Talk:Pogrom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Deleted parts in "19th century"

The following parts were removed:

• "Following the Damascus affair, Pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa. Pogroms occurred in: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jerusalem (1847), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891), Istanbul (1870, 1874), Buyukdere (1864), Kuzguncuk (1866), Eyub (1868), Edirne (1872), Izmir (1872, 1874).[20]"

and the source

• (20) Yossef Bodansky. "Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument" Co-Produced by The Ariel Center for Policy Research and The Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, 1999. ISBN 0967139104, ISBN 978-0967139104

Why did that happen? I'd like to put that back in place again as many people seem to believe there was no anti-jewish violence in the region before the first Alija took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.24.159 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi 80, please see discussion here Talk:Pogrom/Archive_2#Paragraphs_removed and policy here WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile, thank you for your quick answer. I have read what you recommended and understood that the paragraph was removed because "The Ariel Center for Policy Research" is not seen as a reliable source, and there was another source "The End of Faith" mentioned, which is also doubted to qualify as a reliable source. But the cited source is not "The Ariel Center for Policy Research", but Yossef Bodansky, an undoubtedly respectable political scientist doing serious research in this field and (IMHO) for sure a reliable source. He is mentioned as source in other Wikipedia articles, too, for example in Shamil Basayev, Turkish Islamic Jihad and Bosnian mujahideen. So we have one reliable source: Yossef Bodansky, and i don't understand what's wrong with citing him in this article as in so many others? Thus, I'd propose to re-add the paragraph. Thank you for your time, patience, consideration, and please excuse my bad english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.24.159 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi 80, thanks for your thoughtful response. Please correct me if i am wrong, but i don't believe Mr. Bodansky has a reputation as a scholar of history (he is a modern political analyst, and a partisan one at that). Can you provide any of his credentials as a historian? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

When was the first pogrom? Let's clarify.

I note from our previous discussions that some editors here are strongly predisposed to using Britannica as a source. Reading the full Britannica article, it says "The first extensive pogroms followed the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881". That had always been my understanding as well. However, this article names a large number of other events as pogroms which occurred prior to 1881. Britannica does not mention any of these. In addition, many of the scholarly sources provided have shown that the retrospective application of the word pogrom to pre-1881 events is disputed. I propose that we solve this problem by clearly differentiating between those events that are called pogroms by all scholars (i.e. Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire) and the rest. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, if we define "the first pogroms" as being in 1881, that would mean we would have to remove all those attacks on Jews done by Muslims or Arabs before 1881! What a lucky coincidence! And now the purpose of including the statement about not being able to definitively state what is or isn't a pogrom also becomes clear! Regardless, Wikipedia defines a "pogrom" as "anything reliable sources describe as a pogrom". See WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I always thought you knew the rules of wikipedia better than me, but it seems you don't. Let me refresh your memory. WP:COMMONNAME is not defined as you suggest as "anything reliable sources describe as a [ ]", but rather "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" and "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided" and "Neutrality is also considered" (the section notes that words like massacre and scandal are avoided unless they are clearly the most common name).

Anyway, if you read my post more carefully you will see that I am not suggesting we "define the first pogroms as being in 1881", but rather that we should be "clearly differentiating between those events that are called pogroms by all scholars and the rest" - focus on the word "all". Oncenawhile (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clear to me that there are at least some events which took place before before 1881 which are normatively referred to as pogroms, and I don't see why there needs to be a "first pogrom", since usage of the term will evolve, possibly encompassing things which it currently does not. A more reasonable and interesting question would be when the word started to be used in historical discourse.

