Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes

Survey

I’m voting Yes for the following reasons:

1. As indicated in a letter written in February of 1945 by Aristides de Sousa Mendes himself, addressed to the Portuguese Bar Association, and excerpted in the books of Rui Afonso (Um Homem Bom, pp.304-305) and Antonio Moncada S. Mendes (Aristides de Sousa Mendes Memórias de um neto, p.228), he saved several thousand people:

“I did not hesitate for a moment in sacrificing myself and my loved ones for the salvation of so many thousands of people! I am therefore solely responsible for the entry of so many foreigners into Portugal, which I have not regretted to this day, and I am aware that I have fulfilled my duty.”

2. Also, a significant number of publications quote the number of visas issued by Sousa Mendes as “thousands,” among them but not exclusively:

• The Righteous Among the Nations: Rescuers of Jews During the Holocaust (2007, Yad Vashem, p.263) by Mordecai Paldiel • The Other Schindlers: Why Some People Chose to Save Jews During the Holocaust (2010, p.54) by Agnes Grunwald-Spier • “The Untold Story of the Portuguese Diplomat Who Saved Thousands from the Nazis” (Nov 2021, Smithsonian Magazine) by Chanan Tigay • In the Garden of the Righteous (2023, HarperCollins, pp.3-4) by Richard Hurowitz • Portugal, the Consuls, and the Jewish Refugees, 1938-1941 (1999, Yad Vashem, Studies Vol. XXVII, pp.123-156) by Avraham Milgram

3. Finally, in an article published on June 2, 2020 in Publico (the second most widely read Portuguese daily newspaper with a 2024 paid circulation of approximately 185,000^[1], Dr. Irene Flunser Pimentel who is one of the most reputable historians in Portugal, denounces the distorted version of Aristides de Sousa Mendes presented in Wikipedia, with misleading language and outright falsehoods in an attempt to denigrate the image of the former Consul General of Bordeaux. She is speaking about the Portuguese Wikipedia page, but this fact applies equally to the English page, as both pages have extensive edits from the same pro-Salazar editor: JPratas.

Here is the link to her article: https://www.publico.pt/2020/06/21/politica/noticia/versao-falseada-aristides-sousa-mendes-wikipedia-1921080

As Dr. Pimentel states:

“It's true that history is always an interpretation, based on evidence and facts that happened in the past, which are arrived at through primary sources, and that those who study it have a personal and subjective viewpoint. But this interpretation must be credible, without falling into anachronisms or falsifications, for ideological or other reasons. Several times, I've received complaints about the Portuguese Wikipedia page on Aristides de Sousa Mendes, and, from Wikipedia itself, I've been asked for my opinion as a historian. Reading the page is shocking, as it spreads insinuations, falsehoods and unproven facts, with the aim of praising Salazar and denigrating the former consul of Bordeaux.”Cornedebouc (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

No, not thousands -The editor Benji1207, who has been claiming that Sousa Mendes defied Salazar by issuing “visas to thousands of refugees fleeing Nazi-occupied France,” already provided the answer when he previously cited Neill Lochery, who states: "According to the records of the Consulate in Bordeaux, the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes between January 1 and June 22 (when he was recalled to Lisbon) was 2,862." (Lisbon: War in the Shadows of the City of Light, 1939-1945, p. 43).[] However, on the same page, Lochery further specifies that “the vast majority of these visas (1,575) were granted between June 11 and June 22.” The same figures are found in the work of Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram. And 1,575 is not thousands. Then if we stick to the period in which Sousa Mendes defied orders, stopping requesting prior authorization from Lisbon, records show that he issued 294 visas on June 17, 257 on June 18, 162 on June 19, and 354 on June 20, totaling 1,067. But many of these 1,067 visas were issued in accordance with instructions, including those granted to Luxembourg and Austrian aristocratic families, as well as to Portuguese and British citizens, American, etc...J Pratas (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because " Circular 14 had come into effect in November 1939, explicitly forbidding Portuguese diplomats, like Aristides de Sousa Mendes, from issuing visas to Jews", below pokes a hole in J Pratas' argument, above, and other arguments below are sound.

Not sure. Avraham Milgram writes, "the majority of Jews who, in the summer of 1940, succeeded in crossing the Pyrenees and Spain to the Portuguese border, did so thanks to Sousa Mendes."

How many Jews, total, did he think crossed? What say you? Seems it likely included a large fraction of the "4,908 Jews, with the help of HICEM, sailed during 1941".

Yes and no: "Unknown, probably thousands". I concur that an appropriate article "presents both perspectives with appropriate weight". Suggest compromise (best of both, IMO): It should say thousands and yet include the bulk of the content J Pratas is pushing for and others want to remove (however the Milgram quote as is - with 'Even so, ' cut off - is misleading.) It seems very likely to me that Milgram would agree with 'thousands', but not with 10,000. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it should say thousands. Avraham Milgram affirms this in his research, stating: “It was in these circumstances that Sousa Mendes granted thousands of visas to refugees of various nationalities

(https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/microsoft%20word%20-%203230.pdf)

Similarly, historian Mordecai Paldiel confirms in The Righteous Among the Nations: Rescuers of Jews During the Holocaust (Yad Vashem, 2007, p. 263) that Sousa Mendes “had been punished for disobeying orders from above by granting thousands of Portuguese transit visas to Jewish refugees in World War II.”

In The Path of the Righteous: Gentile Rescuers of Jews During the Holocaust (KTAV Publishing House, 1993, p. 69), Paldiel also quotes Rabbi Chaim Kruger: “He (Sousa Mendes) did not sleep or eat until late at night. And during this short time he issued several thousand visas until the enemy approached Bordeaux and we were forced to flee to Spain.”

It is important to note that JPratas, the editor reverting the change, has multiple sources that contradict themselves. He is using Tom Gallagher's Book, "Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die", as a supposed reliable source on Aristides de Sousa Mendes, but Gallagher makes a number of mistakes and even misspells Aristides's name in the index. As already mentioned before, I'm sure he is a great source on Salazar but that does not mean that he is an expert on rescue and resistance during the Holocaust.

Additionally, historian Neill Lochery states: “According to the records of the Consulate in Bordeaux, the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes between January 1 and June 22 (when he was recalled to Lisbon) was 2,862.” Circular 14 had come into effect in November 1939, explicitly forbidding Portuguese diplomats, like Aristides de Sousa Mendes, from issuing visas to Jews. Benji1207 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)— Benji1207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, it should say thousands . In ARISTIDES DE SOUSA MENDES, Memories of a grandson, by Antonio Moncada S. Mendes (2017, Porto Salvo: Edições Desassossego - Editora Saída de Emergência, 348 pp. ISBN: 978.989.99875-4-6 (in Portuguese)), two letters are quoted which support the use of "thousands". On page 185 in a letter dated May 18, 1968 and sent to Joana, Mendes' daughter, Count Degenfeld, the personal assistant of the Archduke Otto von Habsburg, heir to the imperial throne of Austria/Hungary, writes: "The Archduke has asked me to tell you that he was... reminded of the sad days in Bordeaux in 1940 and...your father deserved recognition as Righteous Among the Nations, by Israel, for having saved the lives of so many thousands of Jews, in those dark days, without looking at the consequences." Similarly, on page 228 in a letter written by Sousa Mendes on February 19, 1945, to Dr. António Sá Nogueira, then President of the Portuguese Bar Association, he describes the situation in Bordeaux in 1939 and 1940 and states: " I did not hesitate for a moment to sacrifice myself and my loved ones for the salvation of so many thousands of people! [...] I just want to emphasize that, as a result of this, I was severely punished."

