1965. And I will not deny it. They had nothing to do with refugees in 1940-45-
PVDE was NOT secret, had many other functions, and they were not the Portuguese “gestapo”. Most of the refugees were thankful to Portuguese hospitality. Portugal save people and according to many people could have saved much more (the same can be said about US, UK, Switzerland, etc.). But Portugal was not running death camps and the police was not the “gestapo”. Let us not confuse things.
JPratas (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The Delgado entry uses the expression "secret police" for the PIDE because this is correct term. But I have already explained this to you. The hospitality of the Portuguese people (not the regime or the PIDE) is another matter, and I added that to the safe haven section with a reference to Esaguy's book. Coimbralove (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The Delgado entry is far from being a reliable source. Delgado was 20 years later. Your explanation is not according to any dictionary. And the description you want to make of PVDE is not according to Professor Douglas Wheeler. Anyway, what is the point? Milgram insists, and is convincing on this point, that modern antisemitism failed “to establish even a toehold in Portugal” (p. 11) while it grew racist and virulent elsewhere in early twentieth-century Europe. Moreover, António de Oliveira Salazar, Portugal’s dictator, rose to power in 1932 without antisemitic rhetoric or violence. Even Portuguese fascists (the Blue Shirts) eschewed the antisemitism that proponents of their ilk espoused in the north. They admired Hitler, yet did not oppose Jews coming to Portugal to escape his violent persecution. This is impressive. Still, readers may wonder about this lack of prejudice, especially since Salazar dreaded and stigmatized “communism,” “republicanism,” and “liberalism”—more code words for “Jews,” at least among Portugal’s neighbors. In addition, Milgram admits that the police harbored antisemitism, transposing their general dislike of foreigners onto Jews. But even as the police harassed and threatened Jews, they did not turn them over to the Germans.
So what is the point of making a fuss out of isolated, despicable, episodes of anti-Semitism? And try to use this episodes to paint something that never existed?
The more you follow that route, more discredit will fall upon you and ASM. JPratas (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC) --- The question you posed is whether it is correct to term the PVDE/PIDE "secret police" and apparently you are unwilling to accept that this is the correct expression in the English language. You seem to have a very rosy view of history, which is great but it's not the truth. Coimbralove (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Well the fact is that you insist on calling PVDE “secret police” despite the fact that according to Merriam Webster or Longman dictionaries you are wrong. And also according to Professor Douglas Wheeler you are wrong. And it is an absurd to say that a police force in charge of immigration and emigration control, border control, etc. was “secret”. JPratas (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
What a strange point to be arguing. They were Salazar's political police, and yes, many of their activities were covert (secret) in addition to their public face. The post-war Delgado case is one that became known. But are you really claiming that their wartime activities were completely benign? Do you really believe this? Coimbralove (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The point is that the branch of PVDE that was in charge of immigration and emigration control, border control, etc. was NOT “secret”.
So what? They were still the secret police. And that is still the correct term. You seem to be a stickler for correct terms and yet you reject it here. Why? What is your motivation for defending the activities of the PVDE? You must be their last defender on Earth! :-) Coimbralove (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe you want to call it "secret" because you want to paint the story of the "good" Sousa Mendes fighting "evil" Salazar. I believe that Sousa Mendes was no angel and Salazar was no demon.