That said, I think the sources need to be looked at more carefully for the ancient and medieval stuff. Let's start with what is currently uncritically referred to in the article as the "Alexandrian pogrom". It may be that some specific reliable source refers to those events as a pogrom, but I rather doubt that this is normative use among reliable sources. Its link redirects to "Alexandrian riots", which is a stub and has no sources at all except for "The sole source is Philo of Alexandria" who definitely didn't call them the "Alexandrian Pogrom". It might be safest to get rid of the Alexandrian section and write a compensating section in the antisemitism article. This will help to stop unscrupulous challenges to other, better-sourced, uses of the word Pogrom to describe some pre-19th-century events. Zargulon (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Related interjection - does anyone have any objections to the statement "The word pogrom has a relatively short history" - sourced directly to Bergmann? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zargulon, I think your post is a fair summary, albeit your position contradicts Britannica and does not capture the subtleties of pogrom-labelling discussed by the scholarly community. I agree with your suggestions - we can't say there was definitively a "first pogrom", as some scholars have definitely applied the word retrospectively from 1881 (whilst others disagree with such application). So in addition to your suggestions, we should also make clear that (1) there is no universally accepted set of characteristics which define the term; and (2) that outside of the archetypal pogroms of 1881 application of the term to other events is often disputed. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I don't think that's a fair summary of my post, and I think your drifting from the topic of this thread which you yourself started looks a little WP:POINTy. If you really agree with my suggestions, surely what you should have said was "we can't say definitively that there was a first pogrom, so this thread is over".. Zargulon (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for the confusion but its probably because the "salesy" title of the section doesn't fully reflect the substance of the actual initial post. My conclusion there was "I propose that we solve this problem by clearly differentiating between those events that are called pogroms by all scholars and the rest" - I have always agreed that "we can't say definitively that there was a first pogrom", even if Britannica does say that. Having said that, the fact that Britannica says what is says shouldn't be ignored - we have to note the issue that different people see this in different ways.

What do you think of my suggestions (1) and (2) above? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not much, unless reliable sources explicitly make those generalizations. Zargulon (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Both Engel and Klier make these points explicitly. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not in a position to judge whether these sources are reliable. In principle, comments about the application of the word to specific events are better than generalizations. Zargulon (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair comment. I have added in the sentence, with a couple of thoughtful sources quotes. I have also added a number of additional clarifications and sources in to the definition section to make this a little more sophisticated. If you have the time or inclination to read a few of the sources, I would be grateful for your views. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had to remove the material. To begin with, there is no real "controversy" about what a "pogrom" is, despite the fact that, as with all such terms, the definition, and the events to which it can apply, may vary. The literature on pogroms does not spend large amounts of time agonizing over all the possible meanings of the term, or events to which it could apply; rather, it focuses on the actual events, material that this article sorely lacks. Editors cannot manufacture "controversy", particularly if the purpose of such a manufactured controversy is simply to attempt to either

a) exclude specific events (e.g. those committed by Muslims or Arabs) from being so-labeled, or

b) call into question whether or not those events are "really" pogroms.

For example, if an editor had attempted to remove the "pogrom" label from a number of articles, and was unsuccessful, and then tried instead to modify this article so as to exclude those same events, that would indicate a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Yet fully 40% of the current "Etymology and definition" has been recently edited to add exactly this sort of material. Let's stick to policy on this, and go through the suggested changes one at a time, evaluating each for whether or not it complies with policy, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Cherry picking sources found through searching Google books for specific terms is not an appropriate way to find material. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed sentence #2

The proposed sentence was as follows:

There is no universally accepted set of characteristics which define the term pogrom, and characterizations of a number of events as pogroms have been disputed by historians.

The two sources deleted are set out below. Engel, already sourced in the article, was also used to support the above:

• Bergmann writes that "the concept of "ethnic violence" covers a range of heterogeneous phenomena, and in many cases there are still no established theoretical and conceptual distinctions in the field (Waldmann, 1995:343)" Bergmann then goes on to set out a variety of conflicting scholarly views on the definition and usage of the term pogrom.
• John Klier writes that "To detemine what pogroms were, it is essential to consider what they were not. The following events have all been characterized as "pogroms" by historians: the Kiev "pogrom" of 1113, the Cossack uprising under Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 1648; the Koliivshchnyna of 1768; riotous attacks on Jews in Odessa in 1821, 1859 and 1871, and in Akkerman, Bessarabia province, in 1865; the waves of violence in 1881-2; the Kishinev and Gomel riots of 1903; the anti-Jewish violence during the revolutionary years 1905-6; the "military pogroms" in 1914-16; the attacks on Jews by military units and irregulars during the Russian Civil War of 1919-21; and attacks on Jews amidst the national struggles between Poles and Ukrainians in 1920. Virtually the only common feature of these events was that Jews were among the victims, although they were not always the primary target. To begin with the earliest events, Alexander Pereswetoff-Morath has advanced a strong argument against considering the Kiev riots of 1113 an anti-Jewish pogrom. During the Cossack Uprising of 1648 and the Koliivschyna of the following century, which loom so prominently in the Jewish collective memory, Jews were neither the initial nor the principal targets. Rather, they fell victim because of their economic links to the main target, the Polish feudal system, which created an antagonism exacerbated in 1768 by religious antipathy between Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians. The loyalist violence of 1905-6 occurred within the context of a much broader social and political movement, and featured attacks against other "revolutionary" elements, such as students and teachers, in addition to the Jews. Amidst the chaos of revolution, moreover, the presence of organized Jewish self-defense sponsored by revolutionary parties, complicated the picture, since some self-defense activities were intentionally provocative. The "military pogroms" of 1914-16" have the dubious distinction of being the first events in which agents of the Russian state - in this case military commanders in the field who were unaccountable to the civilian government - designated the Jews as a target and directed violence against them. In 1919-21, the suffering of East European Jews occurred amidst a complete breakdown of public order. The widespread atrocities carried out by all combatants fell upon many different segments of the population."