Furthermore, https://sousamendesfoundation.org/visa-recipients/ — states that number visa recipients was approximately 3900 people who have been identified by name by the Sousa Mendes Foundation, and also that there were also approximately 5000 people clamoring for visas in Bayonne who remain anonymous because there was no visa registry book for that city, thus their names were not recorded. And Antonio Mendes points out on page 176 "each visa could be valid for four, five or six people, or in some cases for even larger families, so one visa could save multiple people.

In his article "Reinstating the Name and Honor of a Portuguese Diplomat who rescued Jews During World WWar II, published in the Journal of Jewish Communal Service (Spring 2008. page 252) Robert Jacobvitz quotes Mordecai Paldiel, the former director of the Department of Righteous Gentiles at Yad Vashem (1984-2007), as saying "Dr. Paldiel in fact said that in his estimation Dr. Sousa Mendes’ deeds were equal if not greater than those of Raoul Wallenberg. He related to me that while Wallenberg had planned to rescue large numbers of Jews, Sousa Mendes’ decision to save 30,000 persons was a spontaneous and courageous act in and of itself and that he surely knew that he would bear terrible consequences for his actions." Lynngol (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)]]

Yes, it should say thousands. According to to several reputable sources including one that J Pratas used, the term thousands is more than justified. Many of them are already listed here by the other editors, and discussed on the talk page aswell. Joséángel006 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

NO - Both primary sources, such as the Bordeaux visa records, and reliable academic sources, including Milgram, Lochery, and Gallagher, indicate that the number of visas issued in defiance of regulations was significantly lower than one thousand and remains undetermined. Mcbranco (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It's very strange to have a vote on historical facts. Nevertheless, my vote is Yes, this article should say thousands. Gallagher can be dismissed as a non-credible source on the subject at hand, as his book displays heavy pro-Salazar bias. Lochery relies completely on Milgram's numbers, and Milgram uses the word thousands. The fact that the Sousa Mendes Foundation has identified approximately 3900 Sousa Mendes visa recipients by name should certainly settle the issue. Cocoa57 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC) — [[User::Cocoa57|:Cocoa57]] ([[User talk::Cocoa57|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/:Cocoa57|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, with qualifier, where it seems the sources disagree more than the editors, and I would like to maintain policies around WP:DUE WEIGHT as well as WP:OR. I am in favor of an option like, "As the Portuguese consul-general in the French city of Bordeaux, he defied the orders of António de Oliveira Salazar's Estado Novo regime, issuing visas and passports to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of refugees fleeing Nazi-occupied France, including Jews."Penguino35 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

What source are you using to justify the word "hundreds"? The Sousa Mendes Foundation has already identified thousands by name. Cocoa57 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It is important to differentiate between the total number of visas listed by the Sousa Mendes Foundation and the visas issued specifically in defiance of orders. While the foundation has documented a few thousand visas, a key point to consider is that most of these were perfectly legal, as Sousa Mendes was simply fulfilling his consular duties.

The paragraph in the article states that "he defied the orders of António de Oliveira Salazar's Estado Novo regime," so we should focus on the visas that were indeed issued in defiance. If we want to count visas issued without prior authorization from Lisbon—contrary to standard procedures—we should consider only those issued after June 17, 1940. Available records show the following:

• June 17: 294 visas
• June 18: 257 visas
• June 19: 162 visas
• June 20: 354 visas
• Total: 1,067 visas

However, even within this 1,067 total, we must subtract the visas issued to individuals who were recipients of standard consular services, such as Portuguese passports or work permits. The Sousa Mendes Foundation itself acknowledges:

• "Most of these citizens were recipients of normal consular services from the Consulate, such as the issuance of Portuguese passports or work permits, and are listed here for the sake of completeness."

That is exactly why Milgram said that "the discrepancy between the reality and the myth of the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes is great". To ensure historical accuracy, we should focus only on visas that were truly issued in defiance of orders, rather than those granted as part of routine consular services. J Pratas (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

He already disobeyed before June 17th, and what about the Visas after June 20th?. For example on pages 47–48 of A Good Man in Evil Times: The Story of Aristides de Sousa Mendes – The Unknown Hero Who Saved Countless Lives in World War II, José Fralon states that Aristides de Sousa Mendes had already disobeyed orders before June 17 by issuing visas despite his requests being denied. For example in November 1939, he issued a visa to Austrian historian Arnold Wiznitzer without prior approval, violating the government's restrictive visa policies which led to a reprimand from the ministry. The book can be accessed at this link.

Also a single visa could cover multiple individuals, such as children traveling on their parents’ passports, meaning the number of visa recipients was likely much higher than the number of visas issued. Benji1207 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You raise a valid point, and the Wikipedia article already says that a few visas were issued before June 17, 1940. The first case was on November 28, 1939, when Sousa Mendes issued a visa to Professor Arnold Wiznitzer, an Austrian historian stripped of his nationality by the Nuremberg Laws. Another case was on March 1, 1940, when he issued a visa to Eduardo Neira Laporte, a Spanish Republican and anti-Franco activist living in France. Additionally, there were a few more visas granted to Polish citizens. All documented.

There were also two forged Portuguese passports issued to Maria Tavares, a Luxembourg citizen of Portuguese origin, and to her husband, Paul Miny, a Luxembourger deserter who was not Jewish. Miny sought to evade military service while France and Luxembourg were still at war, a situation in which French authorities would not have allowed him to leave the country. Forging passports carried severe consequences—Sousa Mendes risked two years of imprisonment and expulsion from public service—but he was ultimately spared from these penalties. In a scenario where a forged passport was used to help a deserter evade fighting for his country, the Portuguese government was remarkably benevolent in handling this case, as such actions could have led to much harsher repercussions.

However, these cases are isolated and do not significantly change the overall number.

As to June 21, a total of six visas were issued, and on June 22, another six visas were issued.

Regarding the claim that single visas may have covered entire families, it is true that some visas were issued to family groups under the same number. For example, visa No. 2464 was issued to Alexandre Ettinger and Christine Ettinger, meaning two people were covered under one visa number. However, these exceptions do not significantly increase the overall count. Similarly, visa No. 2542 was issued to Ana Amorim, visa 2738 to Rodrigues, Visa 2739 to PINTO, etc, all to Portuguese citizens, should not be included in the count of visas issued in defiance, as Portuguese nationals did not require special authorization.

