Talk:Abraham ben Abraham

Reb Shlomo
Reb Shlomo Carlebach tells the story of Graf Potocki in the book "lmaa'n acheu v'rei" by moshe david cohen, page 252. could anyone could read it there and check if the article needs any change (the book is in hebrew)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.175.145 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Real?
Is the story real? I could not find any informations about him on genealogy sites. Its hard to believe that he was burned at the stake at Wilno in 1749 (member of such powerful family like the Potocki). I never heard about burnings on stake of Polish nobility members (not even in the medieval). Since Jacob Frank (1726-1791), people of Jewish descend joined the ranks of Polish nobility.

"The Mystery of Walentyn Potocki

''Numerous encyclopaedias of Jewish history, religion and culture include an entry on Walentyn Potocki, with the additional information that this was the name of a Polish magnate who converted to Judaism in eighteenth&#8211;century The Netherlands. After his return to Wilno, he was tried by an Inquisition [sic!] court which sentenced him to the stake. This legend, which originated at the turn of the eighteenth century, was published in a Jewish periodical issued in London as &#8220;The Jewish Expositor and Friend of Israel&#8221; (vol. 8, 1822). A literary form of the legend was created by Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, the renowned author of numerous historical novels, who included the story about Potocki in the third volume of the history of Wilno (1841). The tragic fate of Potocki remains unconfirmed by eighteenth&#8211;century Polish or Jewish sources. On the other hand, it would be difficult to believe that the death at the stake of a Polish aristocrat charged with apostasy was not echoed in any of the diaries or polemical writings concerning religion and tolerance, topics in which the Enlightenment was particularly interested. In this situation, the court trial and death of Walentyn Potocki should be recognised as an historical legend deprived of all source&#8211;material foundations." Alicja Kulecka''

--Witkacy 18:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Witkacy, the article The Mystery of Walentyn Potocki was written not by Alicja Kulecka but by Janusz Tazbir. The source you took the above abstract from is not well structured, so it is likely the source of this confusion. On the bright side, it is most definetly an ACADEMIC PUBLICATION - since it has appeared in Kwartalnik Historyczny, 3/2003, and it is a Polish Academy of Sciences official publication. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, as far as I know, the last instance of stake-burning in Poland was in mid-17th century and even back then was seen as a barbarity and was not legal any more. Halibutt 17:56, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

First of all: Halibutt, I am aware of the incident you refer to. An atheist was sentenced to auto de fe in 1689. However, as I'm sure you are aware, Church instigated (and often non-Church instigated) persecution of Jews was common in eighteenth century Poland. One notable example is the massacre of Jewish communities instigated by the Bishop of Gdansk (in 1723, I think). I would expect that other auto-da-fes may have taken place without being recorded in certain historical sources. Nevertheless, the story of Walentyn Potocki is shrouded in confusion, so perhaps he was killed by other means. However, this is unlikely given the universal account of Potocki's burning (by universal, I mean among those who provide an account; it is not to include those who question the story entirely).

Witkacy, I'll try to address your concerns soon. As a preview: (A.) It is possible that he was not a member of the Potocki family. (B.) The Frankists acceptance in the nobility does not say anything for the acceptance of other Jews, given the Frankists' association with Catholocism. If you understand the history well, you'll see that the acceptance of the Frankists actually runs counter to your point. (C.) There are accounts of this story dating back to the mid-eighteenth century. HKT 19:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I read, Witkacy info sounds plausible. I have done lot of research on that era, and I also find it strange that not a single source mentions this. This was both after the last common date for stake burning as well. Also, while history of the Jews in Poland certainly needs expantion, I am unaware of any 'common persecution of Jews in 18th century Poland'. While religious freedom in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was limited compared through 16-17th centuries, from what I read it was still a much more tolerant place then its neighbours and virtually all Europan countries, which were absolute monarchies and allowed only one faith. Besides, there are lot of disputable details in the article: 1) Kraszewski - does it refer to Józef Ignacy Kraszewski? 2) Count - there were very few titled nobility in PLC, thus if a Count was burned - it would be a famous story 3) It is missing names, surnames, who is the 'daughter of a great nobleman' 4) References are sketchy, I tried to format them according to Cite sources but they are missing dates and ISBN/ISSN, we definetly need English ones (Polish ones wouldn't hurt, neither). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as (1.), yes. (2.) Not neccesarily. Cover-ups can happen for all sorts of reasons. If his family was so powerful, perhaps they used their influence to avoid the extreme embarrassment that would arise from publicity of the story. (It was not covered up, however, in Jewish communities, where many would flock to his tombstone every year since the year of his death). (3.) I have no idea; I didn't write the article. (4.) Thanks for your work. HKT 17:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. What's disputed about saying that the story is either true or false?! Why the template? HKT 17:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why the template - since it is likely it is a myth, not a real story - I would remove the tag after a rewrite indicating it is unconfirmed. My doubts are strenghten by the above quote Witkacy brought us (btw, Witkacy, could you provide a source for this quote - book, print, isbn, link?). If you are right about 2) it would be the first such event I heard about, and likely a very interesting research matter. It sounds *very* unlikely to me, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What I meant was: Since you already wrote that it may be an invented tale (i.e. "the story is either true or false," as I wrote), there is no need for the template. But that's a moot point, given that you already realized this and fixed it. Just wanted to explain what I wrote. :-) HKT