Jayjg's response to this was a comment "about editors, not article content". Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, he should have chosen to "comment on content, not on the contributor." Jayjg, do you care to explain your revision in terms of comments on the content? Specifics rather than unsourced generalisations are what is needed here. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please quote the source that states "There is no universally accepted set of characteristics which define the term pogrom" or "characterizations of a number of events as pogroms have been disputed by historians". Please also review WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. A "dispute" manufactured by synthesizing multiple sources is not indicative of an actual dispute among reliable sources. In addition, the emphasis on the exact definition, versus the emphasis of reliable sources on the topic (which focus on actual pogroms), is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:DICDEF. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We've had this conversation before. I would like to amend the proposed text so that it is acceptable to both of us. But to do that I need to fully understand what would be acceptable to you. Otherwise it's like having a negotiation where only one person gives a price - it is impossible to progress. Please explain what you can live with here. Over the last month I have made a multitude of sources available to you. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As above, Jayjg appears to be on a wikibreak. Would be grateful for views on the sentence proposed above. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In general, I find "acceptable" additions that comply with WP:V, WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Please be more specific, with comments in direct relation to the proposed text. Otherwise it is impossible to progress. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding this too, after more than a month of no comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away, but the original objection still stands without response. Please don't add material without justification merely because editors are on a wikibreak. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was achieved while you were away. Many other editors have come and gone but noone took issue with this. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitions

Once - the chief problem I see with your proposed edits, and with certain aspects of the article already, is that it risks turning it into a "Definition of pogrom" article. I guess this is related to the WP:DICDEF objection. The article should focus on the pogroms (indicating for each specific event if some people sometimes use other terms than "pogrom" to refer to it, or if the use of the term "pogrom" is attested by WP:RS as being controversial), rather than the overwhelming and disruptive paragraph we currently have at the top of the article on the definition of the word. Zargulon (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon, thanks for your post. My interpretation of WP:DICDEF is that definition and usage explanation is appropriate (e.g. WP:Dicdef#Good_definitions and "it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used"), but that the article "should provide other types of information about that topic as well". So I agree with you that we need to get that balance right, and I am happy to have less weighting on the definition/usage side so long as the important points come across clearly. I think that once we find consensus on what the key messages should be, it will be easy to shorten some of the text.

On your point re "indicating for each specific event if some people sometimes use other terms than "pogrom" to refer to it, or if the use of the term "pogrom" is attested by WP:RS as being controversial", I agree that it would be a useful clarification throughout the article, but this is a lot of work and so I would need to ensure Jayjg agrees with the concept before I get started. Jayjg? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jayjg appears to be on a wikibreak. Other views on this would be appreciated in the meantime. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, now you are back, please could you comment on this? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm back now. Please don't turn this article into a "definition of pogrom" article, which it is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was achieved while you were away. Many other editors have come and gone but noone took issue with this. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

More encyclopaedias and dictionaries which discount usage pre-1881

Below are four reputable tertiary sources which discount usage of the term pogrom pre-1881:

• Encyclopædia Britannica: "the term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, [and] the first extensive pogroms followed the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881,"
• Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789: pogroms were "were antisemitic disturbances that periodically occurred within the tsarist empire."
• Dictionary of Genocide: "A term usually associated with mob attacks against Jewish communities especially in Tsarist Russia before 1917, though embracing numerous additional anti-Jewish persecutions in other countries up to relatively recent times."
• Encyclopedia of Genocide: pogrom "has come to mean specifically the wanton destruction of Russian-Jewish life and property during the years 1881 and 1921, and more generally is available as a word for massacre of any minority group, although it is not often used

Does anyone have any sources supporting the sentence that I added to the article "However, the term is widely used to refer to many events which occurred prior to the Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire."? This article needs to properly bridge this issue - i.e. it needs to explain why some people treat the term to apply from 1881 onwards whilst others apply it retrospectively.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Once, I do not agree that the four source cited here "discount usage of the term pogrom pre-1881", but before even going into that, could you please explain what change to the article you are making a case here to support? Once we have the end-goal of the suggested improvement to the article stated here, we can discuss whether or not the end-goal is indeed an improvement to the article in the first place, and then whether the sources cited support the change. Thanks. Zad68 12:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Once, regarding "This article ... needs to explain why some people treat the term to apply from 1881 onwards whilst others apply it retrospectively." -- This might be an interesting thing to put into the article, if we can find a reliable source that explicitly covers this topic. It might be worth one sentence in the Etymology section. Of course, unless we can find such a source that explicitly covers this topic, trying to make the argument ourselves would be original research (probably WP:SYNTH). But, as others have noted, per WP:DICDEF we should avoid expansive discourse in the article on etymology, history and various subtle shades of meanings of the word, and instead let the article focus on the importance and impact of pogroms. Zad68 13:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zad, re your first paragraph, I am open to suggestion as to how to solve this issue - I have no proposal at this stage.

On your second paragraph, precedent disagrees with you. Have a look at these articles which deal with similarly political terms without agreed definitions:

• Terrorism and Definitions of terrorism
• Massacre and List of events named massacres
• Genocidal massacre

The heart of these articles is the definition, usage and historical development of each of the terms. That is because these are all articles about terms describing generic phenomena - on their own they can only ever credibly describe the "terminology". That is consistent with the treatment by external encyclopedias like Britannica and the Encyclopedia of Genocide as linked at the top of this thread.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - Unlike your examples, pogroms are fundamentally a specific set of events. Other events have been called pogrom, by analogies of varying aptness, and this gives rise to a secondary, generic, meaning which should certainly be discussed, at appropriate rather than overwhelming length. But this is not the "heart of the article". Zargulon (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zargulon, I agree with you, assuming when you say "specific set of events" you mean the Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire. But if we agree on that, then the way this article is weighted in very odd. The second sentence in the lead is accurate - perhaps it should actually be the first sentence? Then it would follow that the rest of the lead belongs better in a list-type article similar to List of events named massacres. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Once, sorry, the discussion threads seem to be getting a little crossed or confused here. My first paragraph asked you to state (or maybe restate?) the issue you are identifying with the article, and what improvement you suggest. My second paragraph was about the suggestion to add content about explaining why some people treat the term to apply from 1881 onwards, and needing sources for that. I'm having trouble matching up your replies to what I wrote, can you help clarify for me? Thanks... Zad68 19:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zad, sorry if I wasn't clear - i'll try to restate it: (1) You said "could you please explain what change to the article you are making a case here to support?" My answer is that I don't have a clear picture of what that end goal looks like right now, I was really just "throwing the point out there" for discussion; (2) You said "per WP:DICDEF we should avoid expansive discourse in the article on etymology, history and various subtle shades of meanings of the word" - which I disagree with because of the points above re other similar wikipedia articles and how external encyclopedias deal with the issue. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lead should be first, but I don't think a second article would work. Zargulon (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have swapped them, and tweaked the lead to make it follow. Please could you let me know if any comments? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up for sense, flow, and a more general approach of being an article about the topic, rather than dictionary definition and invented "dispute" about the meaning of the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually you changed the article wholesale without discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 October 2012

Genocidal massacre is not the same.