The most important distinction remains between routine consular services and visas issued in direct defiance of Lisbon’s orders. And we will never know which of those visas would have been authorized by Lisbon. We do know that thousands of visas were authorized by Lisbon before June 17, and we also know that thousands were authorized after June 22 1940. Issues kept on being issued in large scale after the Sousa Mendes episode. J Pratas (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

What is your source for this claim: "We do know that thousands of visas were authorized by Lisbon before June 17, and we also know that thousands were authorized after June 22 1940." Cocoa57 (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

There are numerous sources confirming that thousands of Jews and other refugees were able to escape through Portugal during World War II. Here are just a few examples:

• July 1940 – Evacuation of Gibraltar Jews: One month after Sousa Mendes’ episode, Salazar permitted 200 Gibraltar Jews, along with 2,000 civilians, to be resettled on the island of Madeira. This demonstrated Portugal's willingness to accept refugees (Jews and non-Jews).
• Varian Fry’s Testimony – Portuguese Visas in Marseille: The memoirs of Varian Fry, an American journalist who helped refugees escape from Vichy France, detail how he assisted thousands of individuals, many of them famous (e.g., Marc Chagall, Heinrich Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger), in obtaining Portuguese visas issued at the consulate in Marseille. These visas were essential for reaching neutral Portugal and then escaping to the United States and South America.
• Regular visas issued in Bordeaux before June 17, 1940: Before the events surrounding Sousa Mendes, the Portuguese Consulate in Bordeaux had issued over a thousand visas that were perfectly legal under Portuguese immigration regulations. Furthermore, Portugal had the authority to deny entry to holders of irregular visas, as having a visa (even today) does not guarantee the right to enter a country—border authorities always have discretion over whether to honor a visa. However, Portugal ultimately admitted the refugees with Sousa Mendes’ visas, even though some were issued irregularly.
• The Holocaust Encyclopedia says that Portugal, a neutral country with friendly relations with the Allies, allowed many thousands of Jewish refugees to reach Lisbon, where they were assisted by American and French Jewish organizations in arranging transport to the United States and South America. (Source: Holocaust Encyclopedia) See here-> [Escape from German-Occupied Europe | Holocaust Encyclopedia]
• September 1940 – Evacuation of Luxembourg’s Jews: After the Nazi invasion, the Jews still remaining in Luxembourg—around 2,000 people—were ordered to leave within two weeks. Three trains carrying these refugees, escorted by Gestapo agents, reached Portugal. Thanks to the efforts of the Portuguese Jewish Refugee Committee, the first trainload of these refugees was permitted entry into Portugal in November 1940. (Source: The American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 42 (October 3, 1940 – September 21, 1941), pp. 444-457)
• 1944 – In Hungary, Portuguese diplomat Teixeira Branquinho, coordinated with Salazar to rent houses and apartments to shelter hundreds of Jews from deportation. The Portuguese government authorized them to issue safe conduct passes to anyone who had relatives in Portugal, Brazil, or Portuguese colonies, or even the most remote Portuguese connection. These actions helped rescue over 1,000 Jewish lives.
• 1943, Teotónio Pereira, the Portuguese Ambassador in Madrid, played a crucial role in helping 15,000 military-age men escape through Portugal, upon request from U.S. Ambassador Carlton Hayes. These individuals were mostly from occupied Europe and needed safe passage to join the Allied forces. Portugal facilitated their transit, allowing them to reach destinations where they could contribute to the war effort. (Source: Carlton Hayes, Wartime Mission in Spain and Portugal)
• The Lisbon Route, Neill Lochery – Portugal as a Lifeline for Refugees: Between 1940 and 1944, Lisbon became one of the last open ports for Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi-occupied Europe. Thousands were able to board ships bound for the United States, Brazil, and Palestine. Among the major organizations that facilitated these rescues were the HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), the JDC (American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee), and the HICEM (Jewish Emigration Society). (Source: Neill Lochery, Lisbon: War in the Shadows of the City of Light, 1939-1945). All this organizations were allowed to operarte in Lisbon.

These few examples illustrate that thousands of Jewish and other refugees were allowed to escape through Portugal, either through diplomatic efforts, neutrality policies, or humanitarian actions taken by Portuguese officials J Pratas (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry this doesn't answer my question which is -- what is your source for your claim that there were thousands of Lisbon-authorized visas issued prior to June 17, 1940? I am not asking for your personal theories, just your source. Thank you! Cocoa57 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not understand that you were specifically asking about the thousands of visas issued prior to June 17.

The best source for this information is Sousa Mendes himself. In his response to the formal accusation made by the British Government on June 20, 1940, which stated:

• "The Portuguese consul in Bordeaux has been deferring until after office hours all applications for visas," as well as "charging them at a special rate" and requiring at least one refugee "to contribute to a Portuguese charitable fund before the visa was granted."

In his defense, Sousa Mendes refuted these accusations, asserting that all visas he had issued up to that date were regular and that the additional fees he had collected were only in specific cases. One such case was the Rothschild family, to whom he granted visas on June 16, 1940. He explained that these extra fees were charged because it was a Sunday, and the Rothschild family refused to wait until Monday to obtain their visas. Under the consular system in place at the time, Sousa Mendes received a percentage of each fee collected.

The list of visas issued to the Rothschild family on June 16, 1940, is as follows:

• Visa number 1746 – Baroness Germaine de Rothschild
• Visa number 1747 – Bethsabée de Rothschild
• Visa Number 1751 – Baron Maurice de Rothschild
• Visa Number 1755 – Baron Henri de Rothschild

As can be seen, by June 16, 1940, over 1,700 regular visas had already been issued in Bordeaux alone. To the Bordeaux visas, you will need to add all those issued in the Netherlands, Belgium, Paris, Marseille, Perpignan, Geneva, and other locations. J Pratas (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking for a source, meaning a citation from a historian or reputable journalist, and not your personal theory. Cocoa57 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

According to PVDE statistics, between September and December 1940 alone, approximately 8,889 foreigners entered Portugal via Lisbon and Leixões. (Pimentel, Irene Flunser, Judeus em Portugal Durante a II Guerra Mundial, Lisbon: A Esfera do Livros, 2006, ISBN 9789896261054. J Pratas (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. What page? And what does she say about the pre-June 17 period, which is what I asked about. Thanks. Cocoa57 (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

On the pre-June 17, when talking about the visas issued at Bordeaux, she basically quotes Milgram. J Pratas (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Does she say that thousands of visas were approved by the Portuguese government? Unless you can point to a source that says this your claim can be disregarded. Cocoa57 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

As I’ve shown, thousands of visas were issued before June 17, 1940, and many thousands after. For Visas issued prior to June 17 Milgram singles out only two cases as irregular. Even the Sousa Mendes Foundation acknowledges that many of the listed visas were part of normal consular services, such as issuing passports or work permits. So I believe it’s the other way around: consulates routinely issue visas as part of their duties, and if any are to be considered irregular, the burden should be on the source to say so. J Pratas (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes and No, given that 'thousands' is itself a very rhetorical way of saying "an indeterminate large number, (probably exceeding 1,500)" why not simply say we don't know how many, but it is commonly described as "thousands". It would be even better if an 'estimated-number-range' could be cited, then the rhetorical term could be avoided. This appears to be a stylistic matter as much as a 'factual' one. Nobody seems to dispute 'lots', but how best to describe the 'lots, and "how many are 'thousands' anyway?"Pincrete (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pincrete. Given the rampant Holocaust denial and revisionism out there, it actually IS about numbers (order of magnitude) so as not to minimize the action of a Holocaust hero whose rescue action has been documented into the thousands. Cocoa57 (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

According to primary and secondary sources, between November 1939 and April 1940, about 20 visas were issued each month in Bordeaux. (We know of two specific cases in which Sousa Mendes decided to issue visas without first seeking authorization from Lisbon.)