No, not an angel, not a saint, but a great man. Do you disagree? Coimbralove (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I have difficulties in calling a great man to someone that: i) had the habit of using public money for his own private expenses; ii) spent fortunes in enlarging a mansion instead of saving for the future of 12 children; iii) was unfaithful to wife and family; iv) Did not see his illegitimate daughter until she was ten years old; v) praised himself for persecuting those who opposed the dictatorship; vi) Allowed is second wife to forbid his sons and daughters to visit him; vii) “someone who always spend without counting the cost and believed that the mere idea of balancing one's budget showed lack of breeding” and was not able to live with a salary 3 times the salary of a teacher; viii) etc. By the way. If you can read Portuguese you should read an interesting book from Bessa Lopes. Very interesting and very racist. He was a big supporter of South African apartheid… did you know about that? JPratas (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I know that most literature on Sousa Mendes intentionally hide many things about Sousa Mendes because those things don't fit the angel description. Just read the Sousa Mendes bio on the foundation website and you will not find a word on: He had an impressive track record of abuses and reprimands, he was even expelled from the US for anti-democratic speeches and newspaper articles, he was pro-dictatroship and praised himself of participating in political persecutions, he was unfaithful to his wife and family, he had no money sense and his second wife Andrée even less, he received his full salary until he died (a salary 3 times the salary of a teacher) , etc., etc., etc. And I believe that Salazar was no angel as well but that his neutrality helped a lot of people. He could have completely closed the borders from day one but he decided not to. He could just not allow all refugees to get in because they were millions. Among neutral countries in 1940 Portugal was probably one of the most jew-friendly. (That is even recognized by jewish historians like Milgram)
Wrong. Sweden gets that prize. (Think Wallenberg, sent BY the Swedish government. Think the rescue operation that saved all the Jews of Denmark.) Coimbralove (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Sweden? ..... Sweden? What prize? Here is the murky truth of how a neutral Sweden covered up its collaboration with Nazis: Recently, during the Stockholm conference on the Holocaust a television documentary exposed how several hundred Swedish soldiers volunteered to fight on the German side during the war. Some worked as guards at Treblinka, the concentration camp where 900,000 Jews were murdered! Sweden also enjoyed the profits of doing business with the Nazis. It is emerging now that some of the gold handled by its central bank, the Riksbank, had been looted from Jews by the German Nazis. There was evidence at the time that the gold was plundered but both the management of the Riksbank and the government turned a blind eye. Unclaimed accounts in Swedish banks at the end of the war were also handled ineptly. Neutral Sweden allowed Nazis to use their railways to occupy Norway... and transfer Jews to death camps
JPratas (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe you want to paint black and white something that is not that simple.
And I also believe that all the paragraphs you wrote trying to defend the 30,000 figure, based on a rough database, falls under the category "original research" and therefore against wikipedia policy. But it is so poor that it backfires. And I believe, just like Milgram and many people, that besides those hundreds of visas granted in 17,18 and 19 June 1940 the foundation will not be able to come up with anything else because there is not much more than a few hundreds. And in those few hundreds are included normal visas granted to Portuguese, British, Americans, etc. and millionaires like the Rothschild or politicians like Oto Habsburg, that would always get their visas. JPratas (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
What the heck? Is JPratas kidding[edit]
Fort the last couple of months I’ve been addding a lot of data to this article. All the data I’ve added is from well know reliable sources. As a result this Wikipedia article is, probably, today one of the best sources of information for anyone wanting to study the Sousa Mendes story. Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide , the better it is.
I’ve been finding many of your challenges interesting, although sometimes I feel like I have to reference the source for “Paris is the capital of France”.
But now things are getting a little out of mark. It is quite obvious that some of the facts that are mentioned in verifiable source are not facts that you like or approve. Maybe there are some facts about Sousa Mendes that you don’t like (e.g. he was unfaithful to his wife, he supported the dictatorship, he was no democrat, he praised himself for annihilating the maneuvers of those who oppose the dictatorship, he had no money sense, he spent public money for his own private expenses, his actions happened long before the Holocaust, etc., etc., etc. )
But there is no reason for you to start deleting text that is supported by reliable sources and to start using, in the article, jargon, such as “What the heck? Is JPratas kidding?”
That language is questionable for the talk page, but by no means should be used in the article.
In this particular case you will have to address your question to Yad Vashem historian Dr. Avraham Milgram. He is the source.
That language is questionable for the talk page, but by no means should be used in the article. I understand you don’t like his work. But since he is the Yad Vashem Historian and his works are published by the Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust Studies, you could show a little more respect.
There is another remark/question you've made, this time related to a Yehuda Bauer statement, which it seems you also do not agree with. (but I am not going to tell where is Bauer's statement...) JPratas (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Use of Archives/Library, YIVO Institute for Jewish Research[edit]
This is a primary source? It seems that Requests for permission to reproduce materials for publication should be made in written form to the Archives/Library, YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, 15 West 16th Street, New York, NY 10011-6301. I am afraid this should not be included in the Wikipedia as is. JPratas (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not saying it is incorrect, but I’ve never heard or read about this event. I’ve googled the event and cannot find trace of it. The source you are using has copyright and needs to be paid. Can you double-check this? It could be that someone making the write-up mixed up what Mr d’Esagy was talking about. JPratas (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi JPratas! Your passion for this subject is admirable. If you give me your contact information I would be happy to send you Esaguy's speech where he talks about it.