 * " (A.) It is possible that he was not a member of the Potocki family."
 * As far as I know only the Potocki of Pilawa Coat of Arms got the title of count.--Witkacy 14:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit pressed for time, but I'll just explain shortly what I meant by that: His name may not have been Potocki; there are different versions as to who the subject of the story was. If he was a Potocki, he of course was a member of the family. HKT 17:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Every single source I can google mention he was member of one of the wealthiest Polish nobility families. Thus he either was a member of a Potocki noble family, or the orginal story is mistaken here, and if it is mistaken here, it is likely it is mistaken on many other points - like his very existence - as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the Jewish loyalty syndrome, it did not appear until the Polish-Bolshevik War and then World War II. Before that, Jews were regarded as equally opressed by the partitioners and many of them fought in the national uprisings. Halibutt 11:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * What does that mean? Jews didn't feel oppressed in Poland before WWII? Jayjg (talk)  21:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Questions needing answer
The following questions must be answered to prove - or disprove - this story:
 * 1) Potocki family. A genealogical tree or other sources cleary proving he was a member of it (as all sources claim). As Halibutt wrote, Polish nobility kept many, many diaries and such. Consider: almost all of szlachta - 10% of PLC population - could raed and write, and majority of them were very interested in preserving their 'golden freedoms' - including the right to religious tolerance. Now, I find it extremly unlikely that not a single PLC source would mention this event. A consipracy theory that he was 'erased' from all PLC records is rather laughable - we cannot base encyclopedia on consipracy theories, can we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your argument is misleading. If I were to say that I know aliens exist because I somehow intuit that the government covers up their presence - that would be unencyclopedic. Since evidence does exist to support the story of "AbA," one must only conclude that which would normally not be assumed, i.e. lack of abundant secular records for a prominent event. Why this is must be left to speculation (e.g. "The government and nobility wanted to avoid embarrasment, so they didn't publicize or record the event"). In fact, the execution may have occurred in the absence of public exposure (maybe in a Jewish area, given that all accounts detail that the Jews were aware of the execution). Who knows? HKT 23:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * We have now 3 modern publications, the Jewish Encyclopedia from 1970, the Moskal article from 2001 and Tabzir article from 2003, which claim there is no evidence for this tale. Tabzir goes the furtherst, claiming it was invented. There is no academic source I have found or anybody has given claiming it is true. Now, until you can give me such a source, I will say our sources say it is Potocki's story is not true. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Count. Very, very few members of szlachta had such titles. Thus it should be fairly easy to find if any Potocki had such a title, and what was his fate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, I have answered this myself. Indeed Potocki's had Count title, so I withdraw this objection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * O.K. There goes objection #2. HKT 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) crime of conversion to Judaism punishable by death in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. We need a source to prove there was indeed such a penalty. From what I read, only atheism was punishable by death. PLC allowed for extensive religious tolerance, with Catholics, various Protestant sects (Lutharns, Kalwins), Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Jews and even Muslims freely living and practicing their faiths in its borders. While I admit that I don't know if conversion from Catholicism (most likely) to Judaism was possible, and I would agree that it would be likely punishable by social ostracism and such, I find it extremly difficult to believe it could be punishable by death (at burning stake, especially!). There is of course the possibility that he was put to death because of other (real or alleged) crimes, but again, this is not mentioned in the stories which I can google. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Burning at stake in Wilna - Wilna, a major city, should have a recored of this incident. Buring at stake was most uncommon at that time, so there should be be records of it in history of Wilna or such. Are there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is simply an extension of your first objection. HKT 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Sources. Can we have a reliable 20th academic source (see Cite sources? 18th century non-PLC sources are nice, but they cannot be verified by themselves - if they spoke of dragons and Atlantis, we wouldn't claim they did exist then, can we? Seriously, on the same ground one could claim that an 18th centiry source that Jews eat babies and such proves that claim...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not up to Wikipedia to prove or disprove the story; indeed, that would be original research. If you can find a source that states the story is false, that would well worth quoting. Jayjg (talk)  21:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * For starters, the mentioned Encyclopedia Judaica from 190 sais: "So far no historical evidence for the story has been discovered". Looks rather reliable to me, unless sb has a more modern encyclopedia-type source? Second, the Jacek Moskal article mentioned (and linked) below looks like the closest thing to an academic article any of us has found, mentioned and/or read, and while it does not prove the story false, it most definetly raises many doubts about it. I believe all of this should go into the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're quoting a reliable source, it certainly should go in the article; but you can't do your own research (e.g. about stake burnings), decide that you think it's false based on the evidence, and quote that. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How about oral transmission from disciple to disciple, beginning with the firsthand account of the Vilna Gaon, and continuing through a chain of world-renowned Jewish religious leaders, all widely acclaimed for their credibility? (By the way, this chain I'm talking about has produced only one version of the story; any other variations don't say anything against this chain's credibility). Here's the chain: Vilna Gaon (world renowned figure; primary leader of non-Chasidic European Jewry during much of the eighteenth century)> Rabbi Chaim Volozhin (the main leader of non-Chasidic European Jewry at the beginning of the nineteenth century; considered primary disciple of the Vilna Gaon; world renowned figure) > Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (author of Beit HaLevi; founder of the Brisker school of thought; world renowned figure) > Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik (son of previous; author of commentaries on the Talmud and Maimonides, now almost universally studied in Yeshivas world-wide; world renowned figure) > All following disciples of R' Chaim Soloveitchik relate the account in his name. These include the Brisker Rav (Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik), Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik, and Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik - all world famous in Jewish circles and all especially renowned for personal integrity and credibility. In fact, the main hallmark of this "Brisker Line" is pursuit of truth and integrity. They collectively have had thousands of students who all relate the same verision, citing their mentors. I know it's an oral tradition, but it seems like a pretty credible one. HKT 23:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an impressive list. I think we can reach a compromise based on the Jewish encyclopedia, which sais that there is no historical evidence, but the story is believed true. We can expand on this, giving Tabzir/Moskal sources and analysis for 'no historical evidence', and your above para as the source of 'belief it is true'. Although I'd love to see at least one modern publicatiosn stating this - perhaps the one you based your above para on? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the section that has been entered regarding evidence against Potocki's existence. Have all these points been raised in other works, or are these just points which have been made by editors of this page? If the former, they need to be specifically attributed. If the latter, they need to be removed as original research. Please clarify. Jayjg (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you mean the 21 points by Piotrus, then it's a rather faithful summary of the work of Jacek Moskwa (the article source is given; too bad it's in Polish only). Halibutt 16:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it is all based on the two referenced articles - mostly Moskal, since I have not yet read the one by Prof. Tabzir (although if need arisises, I should be able to get a hold of it as well). On the other hand, I am still waiting for any sources proving Potocki's existence. I'd think that 21st century academic research is more relevant then 100+ years old encyclopedias - especially as the new research is aware of the old ones, and it simply corrects it with new findings. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

There are several sections about whether AbA was a real person, so I'll post here on the first one. The Hebrew Wikipedia article https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/אברהם_בן_אברהם brings a primary source from a contemporary, Yaakov Emden, ויקם עדות ביעקב, דף כה, ב (Vayakam Edus b'Yaakov, 1755, p. 25b). Here is the quote "מה אירע בימינו לפני איזה שנים בווילנא ראש מדינת ליטא, שנתגייר שר גדול מגזע פאטאצקא ותפשוהו וחבשוהו ימים רבים בחשבם שיחזור לדתם, ואע"פ שהיה יודע כי לא ימלט מעשות בו יסורין קשים ומיתה אכזרית, אם עודנו לא ישוב, והם היו חפצים להצילו ממות ומעונש קשה ומר ממות, שהיה מעותד לו אם יעמוד בדעתו, ולא פנה עליהם ולא לתחנת אמו השררה, לא חשב גזומם, ולא תאות וחשק הנאת עולמם, לא פחד ולא דאג למות בכל היסורים המרים שעשו לו, אחר שהמתינו לו זמן רב, חסו עליו מאוד לכבוד משפחתו, והוא לעג לכל פיתויי הכומרים המדברים אליו יום יום כמנהגם ברוב דבריהם ביחוד לשר חשוב כזה שחק להם בזה להם, ובחר מות ארוך וערוך לפניו עם יסורים אכזרים משונים מאוד, מחיי עולם עובר, קבל וסבל הכל מאהבה ומת על ק"ה, תנצב"ה."

Rough translation: "A few years ago, it happened in Vilna the capital of Lithuania that a great prince from the family of Potoska converted. They captured him and imprisoned him for many days thinking they could return him to their religion. He knew that he would not escape harsh tortures and a cruel death if he would not return. They wanted to save him from the death and punishment that would await him if he held out. He paid no attention to them or to the begging of his mother the countess. He was not afraid or worried about dying in all the bitter anguish they had done to him. After waiting for him for a long time, they tried to take it easy on him for the honor of his family. He ridiculed all the temptations of the priests who would speak to him every day because he was an important minister. He scorned them and laughed at them, and chose death of long and cruel agony, to the temporary life of this world. He accepted and suffered all from love, and died sanctifying God's name. May he rest in peace."

It adds the comment "היסטוריונים לא יהודיים אשר כפי הנראה לא הכירו את דברי רבי יעקב עמדין, טוענים כי האזכור הראשון של הסיפור הוא משנת 1822 ולכן מפקפקים בסיפור, מכיוון שאין עדויות מכלי ראשון שהסיפור אכן התקיים."

Translation: "The non-Jewish historians who apparently did not know of the words of Rabbi Yaakov Emden, claim that the first mention of the story is from the year 1822, and therefore doubt the story since [they thought] there is no primary source. However, there is."