In May 1940, this number increased to 8 visas per day. Between May 17 and May 30, the daily average rose to 160.

Up to June 10, the consulate issued 59 visas. On June 11, it issued 67; on June 12, 47; on June 13, 6; on June 14, 173; on June 15, 112; and on June 16, 40. All visas issued up to this point were regular—or at least, no one contested their regularity.

Then, on June 17, Sousa Mendes decided to stop requesting prior approval from Lisbon. On that day, he issued 247 visas. On June 18, he issued 216; June 19: 162 visas; June 20: 354 visas; June 21: 6 visas; June 22: 6 visas.

No one will ever know whether these 1,079 visas, issued in defiance of official procedure, would have been approved by Lisbon—just as all those issued before June 17 were.

What we do know is that even the Sousa Mendes Foundation, when listing these visas, acknowledges that "Most of these citizens were recipients of normal consular services from the Consulate, such as the issuance of Portuguese passports or work permits, and are listed here for the sake of completeness." The same applies to British, American, and other nationals. So, the number of Visas issued in defiance after June 17 is undetermined but smaller than 1079. J Pratas (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this is a personal question, but it seems that you keen to denigrate a Portuguese national hero whose action is well documented, and I'm not sure why? I note with interest the comment from user 2804:29B8:5183:100C:2042:3F5A:7288:EF73 below. Cocoa57 (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cocoa57: My sole concern is ensuring that the article complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies—particularly neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).

Wikipedia is not a place to praise or denigrate, but to present topics fairly, proportionately, and with proper sourcing. While many view Sousa Mendes as a heroic figure, others—including respected historians and diplomats—have raised well-documented critical perspectives. All of these need to be reflected appropriately and neutrally.

I also want to respectfully ask that we avoid edit warring over contested material. Wikipedia works best when changes—especially to the lead—are discussed on the talk page and a consensus is reached before implementing them. If you feel neutrality is being compromised, you're more than welcome to raise the matter at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, where uninvolved editors can weigh in.

When I edited the article, I was careful to include and attribute different points of view, rather than removing any particular perspective. That’s consistent with how Wikipedia handles contested historical figures.

Let’s work collaboratively to improve the article in line with Wikipedia’s core principles. J Pratas (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If he is a "contested historical figure" why was he named as Righteous Among the Nations by Israel and inducted into the National Pantheon in Portugal? Cocoa57 (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cocoa57: That’s a valid question, and I’d like to address it respectfully and factually.

First, some of the historians and diplomats I’ve cited—Tom Gallagher, Carlos Fernandes, Calvet de Magalhães, Lina Madeira, Diogo Ramada Curto, among others—do explain in why they believe the narrative around Sousa Mendes has become mythologized, politicized, or selectively documented. They question not the moral intention of helping refugees, but claims around scale, motivation, and historical framing. These views are not fringe—they come from scholars and officials with knowledge of the archives.

Second, while the Yad Vashem recognition in the 1960s was certainly meaningful, it was based on a few testimonies, at a time when key archival documents were not yet available.

Even Avraham Milgram has Yad Vashem itself believed for decades—Sousa Mendes was thought to have been stripped of his salary and died in poverty as a result of his actions. However, primary and secondary sources uncovered since then have shown that this was not accurate: Sousa Mendes continued receiving a full salary until his death. This is not a criticism of Yad Vashem or Milgram, but a reminder that recognitions made under limited documentation should not override later, more complete historical analysis.

Wikipedia’s role is to present both recognitions and scholarly critiques, with proper attribution and neutrality. Official honors like those from Yad Vashem or the National Pantheon should absolutely be noted in the article, and are, but they cannot serve as a substitute for a balanced summary of the historical debate, especially in the lead. J Pratas (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Every encyclopedia I am familiar with (including Wikipedia) uses the opening sentence to summarize what is notable about the subject. What is notable about Aristides de Sousa Mendes is that he was a famous diplomat-rescuer who saved Jews during World War II. In addition he is considered a national hero in Portugal, where he was inducted into the National Pantheon. But you prefer to simply say he was a "consul" without any further info on what makes him notable. Sorry but that's ridiculous. Cocoa57 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

And if you truly feel he is not notable, why are you editing this article? And not only editing but aggressively reverting the edits of numerous other editors? I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia, but this feels like misbehaviour to me. Cocoa57 (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

For comparison, look at the article on Raoul Wallenberg. The opening summary explains why he was notable. Judging by your edits of the Sousa Mendes opening summary, I presume that you would want the opening summary of the Wallenberg article to stop at the word "architect"? Cocoa57 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cocoa57. The comparison with Raoul Wallenberg is interesting, but it’s important to recognize a key difference: Wallenberg’s actions are not the subject of significant scholarly dispute. In contrast, Aristides de Sousa Mendes has been the focus of a very active debate in academic and diplomatic circles. Historians such as Lina Madeira, Tom Gallagher, Diogo Ramada Curto, José Hermano Saraiva and diplomats like João Hall Themido, José Calvet de Magalhães, and Carlos Fernandes have all published or spoken very critically about aspects of the popular narrative, including issues of scale, motivation, and documentation. This is not about denying recognition, but about faithfully reflecting both the honors and the contested perspectives in a way that aligns with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.

That very disputability is, in itself, notable. It should not be ignored or glossed over in favor of a single narrative. Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect the complexity of the topic — especially in the lead — rather than promote a particular version.

Thanks again, J Pratas (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Nope. What's notable about Aristides de Sousa Mendes is that he saved Jews in France during WWII and is a national hero in Portugal today. Cocoa57 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

What you are attempting to do, for a still-unknown reason, is to remove his notability and make him just another low-level functionary who should be forgotten. Judging by the article history, you are trying SO hard to do this. Cocoa57 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to take a step back and focus on how Wikipedia handles situations where there is genuine disagreement in the academic literature.

In this case, for example, while some authors — such as Rui Afonso — have drawn comparisons between Aristides de Sousa Mendes and Raoul Wallenberg, others — including historians like Avraham Milgram and Douglas Wheeler — have explicitly stated that “there is little in common between these figures.” This divergence means that the comparison is disputed among reliable sources, and that fact needs to be reflected in the article.

