" the facts to be known.  

    

 *  . The  tag does not mean a personal dispute, only that the *content* may be questionable, which you just pointed (some) is. At the present moment I have nothing compeling me to engage in any kind of fact checking or mediation, I don't have the time nor the energy for that. I'd recommend that if there is only two editors contending for inclusion or exclusion of some content, that you try asking for help at the third opinion page. The Neutral Point of View Noticeboard may also be helpful. Nevertheless, I did a quick check on the given reference - as it is in Portuguese it would be harder for a 'random' editor to check it. The site seems to be a legitimate site from the Portuguese Minitry of Finances (I checked the whois record) and the documents content is as reported by you, it shows records of wages from 1948 and 1949, and the letter from the services does mention payments up to April 1954. Anyway, it would be much much better to present secondary sources, as we are not supposed to be checking primary sources -    

 Response: Thanks again for the heads up. I've just added two secondary sources. Besides the Amabassador Fernandes book, I've added the Douglas Wheeler article (Wheeler is endorsed by the Sousa Mendes Foundation) and I've added a letter from Sousa Mendes himself where he sais that he was using his salary to help his son Pedro Nuno. (the letter is from 1950 and is referenced in Fralon's book, (Fralon is also endorsed by Sousa Mendes). 
 The problem with secondary sources is that most of them are wrong. Like Avrahm Milgram says: Someone printed the 30,000 and bum, from then on 30,000 is the undisputed truth, even when the ""Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust Studies"" publishes a study saying that 30,000 it is a myth. 

 Nobody wants to raise his voice and run the risk of being accused of being Fascist or anti-semit. I've already been tagged of ""Salazar admirer"", which I am not. Salazar was for ""censor"" I am not. 

 Anyway the ""dispute"" ended up being good. A lot more information surfaced.  

 Maybe one day someone will update the Portuguese, French and Spanish pages, with a lot of facts that have been kept hiden. 

    

 It seems that the dispute on if the Portuguese Government had, or had not, kept on paying to Mr. Sousa Mendes is full salary is now over. Sousa Mendes kept on receiving his full salary until the day he died and that salary was updated every year according to inflation, just like the salary of any other consul. In 1940 Sousa Mendes was being paid 1,523 Esc and the day he died he was receiving 2,304 Portuguese Escudos. Now that Mr Redmoon (former “Sousa Mendes Foundation”) had a week-end to analyze the documents that are very difficult to dispute, and is now editing again the article but not disputing this fact, it seems we can close it.   

 Anyway I am also organizing the documents of the court order of “2º “Juizo Civil da Comarca de Lisboa” that ordered to retain 750,60 Esc per month from Mr Sousa Mendes Salary because of legal action raised by Sousa Mendes creditor’s. (Banks)  

 What we should now dispute is the number of visas. The 30,000. Well, Mr Redmoon is constantly quoting a research that is being conducted in the USA but that until now has not yet been published and the information available online only points in the same direction as the study published by the  ""Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust Studies"" that tags the 30,000 as a myth. 

    

 :Hey Nabla – November 16, you’ve tagged the “Sousa Mendes” article as disputed. The dispute was if Portugal kept (or did not kept) on paying to Sousa Mendes a monthly allowance until the day he died. Since then I’ve added to the article several secondary and primary sources that prove that Sousa Mendes kept on receiving a generous monthly salary for the rest of his life. The other editor (Redmoon660 (note that Redmoon660 is a name change from ""Aristides Sousa Mendes Foundation), probably because of the discredit that fall upon him, stopped editing on that same day and I suspect he resurrected as editor “Coimbralove” also on the same day.  
 :The Sousa Mendes article is now one of the Wikipedia articles with more references. I wonder if it makes sense to keep on having the article as “disputed”. 
 :Pls feel free to delete this after