I'd like to add all this to the article, which would of course significantly change its conclusion. MikeR613 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC) - Added it. I also reordered a couple of paragraphs that help the change make sense. MikeR613 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also found a link to a audio lecture by Prof. Leiman, http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/862115/dr-shnayer-leiman/the-ger-tzedek-of-vilna-fact-or-fiction/, "The Ger Tzedek of Vilna: Fact or Fiction". YMMV but I found the lecture completely convincing - and that was before he knew of R' Yaakov Emden's book.MikeR613 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Primary source
I decided to pursue this matter a little further.
 * First, about Kraszewski. Moskal, who in his article quotes the entire orginal story, writes that Kraszewski is the second oldest source. In his "Wilno od poczatkow jego do roku 1750", 1841, he wrote about this story: "W wielkiem takze poszanowaniu w Wilnie jest pamiec tak zwanego Abrahama Abrahamowicza, ktory wielkiego rodu, z chrzescijan katolikow, w Amsterdamie nawrocil sie na wiare zydowska, a powrociwszy do kraju spalony za to w Wilnie, niedaleko Zamku, pochowano popioly jego za mogilkami zydowskimi (dla tego, ze nagle zmarlych nie grzebia na mogilkach) gdzie i drzewo na grobie jego rosnie. Rocznice jego obchodza drugiego dnia Zielonych Swiat w Boznicy Wilenskiej. Slyszac opowiadana jego historja, dowiedziawszy sie o exystencjij rekopismu opisujacego cale to zdarzenie, dostalismy z niemala trudnoscia oryginal, z ktorego tlumaczenie, jedyny podobno przyklad Kroniki zydowskiej, w calej oryginalnosci i pierwotnej naiwnosci formy i stylu, tu umieszczamy na koncu, przekonani, jak dalece zajac powinno (...) Rekopism oryginalny nabylem na wage zlota, a moze drozej jeszcze, zmuszony zareczyc, ze nie wydam od kogo mam" – wyjasnia w przypisie pochodzenie tego zrodla Kraszewski - "tlumaczony z pomoca P. Alexandra Ellenbogen. – Zbyt wolne kawalki musielismy powypuszczac (...) Rekopism hebrajski nie wyrazny zajmuje scisle zapisanych osiem stronic cwiartkowych".  What is interesting here is that he does not give the title or any other information about the orginal, thus we cannot be certain if is the Hurwitz or another source.
 * Now, about Ammude bet Yehudah, p. 46a, Amsterdam 1766. It refers to Judah ben Mordecai Ha-Levi Hurwitz, another Wilnian, btw. His 'Ammude bet Yehudah' (or 'Sefer Amude bet Yehudah', The Pillars of the House of Judah) book is from 1766 (or 1765, as Encyclopedia Judaica states), and is the oldest referenced source about his story. Unfortunately, there is a problem: Moskal writes he was unable to find a copy of his book anywhere, including the US Congress Library (yet I found a site that claims library HAS this book, see link). Perhaps some of you will have more luck - if you are living in US, perhaps you could go and scan the pages for us, or get them on an interlibrary loan? Or perhaps this book is also in some Isreal libraries? It does look like this book exists, although I'd appreciate a more concrete evidence (listing in library catalogue, at least). And even if it exists, we must make sure it is complete - I found only a scan of the title page - see link above) and more to the point, it contains the Potocki's story (preferably obtaining a scan of the orginal pages). This would go to much lenght in countering the arguments the story is false (or, at least, countering the claim Kraszewski invented the story, and text analysis could show if Kraszewski based his translation on Hurwitz or not). Note that Hurwitz has an article at Jewish encyclopedia, although it doesn't like me and I have to access it via Google cache :>. As there are very few pages mentioning Judah Hurwitz (btw, perhaps one of you would want to write a wiki article about him?), I read them all, unfortunately, there is no useful info besides his bio in the Encyclopedia.  Perhaps sb might want to check if there is any interesting info in the following academic articles: Feiner, Shmuel "Between the Clouds of Foolishness and the Light of Reason: Judah Hurwitz, an Early Eighteenth Century Maskil" In: Etkes, I.; Assaf, D.; Bartal, I. And Reiner, E.(eds.)Within Hasidic Circles, Studies in Hasidism, in Memory of Mordechai Wilensky, p. 111-160.Jerusalem, 1999 and Feiner , Shmuel "Atheism, Enthusiasm and Early Haskalah, the Case of Jehuda Hurwitz of Vilna" The Gaon of Vilnius and the Annals of Jewish Culture, Proceedings of the Vilna Gaon Conference, p. 169-178.Vilna, The University of Vilnius, 1998.
 * It would also be interesting to see what are the references (if any) of other sources mentioned as a source in Jewish Encyclopedia (after Hurwitz and Kraszewski). However I'd be suprised if they gave references other then Hurwitz or Kraszewski (check the dates...) Those are 1) Fuenn, Kiryah Ne'emanah, p. 120, Wilna. 1860, 2) Gersoni, The Converted Nobleman, in Sketches of Jewish, Life and History, pp. 187-224, New York, 1873 and 3) B. Mandelstamm, Chazon la-Mo'ed, p. 15, Vienna, 1877 . Ufff. Let nobody say I don't do my research :>--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There he is! The online catalog mentions two books by him (one published in 1891 in Bagdad and the other in "Poritsk" in 1786 or 1787). However, the titles don't match and my Hebrew is too limited to tell whether it is the book or not... Halibutt 12:03, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Online notes
Google tidbits of information:
 * 1) a post sais: "Whether Graf Pototsky really lived. Good question! Apparently he did but the (1972) Encyclopaedia Judaica article on him has it that "So far no historical evidence for the story has been discovered, although it is generally believed to be true." He is supposed to have been burnt at the stake as a proselyte at the foot of the fortress of Vilna on the second day of Shavuot, 5509 (c.e. 1749) and is also known as Abraham ben Abraham and as the Ger Zedek. The Library of Congress has established him (as a real person) under the name "Potocki, Valentine, d. 1749", in case you want to look him up as a subject in library catalogs.
 * 2) sais "He was memorialized in Vilna's main synagogue, on the anniversary of his martyrdom." Perhaps this can be verified at the Vilna's synagogue, if it still exists? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Jacek Moskwa History secret of false? A very interesting article, but, unfortunately, this is in Polish - although Google indidacted this would be in English (perhaps you can find an English translation)? Anyway, it has an interseting bibliography section - see end of article, 'Zrodla:' section, some are English! Oh, and it has some pics we may want to add to the article. Now, some interesting facts from the article:

1) it is proven and not disputable that there was a cult of his grave (in the oldest Jewish cementary in Wilna, Pioromont aka Snipiszki quater). The graveyard was devasted by the Nazis and completly erased by the Soviets, who build a housing blocks there

2) reamins of rabbi Eliyahu ben Shelomo Zalman (apparently the most imporant of Jewish Wilna rabbis) and 5 of his family were allowed by Soviets to be transfered to a new cementary at Sultaniszki
 * You'll find the article on him at Vilna Gaon. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

3) there is also a 7th grave, without any description tablet (!). Some sources say it is the grave of Walentyn Potocki, but many mention that only remains of Zalman rabbi were transfered and say nothing of Potocki/Abraham

4) author mentions that book from 1766 is so scarce, it is not even the the US Congress Library collection, and that Kraszeweski's story is the second oldest and available source. Kraszewski is not considered a reliable source by historians, he is known to have invented some stories and events he claimed as 'true'. It should be noted that MANY sources from that time used this trick - claimed sth was true, quoting older, invented sources, etc. And all later sources give Kraszewski - or works based on him - as the primary source...

5) According to author, there is no mention of POTOCKI name, only an abbreviation Pot. and a note that he was a 'great lord'

6) According to the author, the Kraszewski story (translation) shows many similarities with the Jewish religious tale or apocryphe (sorry, not sure how to translate in English 'chaldydzka przypowie&#347;&#263;')

7) Author quotes a letter from Lithianian historian Rimantas Miknys who claims that 'this story is generally considered an invented tale by modern Lithuanian historians' as he has researched this matter and found not a single source proving this (i.e. no sentnece, no archive information) and that at that time the normal penalty could be 'ch&#322;osta' (beating) not death

8) Then, Jacek Moskal writes it is also claimed false by Polish historians (gives the name of Janusz Tazbir historian)

9) a very interesting argument, echoing stronly what we wrote earlier: such a trial - from tortures to the death penalty - violates many szlachta priviliges, starting with neminem captivabimu and would likely be (in)famous all over Europe, as happend with contemporary 'Gdansk event' - yet we find no mention of it anywhere, which is very suspicious

10) Potocki name. There is not a single Walenty in Potokci genealogy, although historians admit that genealogy (especually of some minor family line) might be incomplete, if it is not very likely. However, many Jewish sources claim Count Potocki was of the main Potocki line

11) Count. The Potocki family received the Count title after the partitions of Poland (1795), although the 'Zlota Pilawa' line got it from 1606 from austrian emporor. Still, in many sources they were called counts even in 18th century

12) Many Potocki's have indeed travelled to Rome and been at papal's courth, as the story indicates

13) The author then mentions some examples of other known szlachta who converted to Judaism in 18th century PLC, some well known names as Marcin Maciej Radziwill. None of them has been convicted or died, although some did emigrate to Amsterdam

14) The author then discusses the conspiracy theory - could this really be erarsed from contemporary sources? Potocki family was wealthy, poweful and could try to erase such a shameful incident from the history. He points at Teodor, Polish primate, archbishop of Gniezno, member of Potocki family (third son of  Pawel Potockiego). He was known for his opposition to religious tolerance ideals, and it is possible - just possible - that he could have scared many people into 'forgetting' about this affaris. But, there are two 'buts': one, that 99% of mentioned szlacha diaries were written for family only with no intent for publication, and PLC being very, very far from police state (it wasn't called anarchy for nothing), one could doubt it Teodor's influence would reach to those sources; second point - Teodor died in 1738, 11 years before alleged date of death of Walentyn Potocki :)