Wikipedia’s policies require us to present differing viewpoints proportionally and without editorial endorsement. Our task is not to settle academic debates or promote a specific narrative, but rather to summarize the state of the literature clearly and neutrally, following [[WP:NPOV]]

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean agreement with one side of a scholarly dispute. It means identifying wording that fairly represents all significant viewpoints, in proportion to their prominence in reliable secondary sources.

Since the comparison with Raoul Wallenberg has come up multiple times in this discussion, it's worth reiterating that Wikipedia is not the place to settle whether such comparisons are valid or not. That is a matter for historians and reliable secondary sources. Editors — regardless of how strongly they may feel — should avoid advocating for one side of a scholarly dispute or attempting to establish consensus around contested claims through discussion or voting. Our responsibility is to summarize disputes, not resolve them.

As a related note, I'd also gently point out that Wikipedia discourages promotional or evaluative language such as “he is a national hero,” which falls under MOS:PEACOCK

These should be avoided unless they are clearly attributed. But we can state verifiable facts — such as that he was honored with reburial in the National Pantheon in Portugal, or recognized as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem. (The article already contains these statements)

Let’s continue working collaboratively, grounded in sources and policy, and avoid personal assumptions or motivations. J Pratas (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, with qualifier, I feel the issue we're butting up against is more in response to drawing a correlation line from "the defiance of orders" to "the thousands of visas." I thought previously the resistance was about the number of visas but more review has clarified that. Are we looking for a solution that takes into account the visas he issued in defiance versus the visas he issued without any problem? If so, perhaps we consider an option like, "As the Portuguese consul-general in the French city of Bordeaux, he defied the orders of António de Oliveira Salazar's Estado Novo regime, issuing visas and passports to thousands of refugees, fleeing Nazi-occupied France, including Jews. Many of these refugees could not legally obtain visas or passports elsewhere." Penguino35 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Penguino35 > I believe it's important to ground our discussion in verifiable data. The visas issued by Aristides de Sousa Mendes are sequentially numbered and available online, including on the Sousa Mendes Foundation’s own website. Based on those records, the visa counts are approximately:

• June 17: 247 visas
• June 18: 216 visas
• June 19: 257 visas
• June 20: 162 visas
• June 21: 6 visas
• June 22: 6 visas

This totals 1,079 visas over those six days. However, as acknowledged by the Sousa Mendes Foundation itself, many of these were issued as part of regular consular duties—such as work permits, Portuguese passports, and transit permissions—and not all were emergency humanitarian visas. Some of the recipients belonged to aristocratic families from Luxembourg or Austria, for whom Sousa Mendes had received explicit instructions from Lisbon to issue visas or even passports.

Additionally, we lack full visibility into how many of these visas were issued under standing authorization (e.g., for travelers in transit with confirmed onward tickets), which did not require special permission from Lisbon. Only in a subset of cases did Sousa Mendes deviate from official policy—and we cannot determine how many of those would have been approved had he requested authorization.

For context, Sousa Mendes issued 173 regular visas on June 14, 112 on June 15, and 40 on June 16 (a Sunday), suggesting that significant visa activity was ongoing even before his well-known decision on June 17 to stop seeking Lisbon’s authorization.

It's also important to note that Portugal continued to issue thousands of visas after this episode—well before the full onset of the Holocaust—including to prominent Jewish refugees such as Hannah Arendt, Marc Chagall, Max Ernst, Peggy Guggenheim, etc.

This context helps explain why respected historians like Avraham Milgram, Douglas Wheeler, and others have stated that there is little in common between Sousa Mendes and Wallenberg.(sic.) J Pratas (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The visas issued by Aristides de Sousa Mendes during June 1940 are numbered and available online, including through the Sousa Mendes Foundation’s own website. Each visa typically corresponds to one visa number, but in many cases, multiple individuals (usually family members) are listed under the same visa—these additional names are also recorded and can be counted. As an illustration: First 10 visas from June 17, 1940: • 1770RUESCH, Hans1771MOETON, Helena1772MOETON, Julia1773MOETON, Petrus1774BOS, Gerdina1775MOETON, Henri1776MOERS, Willy1777MOERS, Paula...

Among these, several must be excluded because the visas were perfectly regular. Examples:1816-FERREIRA, Joaquim Martins; 1830-COSTA, Roberto da; 1831-COSTA, Victor da; 1832- COSTA, Amelia da

These examples help ground any discussion in verifiable, primary data, avoiding inflated or generalized figures that may not be supported by documentation, and in line with Milgram’s numbers, Neill Lockery numbers, etc. J Pratas (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to highlight a primary source that has been cited or relied upon by several editors:

[https://sousamendesfoundation.org/family/portuguese-nationals The Sousa Mendes Foundation list of Portuguese nationals].

As this page itself notes:

“Most of these citizens were recipients of normal consular services from the Consulate, such as the issuance of Portuguese passports or work permits, and are listed here for the sake of completeness.”

This same logic applies to other categories listed by the Foundation—British, American, etc.—who were eligible for visas under regular consular procedures.

Then when we focus on the period June 17 to June 22, as historian Avraham Milgram did, we do not find evidence of “thousands” of irregular or unauthorized visas. Instead, we see a few hundred visas, many of which were issued legally or under prior instructions from Lisbon. (the case of the visa issued to Otto von Habsburg and the aristocratic families).

While Wikipedia generally discourages the use of primary sources, there are cases—such as this one—where consulting the primary source allows us to settle doubts going directly to the factual record. J Pratas (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Penguino, your proposed text is excellent but seems a little watered down from what Robert McClenon had originally proposed. His version feels tighter and places the appropriate weight on both the disobedience and the magnitude of the act — both salient features of this figure's notability. Historian Yehuda Bauer describes this story as "perhaps the largest rescue action by a single individual during the Holocaust" as quoted in this 2021 Smithsonian article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-righteous-defiance-of-aristides-de-sousa-mendes-180978831/ Cocoa57 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

No and yes: Given the two options, I prefer the second one (given the strong evidence offered that there is substantial dispute over the precise number, and that many sources are based in part on mythologization). But the versions of Pincrete and Penguino are, in my opinion, both better than either the totally ignorant version or the confident thousands version. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

3900 visa recipients have already been documented by name here so that is the bare minimum: https://sousamendesfoundation.org/visa-recipients/ The cherrypicked supposed analysis by JPratas can easily be dismantled. Cocoa57 (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The "3900 visa recipients" listed by the Sousa Mendes Foundation include visas issued before June 17, as well as visas granted to Portuguese nationals, British subjects, and others who were legally entitled to transit.

A few examples:

1) King Vidor, a famous Hollywood director, received a perfectly regular Visa in 1940, with Sousa Mendes doing his job, issuing Visas see- Family - Sousa Mendes Foundation

2) Over 270 Portuguese citizena, recipients of normal consular services Family - Sousa Mendes Foundation

3) Over 50 British citizens recipients of normal consular services Countries - Sousa Mendes Foundation

4) etc..