Response: That is what I've figured. You are just using a write-up of something that Esaguy might have said. There is no other record of that event. Such an important event would have left more traces than that document you are using. If this is the case, for the sake of intelectual honesty you should not use it. JPratas (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
˜˜˜˜
Sousa Mendes Salary Dispute[edit]
Could you please provide the source for the statement: "The normal salary of a foreign service officer of the rank and years of service of Sousa Mendes was around 8500 escudos per month" Just Facts and Figures (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Just Facts and Figures. Are you the father of JPratas? I will look into it and get back to you.
coimbralove (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Also very interested in knowing source for this 8.500 Escudos. 17 X salary of school teacher (According to Rui Afonso) JPratas (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi JPratas, I've missed you! I've been speaking with your father, "Just Facts and Figures." I see that you have started attacking Yehuda Bauer's credibility now. Who is next?
coimbralove (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
General Chat[edit]
00:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)JPratas (talk)== Your question - Replies came from the police? ==
Dear Sir (or Madam) – Regarding your question related with “Neira Laporte” visa: Normally the replies came from the Foreign Ministry and not the police--is this correct? I will be please to email you a copy of the letter that PVDE sent to Sousa Mendes saying that Laporte was “vermelho”. In addition I kindly asking not to delete my editings without previously checking with me the reliability of the sources. I will be glad to provide proofs and sources. Let us not replicate the condemnable practice of Censoring the truth that will stain forever Salazar’s regime. The world is not black and white. Thanks J Pratas. JPratas (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Feel free to footnote the source directly in the article in the appropriate location. In addition, I would like to ask you to write in proper English, without mistakes, so as not to lower the quality of the article. I suggest you ask someone for help if you cannot do this yourself. Also please omit text that belongs in other articles and makes this one unnecessarily long. Much appreciated! I know you mean well! If you need guidance, I have indicated the reason for each edit in the "talk" section of the article under the heading "Article very messy."
coimbralove 21:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Response: The problem I have with your shorted versions is the following: On Revision as of 03:13, 18 November 2013 you added the following paragraph
- ”The Portuguese Ambassador to Spain, Pedro Teotonio Pereira, described the Jewish refugees as "the scum of the democratic regimes and defeated elements fleeing before the German victory."
And because I always try not to delete what other editors wrote, I had to clarify and wrote
- And unfortunately there are also some cases where words said were deliberately twisted with an obvious purpose. Such is the case of the words of the Portuguese Ambassador to Spain, Pedro Teotonio Pereira, that allegedly described the Jewish refugees as "the scum of the democratic regimes and defeated elements fleeing before the German victory.".[55] When his exact words were: “this disorientation has made a great impression on the Spanish side with a political campaign against Portugal being created immediately accusing our country of giving shelter to the scum of the democratic regimes and defeated elements fleeing before German victory.”. Pedro Teontonio Pereira words did not discriminate Jews and non-Jews and he is just describing what the Spanish side said.”
I agree with you. We should indeed omit this paragraph that belongs in other articles and makes this one unnecessarily long.
I will be working on your suggestions. And will have someone helping me with the English language.
Are you related to editor Redmoon? Former "Sousa Mendes Foundation"? It is curious that the day he vanished coincides with the day you started to edit...And there a lot of similarities in the editing style. JPratas (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have no problem with deleting the paragraph above and will follow your suggestion. Best wishes!
Response: Thank you. following your sugestions I will be deleting a lot of my edit along the day. Please wait until I finish so we don't create a greater mess. As always I will not be deleting text from other editors. Thanks for your patience.JPratas (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear JPratas, could you please give me the complete reference for this book, as I cannot find any trace of it: Ben-Zwi Kalisher – On The Way to the Land of Israel Many thanks!
Dear Coimbralove
As per your judicious suggestion I’ve eliminated a great deal of text trying to get rid of redundancies, and other disposable stuff. I hope you think it has improved.