15) He mentions that there is a Jydisj proverb - Nich szpelen Graf Potocki - don't try to impersonate somebody wealthier/better then him (author mentions the orginal and translation may be flaky)

16) Author contacted the Potocki's family. None of them has any proof that this story is real, although one, Miko&#322;aj Potocki, heard about it and one of his hobbies was collecting materials about this alleged ancestor (he gives the aboove proverb). He showed the author a book: 'Abraham sohn Abrahams, by S. Sachnowytz, printed in Frankfurcie nad Menem in 1930. But it has nothing we don't know already in this Talk page

17) there is a picture of Walentyn, painted in 1980s by a Moscow Jewish painter Grisza Bruskin for Miko&#322;aj Potocki. Unfortunately, it is not in the article, but there is a skectch (begining of chapter VI) by prof. Meir Shub in his book Jews of Wilno. This is, however, only a portrait of an actor who played him

18) Prof Meir Shub nor Jacek Moskal were able to get into Wilno Church's archives, but they are rumored to be very incomplete (tnx to KGB which took most of them in USSR times), see also my point 7) Jacek Moskal did go through Vatican archives, and found not a single source mentioning Walenty Potocki's incident, nor to his mentor (in some sources only), who was also killed in Wilno around that time (Menahem Man ben Aryeh Löb z Wizun)

20) He was unable to get access by himself to the Inquisiton archives, but he submitted a question if they have anything about Walenty or similar converts - answer was 'we have nothing'

21) He did find a mention of him in the Mormons database (apparently available through internet, so feel free to double check this, I am too tired now myself). The information was very scarce: only that a person named Walenty Potocki was born in Poland around 1700. Unfortunately, the source 'Source information: Film number 2078024.' is not available througn net - perhaps an interesting Wikipdian near St. Lake City can go check this out? The author in his 2001 article promises to check this out, but there has been no update. Ufff. That's all from this article. I would definetly say based on this that while we cannot claim this story is false, we cannot claim it is true. It definetly remains disputable, and the scarcity and doubiousness of sources must be mentioned in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Fascinating article, that's what I like about history. I took the liberty to reorganize your comments for greater readability, I hope you don't mind. As to the beating penalty - I guess it's called lash in English. Halibutt 13:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Close, but it is a music group stub, and the only releated article is about the lashing knot. But yes, its the penalty of being whiped. After some googling, I think it is flagellation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Persecution of Jews in eighteenth century Poland
Aside from the 1723 massacres that I mentioned above, here's another notable example, quoted from wiki article Talmud:


 * "The last attack on the Talmud took place in Poland in 1757, when Bishop Dembowski, at the instigation of the Frankists, convened a public disputation at Kamenetz-Podolsk, and ordered all copies of the work found in his bishopric to be confiscated and burned by the hangman." HKT 21:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing that. But, as you well know, Jews were persecuted all over Europe. From what I read, the PLC was one of the safest and most tolerant places there was - at least until the partitions, when religious tolerance was replaced by not-so-tolerant laws of the partitioners. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, the event you mention was allegedly connected to burning Talmud, not Talmudists. Halibutt 22:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Piotrus: Who said the persecution was unique to Poland?! Halibutt: You don't consider stealing and burning private property of Jews to be persecution??!!!!! If what you are saying is that the cited case is not a specific precedent for Poles burning Jews, I wasn't trying to bring one. I was responding to the claim (above) that Polish persecution of Jews wasn't (!) common during the eighteenth century. Sheesh! HKT 23:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I overreacted, however, there is a fairly common bias that Jews were persecuted in PLC (erroneusly called Poland) *more* then in other European countries, which is the exact opposite of truth. So I want to make it clear that this is not the case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't. And such case (even if true) is rather exception than a rule. It does not make the whole AbA case any more credible to me. Also, are there any other written primary sources apart from the novel by Kraszewski (which was written some 100 years after the alleged stake burning)? Halibutt 00:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * The answer about sources is yes: Hurwitz, Ammude bet Yehudah, p. 46a, Amsterdam, 1766. Look familiar? It should; it's in the bibliography. (By the way, there are cadres of credible sources that provide credible indirect evidence that the story basically occurred).
 * Well, an 18th century publication is an interesting, but not a fullproof source. What I mean is can you give any modern (20th century) academic reference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, while eighteenth century Poland was better than a number of other countries at the time, and notably better than seventeenth century Poland (and, for that matter, Poland during much of the twentieth century), Jews were still persecuted. For example, the Jews were forced by Polish landowners (essentially suzerains) into the most unpopular work; the Jews became tax-collectors, tavern keepers, estate administrators, and moneylenders. This helped develop negative sentiments among the populace towards the Jews, in the vein of "Kill the messenger." Of course, the existence of such persecution alone doesn't prove the story of Abraham ben Abraham. The anti-semetic tendencies of Polish society simply provided a backdrop for the incident. HKT 01:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC) By the way, Halibutt, why do you continue to ignore the examples that I presented for you (the atrocities of 1723 and 1757) as real persecution? HKT 01:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * They were not forced. Nobody ordered them to do it. The jobs were available, paid really well, and so many Jews took it. They didn't monopolize them, but as they formed a significant part of merchant&etc. caste in PLC, they were quite a few of them. And what 'anti-semitic' tendences of PLC society do you mean? I thought we agreed they were fewer anti-semitic tendencies in pre-19th century Poland then in majority of other contemporaries countries?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The Jews were not forced directly, but in the following manner: Most other jobs were usually not offered to them. They often had the choice of being unemployed or working in the above-mentioned capacities. The jobs did not pay "really well" (except for moneylending which provided a variable and unpredictable income that was sometimes high, and, to a lesser degree, estate administration, which, while being a difficult position to acquire, paid more than most positions). In most cases, the Jewish workers had to settle for whatever cut of the profits the landowners were willing to offer. Additionally, taxes were extremely high. It is true that the non-Jewish workers had the same problems: high taxes and little negotiating leverage. Also, you are absolutely correct that many non-Jews were also tax-collectors, tavern keepers, estate administrators, and moneylenders. However, non-Jews were typically given preference for job positions, and they made up a much greater variety in the workforce. Because the Jews were more cloistered within positions such as tax-collector, estate administrator, and moneylender, resentment against Jews only increased, as I mentioned before. The image of the money-grubbing Jew was engraved in the minds of many. This dynamic was certainly not unique to Poland, nor was Poland the most anti-semetic country around. However, to describe it as egalitarian and "tolerant", is, in my opinion, inaccurate. HKT 20:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

From what I read, the PLC was one of the safest and most tolerant places there was - at least until the partitions, when religious tolerance was replaced by not-so-tolerant laws of the partitioners. --To quote from Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus


 * First of all, it was approximately equivalent to the approximately half of European countries fairly habitable for Jews at the time. If that's what "one of the safest and most tolerant places there was" means, then I'll grant you that. Russia, Spain, Portugal, Ukraine, and others were worse. However...
 * ...Second of all, "religious tolerance" was not simply replaced by not-so-tolerant laws of the partitioners. It was replaced by increased venom against Jews (partially due to flawed generalizations among much of the Polish masses regarding Jewish political loyalties). HKT 01:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some sources on this. I.e. both that there were countries more tolerant of Jews in pre-19th century Europe, and on the reasons for alleged anti-semitism of Polish masses. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as more tolerant and equally tolerant countries: Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Britain are some notable examples. HKT 21:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1648 Jewish population of Poland reached 450,000 or 4.5% whole population. Bohemia 40,000 and Moravia 25,000. Worldwide population of Jewry is estmated at 750,000.
 * 1750 Jewish population of Poland reaches 750,000 or 8.0% of total. The worldwide Jewish population is estimated at 1,200,000.
 * 1880 World Jewish population around 7.7 million, 90% in Europe, mostly Eastern Europe; around 3.5 million in the former Polish provinces.
 * 1924 2,989,000 Jews according to religion poll in Poland (10,5% of total). (2nd Republic)
 * So why are they not moved out of Poland? If Poles persecuted them, and Denmark, Netherland, Germany, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian Empire and Britain were more tolarant countries? However... The discussion is about Walentyn Potocki and not about the Polish-Jewish history.. :)--Witkacy 22:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "[M]ore tolerant and equally tolerant countries," was my quote, Witkacy. By the way: Of course, I didn't mean that Germany (for example) was exactly the same as Poland, but similar. Saying that they were exactly the same is tantamount to saying that Michael Jordan (6 feet, 6 inches) is exactly as tall as Shaquille O'Neil (7 feet, 1 inch)... (Just to clarify). P.S. I'll get to Halibutt's "problems" with my "Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Britain" remark. HKT 21:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The most developed Jewish communities were in Poland, Poland was admittedly not the worst place in Europe, and it was extremely difficult for people in the eighteenth century to move to a different country. That's why! Also, the dynamics (including expulsions from other countries) that led to the Jewish population explosion in Poland really were in place from the sixteenth century. One more thing: Why didn't southern blacks in the US at the beginning of the twentieth century move elsewhere?! Does that prove that they weren't persecuted??!!! In fact, I believe that, at that time, more blacks lived in the south than the more tolerant north! But that's an interesting argument, isn't is: "If they you're so persecuted, why don't you just leave!" HKT 23:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the answer of my question: When the emigration wave to America began, rabbi of Krakow Mosze Isserlesa Remu (1510-1570) said that: "its better to live poor in Poland but in peace" ...--Witkacy 23:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Rabbi Moses Isserles said this because, at the time, Jews were not allowed to live in most American colonies. More importantly, however, America was a spiritual wasteland at the time, with regards to Judaism. HKT 05:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And pls. dont compare the history of Jews in Poland with the history of slavery of black people in the USA...--Witkacy 23:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Witkacy, your understanding of American History is fatally flawed: Blacks weren't enslaved at all during the twentieth century! HKT 04:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm? I can't remember to said anything about the American history during this discussion.--Witkacy 06:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did. You asked me to not compare "the history of Jews in Poland with the history of slavery of black people in the USA." I didn't. I compared it with the history of discrimination against southern blacks throughout the hundred years following the cessation of slavery! To assert that I was comparing "the history of Jews in Poland with the history of slavery of black people in the USA" is to assert that blacks were enslaved in the US during the twentieth century. Such an assertion demonstrates a "fatally flawed" understanding of American History, as I wrote. By the way, examples of persecution of southern blacks at the time include: social exclusion, career restriction, judicial discrimination, and whites generally being given priority over blacks. HKT 20:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a note, that if one would compare those two societies (and why not?), one would reach an obvious conclusion, that Jews in Poland were in a much, much more better situation then blacks in US. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, you want a comparison? You want sources for "alleged anti-semitism of Polish masses?" OK:


 * "Jews have likewise numerous Academies in Poland, where they study in the Civil and Canon Laws of their nation (i.e. Jewish Law -HKT), being privleg'd to determine even certain criminal Causes among themselves: yet they... are often (emphasis added -HKT) exposed in [Poland] to unspeakable Calamities." (Excerpt from "Reasons for Naturalizing the Jews in Great Britain and Ireland," 1714)


 * "In 1654 neighboring Russia turned against Poland, a year later the Swedes poured in from the north, and all these groups, including the native Poles, ravaged and massacred defenseless Jewish victims throughout the land.(emphasis added -HKT)" (Excerpt from "The Jew in the Medieval World," by Jacob Rader Marcus, 1896)


 * "It came to pass on a Wednesday, the 20th of Sivan (in 1648, the 20th of Sivan was June 10th -HKT), that the Cossacks drew near to the city of Nemirov. When the Jews saw the troops from afar, [the Jews] were frightened, though as yet they did not know whether they were Polish or Cossack. Nevertheless, all the Jews went with their wives and infants... into the fortress and locked and barred its doors, ready to fight [the Cossacks]. What did those scoundrels, those Cossacks, do? They made flags like the Poles.... Now the people of this town, although they knew of this trick, nevertheless called to the Jews in the fortress: 'Open the gates. This is a Polish army which has come to save you from your enemies, should they appear.' The Jews who were standing on the walls, seeing that the banners were like the flags of the Polish forces, and believing that the townspeople were telling them the truth, immediately opened the gates to them. No sooner had the gates been opened than the Cossacks entered with drawn swords, and the (Polish) townsmen too, with swords, lances, and scythes, and some only with clubs, and they killed the Jews in huge numbers. They raped women and young girls; but some of the women and maidens jumped into the moat near the fortress in order that the Gentiles should not defile them, and were drowened in the water. Many of the men who were able to swim also jumped into the water and swam, thinking they could save themselves from slaughter. The Russians swam after them with their swords and their scythes and killed them in the water. Some of the enemy, too, kept on shooting with their guns into the moat, killing them till finally the water was red with the blood of the slain.... (emphasis added -HKT) The number of all those murdered and drowned in the holy community of Nemirov was about 6000; these met all sorts of terrible deaths, as has already been described.... Those... who escaped the sword fled to the honored community of Tulchin, for there, outside the city, was a very strong fortress." (Translated excerpt from "The Persecution of the Holy Congregation of Nemirov," by firsthand witness and survivor Rabbi Nathan Hannover, 1653). P.S. In Tulchin, the Jews were betrayed to the Cossacks by the Polish nobles. The Cossacks then turned and killed the Poles.


 * "I have been asked about a certain girl.... A (Polish) non-Jew accused her of having promised him that she would give up the Jewish religion and become his wife.... Later, when the non-Jew found that she had been sent away, he went to his lord, who arrested the rabbi and the council of the Jewish community... in order to force them to bring the girl before him for trial (emphasis added. In other words, the rabbi and council were held hostage -HKT). The rabbi... have sent to me, asking that the girl be returned... in order that she may be put on trial before the lord, and in order that they may thus free themselves from arrest.... [The question before the rabbi is whether or not one Jew, this girl, may be exposed to danger in order to save a number of Jews (emphasis added -HKT; note in brackets from Marcus)]. Her case came up for trial before the ruler of the city to which she had fled, and he let her go absolutely free, inasmuch as she protested most vehemently that the whole affair was an absolute lie." (Translated excerpt of Jewish legal responsa by Rabbi Hillel ben Naftali Hertz, Poland, circa 1685).

I think this gives some perspective on seventeenth and eighteenth century Poland. As far as "blacks in US," there's plenty of information on Wikipedia. You know, maybe "one would reach an obvious conclusion," as you said. HKT 23:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to add to the already long list, I might mention the anti-Semetic riots of 1716. Also, the June 1696 mob in Posen, Poland that nearly massacred the community. HKT 02:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Tnx for those very-MPOVed quotes from those ancient text. I'd appreciate some moddern, academic research, though. Besides, as the above quotes show, in many cases the persecutions in PLC territory were caused by external agressors (Sweden, Muscovy) or happened at a time of war (the Deluge), and do remember that the towns of that time were often pillaged or sacked, no matter if their inhabitants were Poles, Jews, Germans or other. But mostly, you are breaking an open door. I am not arguing PLC was heaven on earth for Jews - until Isreal was founded in the 20th century, nowhere on Earth have they been truly safe and unpersecuted. There were various incidents in PLC, I could give you more examples myself and I wont dispute the validity of examples you mention (although the language of the quotes is seriously POVed). What I am trying to show is that PLC (and earlier Kingdom of Poland) - from its early times to its end in the 18th century - was one of the most tolerant places for Jews, and certainly the most stable and long lasting place with such a policy of religious tolerance (one may show places which rivaled PLC tolerance, but not for *centuries*). Are you disputing this statement? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right: There is abundant POV in some of the quotes (excluding, I'm afraid, Marcus', who was a noted historian. Marcus even nearly qualifies for your "twentieth century source" condition ;-) ). However, such POV doesn't come from a vacuum, and it provides an appropriate backdrop for actual historical conditions. I agree that Poland was fairly stable and tolerant for Jews until approxiamtely 1600, after which I disagree. (Please excuse my continued inaccurate use of the term "Poland"; I am using it loosely for the sakes of simplicity and allowing historical comparison with earlier and later eras). Here's "some modern, academic research" (though I am adding another primary source at the end for its expressive value):