Once these regular and authorized visas are removed from the count, the number of visas issued outside the formal guidelines during the June 17–23 period becomes significantly smaller- in the hundreds. And even within this group, it is not possible to determine how many of the visas would have been approved by Lisbon had they followed normal channels. J Pratas (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You've made this argument countless times, but simple math will tell you that subtracting those few purported exceptions still yields a result in the thousands. Cocoa57 (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The two of you should both stop repeating yourselves. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Noted and understood. :) Cocoa57 (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, to thousands. While I still think my proposed solution of

"As the Portuguese consul-general in the French city of Bordeaux, he defied the orders of António de Oliveira Salazar's Estado Novo regime, issuing visas and passports to thousands of refugees, fleeing Nazi-occupied France, including Jews. Many of these refugees could not legally obtain visas or passports elsewhere."

is effective at finding a middle ground between these contrasting opinions, it seems concerning to me that really only one editor strongly opposes the change: J Pratas. And that opposition relies heavily on synthesis of sources less notable than the several cited sources specifically using the word thousands to summarize the subject's actions. Are we giving voice to a WP:FRINGE opinion and calling it WP:NPOV simply because J Pratas is loud, and we're afraid to use a word as definitive as thousands? Reminder, that word choice is not for us to decide; it comes from sources. And multiple, verifiable sources say thousands explicitly. Far be it for User:Pincrete and I to inadvertently use weasel words when WP:RS are clear. Penguino35 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree 100%! Cocoa57 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Before closing, I would like to add an additional source, historian Daniel Protasio notes that much of the Sousa Mendes narrative has been shaped outside the sphere of academic historical research—in blogs, newspapers, and self-published books—without the methodological rigor expected in scholarly work.

Protasio says:

The problem of determining the number of refugees who obtained visas issued by Sousa Mendes can be, at least in part, documented—if not directly, then at least through social networks that bring together relatives and descendants of the refugees. One must hope that, in the not-too-distant future, we will be able to arrive at an approximate and documented idea of the number of visas in question."

Something the Sousa Mendes Foundation has been doing for years. We need to wait for the conclusion of that work and have it published by the academia. This is why I have been advising for Wikipedia not to engage in this dispute, not to take sides, but rather stay neutral and document both sides of the dispute. This is not an attempt to stonewall or minimize Sousa Mendes's humanitarian actions. Rather, it reflects Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, which requires that we present significant views in proportion to their presence in reliable sources. Given the ongoing academic debate and lack of definitive data, describing the number of visas as undetermined is a cautious and encyclopedic approach — not a denial, but a commitment to verifiability and balance.

J Pratas (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• A. The complete statement from Neill Lockery on the number of visas granted by Aristides de Sousa Mendes reads as follows: "The records of the Consulate in Bordeaux the number of visas granted by Sousa Mendes between January 1 and June 22 (when he was recalled to Lisbon) was 2,862. The vast majority of these visas (1,575) were granted between June 11 and June 22." And 1575 is not thousands.
• B. Clarification: According to Circular 14, Sousa Mendes was not forbidden to issue visas to Jews. Instead, the circular required consuls to seek prior authorization from the Foreign Ministry in Lisbon for specific categories of people, including foreigners of indefinite or contested nationality, stateless individuals, Russian citizens, holders of a Nansen passport, Jews expelled from their countries, and those intending to embark from a Portuguese port without a consular visa for their destination, an air or sea ticket, or an embarkation guarantee from the respective companies. Until June 17 99% of the Visas issued were completely regular. After June 17, Sousa Mendes chose to no longer request permission, and as previously explained, the number of visas issued after this date was totaling 1067 of which many were also perfectly legal.
• C. Clarification: on June 14, a new directive, Circular 23, overrode Circular 14. This new Circular stipulated that consuls were allowed to issue transit visas without prior authorization as long as the applicants had a visa for a third country and a ticket for their trip.J Pratas (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• D. To further clarify, even the Sousa Mendes Foundation acknowledges that: "Most of these citizens were recipients of normal consular services from the Consulate, such as the issuance of Portuguese passports or work permits, and are listed here for the sake of completeness." I do not wish to engage in original research and fully accept the numbers presented by Neill Lochery (fewer than 1,575, in a period that includes days when Sousa Mendes was still acting within the rules) and Avraham Milgram (also fewer than 1,575 for the same period). However, it is evident from the Sousa Mendes Foundation’s own website that over 200 visas were issued to Portuguese nationals, more than 50 to British citizens, and over 100 to Americans, among others. This data can be directly observed

here J Pratas (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC) whose right to stay or not was the

• E. According to the legend that has built up around him, he defied an authoritarian regime and tirelessly issued visas enabling thousands of people, including many Jews, to escape the Nazi clutches..In reality, this coda to Portugal’s wartime story is rather more complicated...The numbers increased in June 1940 but fell far short of the thousands of visas which his later admirers claimed had been issued by him. Evidence that his efforts were especially directed towards fleeing Jews is also speculative. British, Portuguese and American citizens, often people with means, figured prominently as recipients of visas. (Gallagher, 2020, page 122) J Pratas (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  Comment - I've be dealing with JPratas for years, I can say that he has an interest in whitewashing the Estado Novo and Salazar, and has spent years editing articles related to these topics for this end. His appeals to NPOV and for balancing viewpoints are not at all sincere, many of his edits to these articles are at the very least questionable regarding neutrality, he also likes to discredit or diminish sources that don't agree with his point of view, while often using sources of questionable reliability himself. Sometimes he also likes to engage in WP:CHERRYPICKING, ignoring content from his own cited sources that don't fit the POV he is trying to push. Just to show that I'm not making this up, you can see here users in other discussions calling this out:

  Lastly, here's an example of an edit that is clearly not compatible with NPOV:

  In 1933, in the early days of the Salazar regime, Lourenço founded the PVDE, Portugal's security and immigration police.

  The above text is from the article about Agostinho Lourenço, which was created by JPratas, refering to the PVDE, the regime's secret police between 1933 and 1945, as "Portugal's security and immigration police", which is like calling the Gestapo, "Germany's security and immigration police". This is not neutral at all.

  I don't plan to participate on this discussion, but I really wanted to point this out to the users participating here. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:2042:3F5A:7288:EF73 (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Comment - I also have to point out a clear personal bias towards Salazar regarding JPratas. JPratas has been involved in edit wars regarding Salazar or Portugal during World War 2, and one of his main sources is Tom Gallagher’s Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die - a title that in my opinion already raises questions! In this book, Aristides de Sousa Mendes’ name is misspelled multiple times, even in the index, yet JPratas insists on using it as a source. This strongly suggests a pro-Salazar bias. Moreover, why are we relying on a book written by someone considered an “expert” on Salazar when this page is supposed to be about Aristides de Sousa Mendes?

  Additionally, the Wikipedia page on Sousa Mendes mentions Salazar excessively, over 30 times. Is this a page about Sousa Mendes or about the dictator? On top of that, referring to the PVDE as Portugal’s “Security and Immigration Police” seems absurd. The comparison to the Gestapo is entirely valid by the editor (not JPratas).