I have also completed Ben-Zwi Kalischer’s reference, so that you can find it. I am not going to comment more the “messy article” on the talk page because it is now so messy that it is impractical to comment it.
I see you are already editing the text and asking for sources.
On the Andrée Cibila article you wrote “This whole section is unsourced and filled with speculation”. Your comment is quite surprising. But the source is the book “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”. And it seems that the Sousa Mendes Foundation likes this book, because they have it on their website. I am also quite surprise that you have deleted the phrase that the Bordeaux consulate was a “lower ranking institution”. Words are not mine are from Yad Vashem historian Dr. Avraham Milgram. The same as you did, deleting the phrase that “Sousa Mendes was a low rank official”. Words are not mine are from Professor Wheeler. And Professor Wheeler is endorsed by the Sousa Mendes Foundation. It seems to me that understanding the rank of Sousa Mendes is far more important than knowing that his mother “was a maternal illegitimate granddaughter of the 2nd Viscount of Midões, a lower rural aristocracy title”.
It is also hard for me to understand that if Sousa Mendes was from the Consul Career. A specific career path within the MNE you would prefer to call is something else. Isn’t it simpler just to put it plain as it really was?
Let me know your thoughts.
All the best JPratas (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi JPratas.
I too was surprised, but for another reason. I had thought you were agreeing to shorten the article but instead it seems to have grown. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that is how it appears. I also thought we were required to source all statements, as it indicates at the top of the article. As for your question, "consul career" is not idiomatic English. No English speaker would say this. By the way, the article begins by saying he was a consul, so there is no ambiguity. If you are unwilling to have your English corrected then I suggest that you not edit any English language pages. But I fear that you won't follow my advice.
It must be late for you in Portugal right now!
Best wishes!
I am not quite sure I understand your point when you ask;
- How many refugees were deported and killed as a result of the Portuguese government closing the French/Spanish border on June 24, 1940 and ordering the Spanish patrol to refuse access to Sousa Mendes visa recipients? In a press article referenced above from that date, there is the figure of 10,000 given of the number of refugees who were turned back. Does JPratas really think they all lived happily ever after?
All other countries were closing their borders (England, US, Australia, Canada, etc.). There was a problem of millions of Jews and non-jews to be solved. Their number was bigger than Portugal’s population. The right solution was: let them go to little tiny impoverished Portugal?
All the best JPratas (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that these people were better off dead? I'm not following your moral calculus. That's what ASM did--he made a decision based on morality, not geopolitics.
From JPratas: It seems that the number of people trying to escape from the Nazi’s was bigger than the number of people living in Portugal at that time. Are you suggesting that Portugal should have allowed all these millions in? How would they be housed and fed? What would be the impact on Portuguese population? Would Spain allow them to cross its territory?JPratas (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's just suppose that Salazar had decided to negotiate with England based on the centuries-long treaty between them. He could have said: I will side with you if you take all these refugees to English territory. It was the dream of the refugees to go to Palestine/Israel. The Polish government in exile negotiated with Britain, so why not Portugal, which was historically a much closer ally? Imagine if Salazar had helped make that dream come true? He would go down in history as a world hero instead of a controversial figure. Thank God for the Portuguese people, a large percentage of whom have Jewish ancestry, who remembered the horrors of The Inquisition and welcomed the refugees with the feeling of "never again." Shame on the Portuguese leadership in the government and PVDE who cared more about pleasing Franco, Mussolini and Hitler than about helping those in need, and who accepted hundreds of tons of Nazi gold (including from the teeth of murder victims) in an almost "textbook" example of blood money. (Read Antonio Louça on the subject.) I'm sure you are aware that Portugal is one of two countries, the other being Switzerland, that was richer at the end of the war than at the beginning. It's also one of two countries, the other being Ireland, that sent official condolences to Germany after Hitler's death and ordered 3 days of national mourning. A leader to be proud of?
The below text also seems a bit long to be part of an introduction.