 * Sigismund III Vasa bans publication of Hebrew books, including the Talmud, in 1628.
 * "At the end of the 16th century and thereafter, not one year passed without a blood libel trial against Jews in Poland, trials which always ended with the execution of Jewish victims in a heinous manner..." (Simon Dubnow's History of the Jews in Poland and Russia, volume 6, chapter 4; "thereafter," in the above quote, refers to no later than 1918, when Dubnow's work was published).
 * "There were instances when the Polish soldiers would purposely leave town, abandoning the Jews to the mercy (or lack thereof) of the Ukrainians. This happened, for example, in 1648 in the city of Tulchin. The Polish soldiers made a deal with the Cossacks and left town. The Jews defended the city by themselves until it fell and they were all slaughtered." (Ken Spiro's The Jews in Poland, 2001)
 * "Polish Jews... who are deprived of all the privilages of society... who are despised and reviled on all sides, who are often persecuted, always insulted.... That contempt which is heaped on them chokes up all the seeds of virtue and honour...." (Issac de Pinto, philosopher and economist, in a 1762 letter to Voltaire). HKT 22:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "Rabbi Moses Isserles said this because, at the time, Jews were not allowed to live in most American colonies"


 * Pls. take a look on: History of the Jews in the United States "First Wave: Spain and Portugal - Many of the early Jewish settlers in what would be the United States came from the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South and Central America and Mexico, where Jews fled the Inquisition."--Witkacy 06:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct that Jews were living "in South and Central America and Mexico." I was thinking more along the lines of colonies where the US is today. Your phrase "emigration wave to America" confused me, since people often use the unqualified term America to refer to the US. It's not your fault, it's mine. However, I was fundamentally correct in my statement "Jews were not allowed to live in most American colonies." Even the 23 that settled in New Amsterdam (read on in the wiki you cited) were nearly removed from the colony. They were only allowed to stay because the captain of their ship wouldn't take them back to Europe! HKT 21:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I don't know much about Denmark or the Netherlands, but the other calls are somewhat missed. Austro-Hungarian Empire did not exist until mid-19th century, and even then it was far from tolerant. According to the article on Anti-Semitism In 1750 Maria Theresa ordered Jews out of Bohemia but soon reversed her position, on condition that Jews pay for readmission every ten years. (...)In 1752 she introduced the law limiting each Jewish family to one son. In 1782, Joseph II abolished most of persecution practices in his Toleranzpatent, on the condition that Yiddish and Hebrew are eliminated from public records and judicial autonomy is annulled. Moses Mendelssohn wrote that "Such a tolerance... is even more dangerous play in tolerance than open persecution".
 * As to England, from the middle ages the Jews were required to wear yellow badges. Then Edward I exiled or killed most English Jews and it wasn't until Cromwell when the ban on Jewish settlement was lifted - and even then not many settled there.
 * As to Prussia - another completely missed shot. According to the same article, In 1744, Frederick II of Prussia limited Breslau to only ten so-called "protected" Jewish families and encouraged similar practice in other Prussian cities. In 1750 he issued Revidiertes General Privilegium und Reglement vor die Judenschaft: the "protected" Jews had an alternative to "either abstain from marriage or leave Berlin". Other German states varied in tolerance, but the number of Jews executed or killed in pogroms was tremendous. After all this was the reason why Yiddish, a Germanic language, was spoken mainly in Poland and not in Germany, where it was formed.
 * Since mid-16th century, when the Jews were given special status within the Commonwealth and king Sigismund even forbade any charges of ritual murder, there were zillions of examples of bad treatment of Jews all over the Reich. After mid-17th century, when king W&#322;adys&#322;aw IV forbade all anti-Semitic prints, there was a huge number of such pamphlets published in Germany. So how come Germany was tolerant to Jews? Halibutt 22:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Move
I believe this article should be moved to Walentyn Potocki. Abraham ben Abraham is a very common name (lots of different people on google hits), thus deserving a disambig page, as it is in fact the most common name for converts to Judaism (Abraham, common first name, son of Abraham, surname given to all who didn't have Jewish parents). Female equivalent would be Sarah Imenu Sarah. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope to respond soon to this, but, briefly, while a move may be in order, we should certainly keep the redirect from "AbA." HKT 21:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The most common English name for him is "Valentine Potocki", followed by "Valentin Potocki". Walentyn Potocki is his Polish name, and would be appropriate for Polish Wikipedia.  As for a girl, the female equivalent would be "Sarah bas Sarah Imenu", or "Sarah bas Sarah". Jayjg (talk)  22:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, chose what you think is best. I am now thinking that it should be sth along the lines of story of Abraham ben Abraham or Apocrypha of Valentine Potocki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that would be assuming a POV. You could argue that the article on Jesus should be entitled Apocrypha of Jesus. Even articles on clearly mythical people like Paul Bunyan don't have those kinds of names. Jayjg (talk)  23:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Touche. I stand corrected on this issue :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, Abraham ben Abraham is probably not the most common name for a convert. Despite Abraham being a common name (perhaps 1% (generously speaking) of all Jews go by that name), the most notable Abraham ben Abraham is Potocki. On a google search (if I recall correctly from a search I entered last week), the only references (among the first ten hits) to a specific person refer to Potocki. I think about half referred to Potocki and half to an example of what a convert's name might be. Additionally, many converts might not choose the name Abraham just to avoid the repetition! I'm unaware of any other notable "AbA"s, but maybe some will pop up in the future. As of now, I don't think a disambig page would be necessary. HKT 23:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, my search shows 4 non-Potocki hits on the first page (10 total). While Potocki is definetly THE most known AbA, he has no monopoly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. And Al Gore doesn't have a monopoly on that common name, but I'm unaware of any disambig page on it. In fact, I know of another Al Gore who is a character in E.B. White's The Trumpet of the Swan. Really! HKT 05:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I even know a person named Al Gore personally :) Halibutt 11:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines. Shouldn't the name listed be "Avraham ben Avraham", not "Abraham ben Abraham"? Given that you are using the Hebrew version of his name, as shown by the "ben" (son of), it makes sense to use the Hebrew pronunciation - rather than a partial equivalent name that no one ever actually uses. And which sounds weird. Like, I could see that an article about Moses should be named Moses, not Moshe (the Hebrew version), but if you were going to include his father's name, I don't think you would change it from Moshe ben Amram to Moses ben Amram. The reason the full name AbA is used at all is that he is very frequently referred to that way. We should just call him what he is called. Others? MikeR613 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed the text; don't know how to change the title? MikeR613 (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To move the article, please use WP:RM. Please provide sources that the v spelling is more common and correct than the modern common-name spelling with b. Also ping User:Icehwiz, maybe you can comment more on the correct spelling? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the reason for a source on this, Avraham is the Hebrew pronunciation of Abraham. No one ever called him Abraham ben Abraham; all of the Hebrew sources will call him by the Hebrew name. I don't know what the Polish sources called him. It just makes sense to use his actual name rather than a "translation". MikeR613 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Tale, legend, apocrypha, what?
IZAK wrote in his edit descriptions "Remove legend and apocrypha beecause they are misused here. In Judaism "legend" may be applied to the ancient Midrash and "apocrypha" refers to works from the BIBLICAL era". Well, if not apocrypha, and not a legend, we are left with a plain tale or story, I am afraid. Also, IZAK, please read and discuss here the text before making major changes, you replaced "So far no historical evidence for Walentyn Potocki's story or very existence has been discovered." with "Multiple oral histories, backed up by several printed versions of the story, of many Jewish communities over the past two hundred and fifty years, serve as sufficient historical evidence for Walentyn Potocki's story and existence.", which is an exact opposite. While I admint that a notion of Jewish oral tradition is important and deserves mention, the facts are that there is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE except for this oral tradition, as discussed in lenght above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What "evidence" would you expect from the anti-Semitic Poles who BANNED anyone from converting to Judaism? Can you tell me please how many cases of Christian Poles converting to Judaism are mentioned by ANY Polish historians? You seem to be under the illusion that "historical evidence" means only a book written by a secular or church or Polish historian, which is ridiculous. Jewish sources, whether written or oral meet the criteria of primary sources for history by any definition. You yourself admit that there are plenty of Jewish sources, and that in itself should be sufficient to counter your own obviously biased and defficient source/s at this point in time. Hopefully you will be reasonable and not stick to biased views. You may insert that some non-Jews think the story is maybe a "myth" just like non-Jews think that Jews have horns and that lots of things Jews believe in or achieved are "myths"...the list is endless. IZAK 11:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * IZAK, cool down, accusing people of anti-Semitism is not the best way to reach a compromise, not to mention that it's hardly any point. As to conversion to Jewish religion, there are plenty of such cases, parts of my family being a fair example. As to the sources being biased - I don't really know what you mean. Nobody is disproving the fact that the person existed in Jewish oral tradition and that his cult was quite widespread. However, so far we could not find any primary source (be it written or oral, be it Jewish, Polish or Martian) that would not be based on Kraszewski's work, which is often questioned as a valid historical source and was more of a novel than a chronicle. Halibutt 13:05, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just, to clarify - "his cult" consisted of people who would anually pray to God at Potocki's gravesite. (Cult often carries the connotation of bizzare, false worship under a charismatic and authoritarian leader). HKT 22:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Being partially a Jew myself I'm perfectly concient of that. I used the word in a broader sense, just like in cult of ancestors, which does not necessarily mean polytheism :) Halibutt