  Finally, JPratas only provides numbers for the visas issued in Bordeaux between June 17 and June 20. What about the four days after June 20? And what about the visas Sousa Mendes issued in Bayonne? Additionally, on pages 47–48 of A Good Man in Evil Times: The Story of Aristides de Sousa Mendes – The Unknown Hero Who Saved Countless Lives in World War II, José Fralon states that Aristides de Sousa Mendes had already disobeyed orders before June 17 by issuing visas despite his requests being denied. For example in November 1939, he issued a visa to Austrian historian Arnold Wiznitzer without prior approval, violating the government's restrictive visa policies which led to a reprimand from the ministry. The book can be accessed at this link.These omissions further call into question the neutrality of the edits.

  Also, one of the visa registry books from Bordeaux was lost, which further supports the fact that there were more than just thousands of visas issued. Moreover, a single visa could cover multiple individuals, such as children traveling on their parents’ passports, meaning the number of visa recipients was likely much higher than the number of visas issued. Benji1207 (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  I prefer to focus this discussion solely on the topic at hand rather than engaging in personal characterizations of editors. My goal is to evaluate arguments based on their merits, not on who is making them. I will also refrain from discussions comparing the PVDE, MI5, and the Gestapo, as that is a separate topic that should be debated in a more appropriate venue. Like the PVDE talk page

  I have not made any negative remarks about any editor or source, and I encourage others to do the same in the interest of maintaining a productive discussion. That said, I do find it concerning that three accounts participating in this discussion appear to have been created specifically to discuss this one topic and vote in this RfC. If there are concerns about neutrality, these should be addressed through content-based discussions and adherence to Wikipedia policies, rather than through attempts to discredit individual editors.

  With that in mind, I remain open to constructive, evidence-based discussion regarding the visa numbers and the historical context of Sousa Mendes' actions. J Pratas (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Do you dispute that 'one of the visa registry books from Bordeaux was lost'?

  Also, Avraham Milgram writes, "the majority of Jews who, in the summer of 1940, succeeded in crossing the Pyrenees and Spain to the Portuguese border, did so thanks to Sousa Mendes."

  How many Jews, total, do you think crossed thus? Seems it likely included a large fraction reported "4,908 Jews, with the help of HICEM, sailed during 1941".

  RememberOrwell (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  RememberOrwell My role here as an editor is not to take sides in historical disputes, but to ensure that, when disputes exist in the academic literature, they are represented fairly and in a neutral tone. Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) is clear: when there is disagreement among reliable sources, Wikipedia should not adopt one position as fact in its own voice, but rather attribute views to those who hold them.

  I was the one who added the perspective of the Sousa Mendes Foundation to the article, and the claim of "thousands", and I recognize that some historians believe he issued thousands of visas, so I also added their perspective to the article. But other sources offer more cautious or critical views, emphasizing the lack of reliable documentation to support the larger figures. When talking about numbers Milgram, Gallagher, etc.. use words like myth, exaggeration, etc..

  Regarding the number of visas, we have today primary sources—the visa registry from the Bordeaux consulate— that allow us to count hundreds of visas issued between June 17 and June 22. I dont know of a Bordeaux missing book, but if there is a missing book, the article should mention it. But we know that many of the visas issued between June 17 and June 22 were just routine visas or visas issued to Portuguese citizens and other nationals for whom visas were permitted. What we do not have is a registry for the visas reportedly issued at Bayonne or Hendaye.

  Eugene Bagger described Sousa Mendes erratic behavior at Bayonne—including his refusal to issue more visas in Bayonne on June 21. Eugene Bagger, an American jew says that, at Bayonne, he saw Sousa Mendes rushing out of the Portuguese Consulate, pursued by a mob, and that Sousa Mendes, holding his head between his hands, was crying "Go away! No more visas!", then jumped into a car and shot down the hill pursued by curses from the mass of visa seekers.

  Milgram and others have acknowledged that we will never know precisely how many people received visas at those locations or how many of them were issued in defiance of Lisbon.

  For years, the Sousa Mendes Foundation has actively encouraged people to come forward if they or their relatives received visas from Sousa Mendes, especially at Bayonne or Hendaye. Their website still includes the appeal: “If you know of anyone who escaped the Holocaust via Portugal and/or is a likely Sousa Mendes visa recipient, please contact us.” However, as far as I’m aware, despite these efforts, the Foundation has not been able to document or publish a significant number of such cases. This underscores the challenge of quantifying the number of visas issued outside of Bordeaux, and further supports the use of terms like “undetermined” rather than asserting precise or high figures without clear documentation. Most of the visas listed by the Sousa Mendes Foundation are regular visas issued at Bordeaux.

  Last but not least, it's important to note that Portugal never officially closed its borders to refugees. In fact, just four days after the Bordeaux episode, the Portuguese government authorized the HICEM organization to relocate from Paris to Lisbon and continue its refugee assistance operations from Portuguese territory. This decision was made despite British objections, demonstrating Salazar’s willingness to allow Portugal to serve as a transit country for refugees. Moreover, visa issuance did not stop after the Sousa Mendes episode—on the contrary, thousands of visas continued to be issued through official channels in the months that followed. J Pratas (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't appreciate the wall of text, rehashing arguments already presented here, instead of answering the direct questions I asked.

  Also, "one of the visa registry books from Bordeaux was lost", wrote @Benji1207.

  So I asked you two questions:

  1/ Do you dispute that 'one of the visa registry books from Bordeaux was lost'?

  You replied, in relevant part: "I don't know of a Bordeaux missing book, but if there is a missing book, the article should mention it." @Benji1207, agree?

  2/ How many Jews, total, do you think, in the summer of 1940, succeeded in crossing the Pyrenees and Spain to the Portuguese border?

  I wonder what your answer is; it's not in your wall of text.

  When you write "thousands of visas continued to be issued through official channels in the months that followed", I wonder if you can source this, and if so, to a specific # of months, and whether you're talking about visas in general (not relevant), or to those fleeing to avoid capture and the extermination that had already begun in concentration camps in 1940. RememberOrwell (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm fine with mentioning the lost book if we find an appropriate place for it in the article :). Benji1207 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Do you have a source? RememberOrwell (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  "The number is difficult to ascertain because so much time has passed, so many refugees refused to discuss the war, and because only one of Sousa Mendes’ two visa registers from the period has survived."

  "For Bordeaux there were two visa registry books, although only one of them has survived; evidence of a second book can be found here, here and here." Benji1207 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  1. Missing Bordeaux Registry

  One user stated that a Bordeaux visa registry book was lost. May I kindly ask for a published source confirming this?

  ----

  2. Chronology and the Holocaust

  It is historically inaccurate to state that Sousa Mendes “saved Jews from the Holocaust” in June 1940. At that time, the Holocaust as a systematic extermination campaign had not yet begun, and the perception of threat varied widely.