"However there are also many people who still defend the 30,000 figure. According to current research, particularly that of the Sousa Mendes Foundation in the United States, one must take into account that often a single visa covered more than one person. In particular, children under the age of 15 were frequently listed on their parents' passports and were covered by their visas, and sometimes husbands and wives shared a single passport as well. For example, the Censor-Wolf family received four visas from Aristides de Sousa Mendes, covering a family of 24 members[2] and the Kruger family received a single visa that covered a family of seven.[3] Some visas were simply unnumbered and unrecorded, such as the one issued to the art dealer Paul Rosenberg and his family.[4]
Furthermore, the Visa Registry Book applied only to the visas issued in Bordeaux and does not account for visas issued directly by Sousa Mendes or under his authority in other French cities, including Bayonne, Hendaye and Toulouse. In addition, a large number of visa recipients never reached Portuguese soil, either because they were able to obtain ship passage directly from Bordeaux or they arrived at the French/Spanish border too late and were forced to remain in Nazi-occupied France. An example of the former is the poet Hendrik Marsman, whose boat was torpedoed in the English channel;[5] an example of the latter is the Rajcyn family.[6] It will perhaps never be possible to establish the accurate number of visa recipients, but, to many people, it is still clear that the 30,000 figure is in the correct order of magnitude. The Holocaust authority Yehuda Bauer has described Sousa Mendes' deed as "perhaps the largest rescue action by a single individual during the Holocaust."[7] Portugal's president Mário Soares called Sousa Mendes "Portugal's greatest hero of the twentieth century."[8]" JPratas (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
As long as we keep the Bauer and Soares quotes at the end of the introduction we can put the debate on the number of visas down below in its own section. That's fine with me. We can leave the text "countless" visas in the top section and not mention a number at all. OK with you?
You know I don’t delete text. I might have corrected some minor errors, but I don’t delete text. So you really don’t need to ask about leaving Bauer and Soares quotes in the introduction. It is very kind of you to ask though. But if you want my opinion, I would leave Bauer’s quote, but I would not leave Soares quote. Sousa Mendes was a good man. Putting a Soares quote is downgrading Sousa Mendes. Among other things Soares was the great responsible for the Portuguese decolonization that left Angola, Mozambique, Timor, etc… all merged into civil wars that consumed millions of innocent lives. And many people in Portugal accuse Soares of using Sousa Mendes to get Jewish on his side to attack Salazar. Up to you. But Sousa Mendes deserves better.
Also not a good idea to mix Sousa Mendes with politics. He did what he did for humanitarian reasons. Not because of left, right, fascist, etc..
JPratas (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
No "Thanks Giving" today? JPratas (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I see you're giving me more work to do with your English mistakes. I guess you have time on your hands. Happy Thanksgiving to you. _____________________________________________________________
Indeed. And the more you ask me for references, more I read and more interesting facts I find. They all match what my father used to tell me. I am just a little puzzled that some of the facts from Rui Afonso and Jose Alain-Fralon are not to your liking and you are using Salazar's old methods: Censorship. JPratas (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Your father?
Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aristides de Sousa Mendes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Inquisition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Please use Article Talk Page[edit]
If you have a question, concern or comment related to improving the article put a note in the article's talk page and not in the article itself. You do that by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the page. If you are responding to someone else's remarks, put your comment below theirs. JPratas (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Good advice. Do you agree that all unsourced statements should be removed from the article, as requested by Wikipedia? Coimbralove (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Reply to Coimbralove: Wikipedia policies have to be followed, that is not for discussion.But before you start deleting more text (something you are very good at) please ask for the sources. If you have any question, just let me know. Everything I wrote is sourced. If I cannot provide the source I will delete it myself.
- Wikipedia also advised you not to edit (having in mind that you represent the Sousa Mendes Foundation).
- In addition the introductory paragraphs with “original research” should not be included in the article. “original research” is not permitted by Wikipedia. It is of vital importance that you simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. Sousa Mendes Foundation is not independent and what you are quoting is “work in progress”.
- Also your views on Salazar’s and Portugal’s anti-Semitism should be revised. Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position.JPratas (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
How to determine if something is a "fringe theory"? I hereby ask you to remove unsourced material or provide sources. Thank you! Coimbralove (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Response to Coimbralove --> I will gladly remove unsource material, just let me know what you think is unsourced.JPratas (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Use preview button[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Aristides de Sousa Mendes, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Frze > talk 06:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redmoon660, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. JPratas (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)