 * IZAK. For once, the Moskal article mentions several other converts to Judaism, who either emigrated to Amsterad or lived peacefuly in Poland. Second, as I explained above, there was no law - then or now - banning convertion to Judaism. Third, various religious disputed were hotly debated by Polish and foreign surces (books, pamphlets, diaries), and there is no evidence of any conspiracy to hide Potocki's fate (not to mention it would be extremly difficult), so claiming there was a conspiracy is as serious as claiming we are ruled by Martians (got any proof?). Fourth, I am open for non-Polish sources (as I have indicated on your talk page, and on this talk page), please show me English/Hebrew or other sources that would have a proof of his existence (beyond the existence of Jewish oral tradition, and cult in Wilno, which I don't question, as they are obviously well-documented, and is mentioned in lead and historical section of the article). Firth, note that as Halibutt writes, so far the only primary source we have is the Kraszewski's (who was a Pole, btw) book, and Kraszewski has been found 'guilty' of inventing some historical facts and claiming they were true, so when you give us a source, please make sure it is not based on Kraszewski's work (for obvious reasons). Sixth, as you yourself admit, the Jewish Encyclopedia is a very reliable source, and it wrote in the 70' 'there is no evidence to back this story' (I'd assume they mean no evidence except Kraszewski's work). I would like to see what a newer edition of this encyclopedia has to say, but unless you can find sources proving otherwise, please consider this is just a fictional tale. Seventh, the only academic work I could find mentions there is no evidence - Moskal and Tabzir checked archives (not only Polish, Vatican and US as well), genealogy lines, libraries... nothing. Eight and final point: I hope that questioning this story does not make one an anti-Semite? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've copyedited your latest edits; I think the article is in a pretty reasonable, NPOV state; what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Tnx. Two points. One - I'd still like for a knowledgable person do add to the article a para on Jewish oral tradition, perhaps based on our talk above. Second: your version "some Polish and Lithuanian historians" has one problem: I have not found a single Polish a Lithuanian source claiming otherwise, so saying some creates a mistaken impression there are some historians arguing otherwise. Moskal, in his article, states that 1) Lithuanian historian he talked (name above in my post about his article) claims all Lithuanuian historians consider his story false 2) the only historian dealing with this matter in Poland, other then Moskal, is Tabzir. Not to much suprise, this is a rather tiny aspect of history, and thus one-two articles is all it takes to deal with this matter. Concluding, I think it should be changed to "all Polish and Lithuanian historians" (unless sb can find evidence to the contrary?). Plz note it is not my orginal research, it is what is written in Moskal article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I was trying to get across the notion that it wasn't huge numbers who have studied this; what do you think of my latest edit? Jayjg (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it. Thumbs up! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious people category?
The Category:Mysterious people seems to be about something else, spies, informants, people whose identity is not known, etc. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)


 * It states This category is for people about whom there is (or was for a long period) a mystery as to their identity or immediate origins. Sounds fitting to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 5 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

There's no mystery about his identity or immediate origins. There is a debate about whether or not he existed; if he existed, then he was a Potocki. If he didn't exist, then he has no origins. "Possibly mythical" is not the same as "Mysterious". Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)
 * If he existed, it is not certain he was a Potocki. What category would you propose? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 5 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

I'm not sure why having a category is necessary; if one fits, then add him to it, but don't add him to incorrect ones, like Category:Mysterious people. That Category is used for indisputably real people whose identities or origins are unknown; Abraham ben Abraham doesn't fit that, unless you are asserting that he is indisputably real, but we just have to figure out who he really was. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
 * I agree with Piotr on this. (1.) The category doesn't mention that one must be indisputably real to be included. (2.) The category also includes people like Shakespeare. As far as I recall (correct me if I'm wrong; I haven't researched him in a few years), he wasn't a spy or some mysterious equivalent. (3.) Presupposing his existence, there's still disagreement about his identity and origins (e.g., his name may have been Pototzki (unless this is just a foreign variant of Potocki(?))). HKT 6 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

Please re-read my previous comment. The category includes people generally thought to be real, but whose origins are mysterious. The Polish editors here have been arguing that Abraham ben Abraham was not real at all; ironically, by including him in this category, they are now arguing that he existed. And yes, Pototzki is just a variant transliteration of Potocki. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)


 * So the main problem is the implication that Potocki existed (and inconsistant editing)? I don't really mind that implication, but I don't feel strongly about this, either. HKT 6 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)

If you want to remove this cat, do so, I want bring it back. I think it is as correct as it is incorrect. Ask Wiktacy who added it here why he has done so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 6 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Birth/death year, date, place
When is his birth/death year, date, place? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fictional?
Piotr, I noticed your recent deletion from the article. I don't know who originally put in the sentence in question, or whether it is factually accurate, but I do know that Sid Z. Leiman (the Sidney Leiman from the article; aka Shnayer Z. Leiman) is a Professor of Jewish History and Literature and Chairman of the Department of Judaic Studies at Brooklyn College; he is not a hoax. (Googling a little more carefully will yield results). I also know that he is knowledgeable about the Abraham ben Abraham question, and his research on it is extensive (see here, for example), so I wouldn't be surprised if the sentence you deleted is true and perhaps verifiable. He did deliver a lecture on this topic in 2005 (entitled "The Ger Tzedek of Vilna - Fact or Fiction"). (I don't know for sure what he concluded, but a tape of the lecture is available for sale here). Maybe the editor that added the unverified info even attended that lecture(?) ...

Anyway, perhaps more research on AbA should be done before he is definitively categorized as "nonexistent."

Just some food for thought. HKTTalk 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could email him; certainly the articles by Polish historians I have read were in consensus about this being a fictional tale.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * His faculty page at the Brooklyn College website lists his e-mail as sleiman@brooklyn.cuny.edu. I'm pretty busy right now, but it would be great if you could get some clarification on this. Cheers, HKTTalk 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am also busy with several fires on and off wiki; I should be able to do so in about a week or so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a very interesting book indeed; do note however that the author is not a historian (as far as I can tell by the blurb) but a rabbi, thus it seems to continue the tradition of the Jewish sources, based more on faith than evidence (at least that's the critique from Polish historians like Tazbir or Moskal). Teter also notes that Prousner uses Kraszewski's account without questioning its reliability; so that fits the patter quite well. As far as I can tell, the story has gotten one serious academic treatment in the Western academia, the abstract can be read here. To quote: "The legend of ger [zdotu ]edek of Wilno, though said to be a true story, appears to be a carefully crafted tale of conversion, a polemical and apologetic response". I have just download the full text of the article and it is a fascinating analysis of the legend - leaving little doubt that it is, after all, a legend. Personally I enjoyed Moskal's treatment more, it is really nicely written (if you can read Polish) - he writes about his disappointment when more and more pieces of the puzzle did not fit together, proving that the story was most likely false (it is, as Teter agrees, a combination of quite a few stories, real and fictional, meshed together and evolved over three centuries). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the author is a rabbi, but from the couple of chapters that I read it is evident that he takes an appropriately historical approach to the material. For example, Prouser doesn't "use Kraszewski's account without questioning its reliability". He concludes based on independent historical info that it is unlikely that Kraszewski could have fabricated his claim of a translation from a Hebrew original. He also doesn't uncritically accept the entirety of Kraszewski's story, though he presents the story in great detail. You can read more from Prouser at google books, and I plan on reading the article in your link. Maybe I can give this more attention in a couple of weeks... Cheers, HKTTalk 09:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Moskwa also thinks its is likely that Kraszewski based his story on some translation. This does not change the fact that the story is a fabrication. If you'd like, I can send you Tatar's article (send me a wikiemail if you want it).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see WP:NPOV took a severe blow in the past few weeks here. Remember that policy?
 * "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."
 * I've had to fix a bit of the material that violated that; please respect the policy, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Email
Update: I've emailed professor Leiman and asked him to comment on the existence of AbA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been more than two weeks. Any response? HKTTalk 17:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, it seems it has been ignored. I will post my email below; if anybody else would like to send an updated version, it may serve as a template.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To: leiman@brooklyn.cuny.edu

Dear Professor Leiman,

I am one of the editors of Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. I would like to ask your advice with regards to our article on Abraham ben Abraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_ben_Abraham) - a subject that you are an expert on. We are debating whether the academic community has concluded that he did not exist, or is there still debate around that? The most modern source we have found (Teter 2005) is very clear that he did not exist (as are Polish and Lithuanian sources I am familiar with, such as Tazbir 2003, Moskwa 2002 and Miknys cited in Moskwa), but we would greatly appreciate your comments.