  Historian Tom Gallagher notes:

  “Arguably, issuing a visa was not yet equivalent to saving a life, as it would become in 1944 and 1945...” (Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die, 2020, p. 122)

  Even by 1941, prominent Jewish refugees such as Marc Chagall, Hannah Arendt, Peggy Guggenheim, and Lion Feuchtwanger were still in France. Chagall initially refused to leave, believing France was safe. As historian Avraham Milgram observes, even in 1943 many Jews in the Netherlands declined to flee, not believing their lives were in danger.

  This chronology matters. We should not project later historical meaning onto earlier actions.

  Thousands of visas were issued by Portuguese consulates before and after the Bordeaux episode — often within legal channels and with Lisbon’s awareness — in Paris, Marseille, Geneva, and elsewhere. This is documented by Irene Flunser Pimentel, Neill Lochery, Milgram, and others.

  Moreover, just four days after the Bordeaux episode, Salazar authorized the Jewish relief agency HICEM to relocate to Lisbon, against British objections. This decision facilitated the escape of thousands of refugees in 1940–41. Portugal’s policy, while restrictive, was not uniformly hostile to refugee transit during this phase of the war.

  An additional illustration of how Bordeaux was perceived at the time: Sousa Mendes’s lover, Andrée Cibial, traveled with him, pregnant, to Lisbon in the summer of 1940, where she gave birth to their daughter, Marie-Rose Faure. She then returned to Bordeaux with the newborn and remained there throughout the war. This suggests that Bordeaux was not universally seen as an area of imminent threat during that period.

  ----

  3. Myth Construction and Eyewitness Contradictions

  Historian Lina Madeira has shown that the dominant “assembly line” narrative — portraying Sousa Mendes as singlehandedly rescuing thousands in defiance of an authoritarian regime — originated in a 1951 novel written by one of his sons under the pseudonym Michael d’Avranches, not in contemporary records or eyewitness accounts.

  “A partir daqui, o mito estava construído.” (“From here, the myth was constructed.”)

  According to Madeira, this binary narrative — Sousa Mendes as martyr, Salazar as villain — became widespread from the 1990s onward and peaked in 2004. She calls it emotionally charged and empobrecedora (impoverishing), as it oversimplifies a more complex reality in which many consular services continued issuing visas within legal bounds.

  Two primary sources from June 1940 also contradict the later “assembly line” portrayal:

  • In his 1940 article Flight from France, June 17–25 (Harper’s Magazine), American Jewish writer Eugene Bagger describes chaotic scenes at the Bordeaux consulate and ultimately received his visa not there but at the Hotel Splendid — where he found Sousa Mendes having aperitifs, and received help from the Polish consul. (This account is cited by the Sousa Mendes Foundation)
  • A British Embassy Aide-Mémoire, dated 20 June 1940, accused Sousa Mendes of deferring visa applications until after hours, charging special fees, and soliciting charitable contributions as a condition for issuing visas.

  These contemporary sources do not merely dispute totals — they raise legitimate doubts about what actually occurred during those days in Bordeaux.

  ----

  4. On Wikipedia’s Role

  Wikipedia policy is clear: when reliable sources conflict, we do not take sides. Instead, we summarize all significant viewpoints in proportion to their presence in the literature, clearly attributing them to their respective authors.

  Where a reputable historian supports a more heroic account, it can and should be included — as has already been done — but in the author’s voice, not in Wikipedia’s voice.

  An editor’s role is neither to deny recognition nor to promote a hagiographic narrative, but to ensure that the article remains balanced, well-sourced, and compliant with policies such as Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V), and Due Weight (WP:DUE). J Pratas (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  Jews in 1940 were already being persecuted, stripped of their rights, and imprisoned across Europe. To argue that Sousa Mendes didn’t save Jews from the Holocaust just because the systematic extermination hadn’t officially begun yet is absurd. What do you think would have happened to those Jews if he hadn’t issued them visas in Bordeaux? We both know the answer. (Or do you?) And frankly, I shouldn’t have to explain it. The fact that you’re clinging to a technicality to deny the reality of what he did says more about you than anything else. Benji1207 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  Benji1207, it's important that we look at the broader historical context without simplifying it into a binary of “hero vs. denier.” No one is disputing that Sousa Mendes attempted to help people in distress. Though, as you know, contemporary sources such as the British Government’s Aide-Mémoire and the testimony of American writer Eugene Bagger suggest his actions were more erratic and less uniformly heroic than later narratives portray.

  The visa records from Bordeaux show that Sousa Mendes issued visas to a wide range of individuals—not only Jews. Some recipients held aristocratic titles and were supposed to get visas anyway; others were Portuguese, British, or American nationals, also supposed to get visa. A portion were Jewish refugees. Even within that group, many, such as members of the Rothschild family, received visas that were perfectly legal under Portuguese regulations. Sousa Mendes himself acknowledged that in certain cases—such as issuing visas on a Sunday—he charged additional fees, from which he personally benefited under the consular system then in place. (he received a % of the fees).

  The June 1940 episode was not primarily a “rescue mission” to save Jews from the Holocaust—it took place during a mass civilian exodus, involving 8 million people fleeing the Nazi advance after the fall of Paris. As Gallagher notes, “evidence that his efforts were especially directed towards fleeing Jews is also speculative” (Salazar, 2020, p. 122).

  Historians such as Avraham Milgram have stressed that Portugal was already under enormous pressure from refugee flows and that many of the visas Sousa Mendes issued—even irregular ones—must be understood within the context of that broader bureaucratic and humanitarian emergency.

  It’s also essential to consider the historical timing. In June 1940, Jews in France were not yet subject to the kinds of persecution they would later face under Vichy rule. Many remained in France at the time, feeling it was still relatively safe. Marc Chagall, Hannah Arendt, Peggy Guggenheim, and Lion Feuchtwanger all stayed in France until well into 1941. Milgram further notes that even as late as 1943, Jews in the Netherlands were declining to flee, still unaware of the full danger.

  This is why the article should reflect historical nuance, avoiding anachronistic claims or retroactive interpretations. Multiple scholarly views can and should be included—but they must be clearly attributed, and Wikipedia must not adopt any single narrative in its own voice. J Pratas (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Just a quick note to any closer that JPratas was topic banned recently . While this doesn't invalidate comments they left before the ban, if you feel there is no consensus I'd ask you to consider whether consensus can be found if JPratas arguments are put aside. (But not those supporting JPratas's arguments since these editors could have made the same arguments themselves). If you feel there is consensus, consider whether it's necessary for there to be a new RfC to prove this rather than just putting aside the views of someone who can no longer participate. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  I feel that's improper. Their comments and evidence shouldn't be 'put aside'.

  Are the historians they cite fringe/revisionists? I don't see any evidence of that. Did I miss it? RememberOrwell (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  PS I just read the ANI thread leading to the ban. I don't know what to think. Civil POV pushing if the POV is neutral seems to me like something we shouldn't topic ban someone for. Holocaust revisionism is not a NPOV, and if I saw their edits as that, I'd be for the ban. RememberOrwell (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)