You can read our discussions by following this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abraham_ben_Abraham ; you can start a new section by following this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_ben_Abraham&action=edit&section=new ; you can post a reply in an existing section by clicking the edit blue text to the right of every heading, or you can give me permission to repost your reply - whichever is the most convenient for you.

Thank you for your time,

Category:Nonexistent people
All academic sources (Tazbir, Moskwa, Teter, as well as Miknys cited by Moskwa) agree he did not exist. Thus the category nonexistent people is relevant here. This is not a disputed fact, he is not like Jesus or Moses (for example), whom many scholars concede might have existed - here we have an individual which the scholars agree did not exist.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Per NPOV's undue weight clause and the consensus of academics the category should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Leiman and Prouser don't think he's "nonexistent". Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are however neither historians nor scholars in general, they are religious leaders and writers, thus much less reliable. The article does mention that he existed according to a religious tradition, so their POV is presented. It is a bit similar to evolution vs intelligent design, that there are different views does not make them equal (hence, despite there being religious readers and writers arguing for intelligent design, it is categorized as "pseudoscience" and evolution is not).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Leiman is Professor of Jewish History and Literature and Chairman of the Department of Judaic Studies at Brooklyn College. That means he's a "historian or scholar", not a religious leader. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the publication where Leiman disagrees with the scholars who argue that AbA did not exist and asserts his existence? We have several scholars cited who specifically examine the historical evidence and conclude that the story is false. That we have several others who assume "on faith" that the story is true and discuss it does not invalidate the detailed research done by those who concluded he does not exist (as Teter notes, there are writers who see the story of Potocki as fact and cite sources - such as Kraszewski's book - as evidence of its existence); this is for example what Prousner did, he later quotes later sources plus the 1766 book cited (invented?) by Kraszewski). But that evidence has been question by others, who have concluded it is false. In other words, the story is notable, but the subject is fictional. If you disagree, please quote a modern, academic publication that specifically disputes the other academic's claims about his nonexistence and asserts his existence.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dr. Leiman's talk on the AbA is available for free online here As far as I can tell he has never published anything on the subject, although it is clear from the talk that he had done substantial original research. Dr. Leiman is a pretty well known historian particularly in the area of the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy of 18th Century European Jewry.Conceptualinertia (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I did a little research into the 1766 book, and it clearly exists. I also found the full Hebrew text online. The book is not a historical chronicle, but I did find the execution of a Rabbi Mann mentioned tangentially. I didn't read most of the book, but basic searching did not yield the name Potocki or AbA. This book does not seem to be the source of Kraszewski's account. HKTTalk 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you give us the link to its online version (it is of course in public domain due to age)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the link. It is a retyped .doc file, rather than a .pdf scan. It is in the original Hebrew. HKTTalk 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is convincing: the 1766 book is not the source for Kraszewski's story. But it doesn't make sense to use that to disprove Kraszewski's story, since he didn't say it was the source; he just said he had one. Someone else made a wrong guess. MikeR613 (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As others have pointed out, Leiman is a perfectly good academic source. I'd add that I listened to his lecture, and he clearly has a lot of details that the Polish historians did not know. Completely convincing. And that lecture is from before he knew about the Yaakov Emden primary source. MikeR613 (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I wish to add an anecdotal reference implying Abraham ben Abraham was real. My ancestors came from Michalin Polish-Russia to USA (1874)as a church group. In the church history (1950) is the comment "Others bought their land from Potacki and later from his son-in-law, Justine Abramovtoch, they paid very little ". Michalin descendant 5 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vilna Gaon portrait.gif
The image Image:Vilna Gaon portrait.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Abraham ben Abraham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040411060218/http://semper.rubikon.pl:80/kh/3_03str.html to http://semper.rubikon.pl/kh/3_03str.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040411060218/http://semper.rubikon.pl:80/kh/3_03str.html to http://semper.rubikon.pl/kh/3_03str.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011103134/http://cojs.org/jews_in_the_early_modern_period/pdfs/Teter-Ger%20Zedek.pdf to http://cojs.org/jews_in_the_early_modern_period/pdfs/Teter-Ger%20Zedek.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abraham ben Abraham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040411060218/http://semper.rubikon.pl/kh/3_03str.html to http://semper.rubikon.pl/kh/3_03str.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040411060218/http://semper.rubikon.pl/kh/3_03str.html to http://semper.rubikon.pl/kh/3_03str.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011103134/http://cojs.org/jews_in_the_early_modern_period/pdfs/Teter-Ger%20Zedek.pdf to http://cojs.org/jews_in_the_early_modern_period/pdfs/Teter-Ger%20Zedek.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Leiman's research is not very reliable
Please be careful citing Leiman. While he is a historian, it seems that his research on this topic is not peer reviewed, all we have is a webpage at and a podcast. Call it a lecture, but it is not peer reviewed and his views on this seem to be stand alone, as opposed by peer-reviewed scholarship on this (Tazbir, Mikny, Moskwa and Teter). Teter in particular published a proper academic article in a reliable journal, the AJS Review, and until Leiman published in a peer-reviewed outlet, I have doubts he should used as a source. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Wikipedia guidelines require peer-review. Leiman is a noted historian and an expert on Jewish history. Certainly it doesn't make sense to say that his research is "not reliable". In any case this doesn't depend on Leiman as he is quoting actual sources from the time. The other historians claimed that there is no contemporary account; Leiman provided one. That doesn't mean those other historians aren't reliable but it does mean that they were wrong.
 * As it currently stands the article makes little sense: It quotes secular scholars that the story is probably a legend because there are no contemporary accounts, and it quotes a full paragraph from a contemporary account. We need to add to the comment on the secular scholars to synch them - which is the way the article was before it was reverted. MikeR613 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia does not require peer review, we clearly have guidelines on what sources are better and which are not, see WP:RS, and particularly WP:FRINGE. Peer reviewed academic sources state he was a legendary character, a blog by another scholar argues otherwise. Sorry, this makes him a fringe source. If Leiman wants to be a serious part of the debate, and for us to treat him seriously and on par with other scholars, he needs to publish in an academic venue, subject to peer review, like they do. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that peer-reviewed sources are better. That is different from saying that an article that is not peer-reviewed, by a recognized scholar on the topic, is a fringe source. That is not true; Wikipedia contains numerous sources from newspapers, for instance, where some expert is quoted. That isn't a problem or a proof that the expert is not reliable.
 * In any case, the sources that Leiman brings are completely reliable. We are dealing here with a consensus in the past by reliable scholars, and then some new sources discovered that demonstrate that they made a mistake. All good. What is the rationale for having the article continue to say things that are now known to be wrong? Should the goal not be that the article be accurate? MikeR613 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The main issue that that Leiman is a WP:SPS (blog/podcast/homepage). If he published in a proper academic outlet, his view should certainly be represented here. But he didn't. And he is not a major authority on related issues - I am not sure if he is notable (feel free to stub an article on him). A bit more digging suggest he is better known as 'Shnayer Leiman', see Google citations for SZ Leiman. Overall, I think he is reliable as a scholar, but he is not an authority whose unreviewed blogs/lectures should be seen as equal to peer reviewed works, IMHO. Again, if he published is view on AbA in any peer reviewed outlet, I'd support their inclusion. I'll ping User:Icewhiz again as a while ago he was involved in a discussion on some problematic sources, and succeeded in removing them from Wikipedia. I'd be interested in hearing his view on whether Leiman's lecutres/webpages can be cited here? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus is right. I removed him. Zezen (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)