69.146.244.19 (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, someone's using socks here... --Jethro B 14:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of 15 Oct 2012 edit (size = 5,980 bytes)

I cannot see why the edit under discussion here is being described by Oncenawhile as "controversial" and is being reverted back and forth. Exactly which part of it is problematic? Here's the breakdown:

• Changes to the lead and a paragraph in the body that make what appears to me to be small adjustments to the definition, and use different sourcing. The sources being replaced are Mojzes, Andreopoulos and Schabas. The book by Mojzes barely metions pogroms at all, the word 'pogrom' appears in Andreopoulos's book exactly twice and only in passing, and the word 'pogrom' doesn't even appear in the body of the text of Schabas's at all, it's only mentioned in the titles in the list of references. The edit replaces them with Encyclopedia Britannica, the Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History, Klier's Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882, Heitmeyer and Hagan's International handbook of violence research, Volume 1, and Engel's Anti-Jewish Violence. Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History. The new sources are top-tier: Encyclopedia Britannica, and academic works dedicated to the study of exactly the subject of the article. The new sources are clearly a significant improvement over the previous sources.
• Wording change from 'Significant pogroms' to 'Infamous pogroms', this appears to be a subjective editorial preference that I don't really have a strong opinion on.
• Removal of some entries from lists of pogroms of items that do not appear to be characterized by reliable secondary sources as "pogroms", for example: riots in Great Britain in 1947, 1740 Batavia massacre, Pogrom against Kashmiri Pandits in Jammu and Kashmir in 1990
• Unnecessary refs removed; article content not changed with these changes

So what is the problem with the edit? Am I missing something? Zad68 14:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Zad, your summary is a misrepresentation of what was actually a highly POV edit with no explanation from the editor. The controversial changes, all of which you missed in your summary, are set out below. And as an aside, note that no new sources were added as part of the edit, and those "top tier" sources you refer to are ones that I added earlier this year.

1) Swapping the first two sentences around, so that the primary meaning changes from the 19th/20th century Russian pogroms to any attack against Jews. This contradicts usage in e.g. Britannica, as made clear above (see Talk:Pogrom#More_encyclopaedias_and_dictionaries_which_discount_usage_pre-1881). No explanation was given, despite the editor having been involved in the previous discussion.

2) Deleting the phrase "A similar term is "genocidal massacre"", which is well sourced and was discussed above (see Talk:Pogrom#Genocidal_massacre_(bringing_back_from_archive_-_for_the_second_time)). No explanation was given, despite the editor having been involved in the previous discussion.

3) Deleting the phrase "characterizations of a number of events as pogroms have been disputed by historians", which is well sourced and was discussed above (see Talk:Pogrom#Disputed_sentence_#2). No explanation was given, despite the editor having been involved in the previous discussion.

I will revert this to status quo, pending discussion of these points. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing any "highly POV" change here.

1) I'm afraid you're mistaken. Please read the EB entry carefully. The edit you are contesting actually corrects an error that has been in the article for months. The EB entry defines pogrom as "a mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious, racial, or national minority. The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." Note that the first, primary definition is general, and the secondary definition ("The term is usually applied to...") is the more specific use of it regarding anti-Semitic attacks in the Russian Empire.

2) As was already explained to you, the source for "genocidal massacre" was the weaker sources as described previously, and the edit you are contesting removes this weakly-sourced definition in its update to the paragraph with the much stronger sources. (And doesn't the general definition of "genocidal massacre" (without restriction to it being against Jews or during the Russian empire) match the general primary definition EB gives? So I'm still not sure why you consider 1) an issue.)

3) The phrase "and characterizations of a number of events as pogroms have been disputed by historians" is a logical consequence of "There is no universally accepted set of characteristics which define the term pogrom" and so is really unnecessary repetition. Both the before-edit and after-edit versions agree "There is no universally accepted set of characteristics which define the term pogrom" so why is there an issue?

If you were the one who introduced the "top-tier" sources (I don't remember who did and didn't look at the history), thank you, great! But why didn't you use them instead of the weaker ones?

Zad68 18:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Closed discussion not related to the improvement of this article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Do you agree that, whatever your view on these three points and given the editor who made these three changes had already been involved in talk discussions on the exact topics, that it was bad form to make these changes without discussing them on talk or flagging them in the edit summary? In the meantime i will respond to your points. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC) No problem. Generally I try very, very hard to avoid commenting on the personalities of other editors, but I will say the way that editor did it perhaps would not have been how I would have done it. Edit summaries are too short to allow a ton of detail. Anyway, either way it would have ended up with a talk page discussion so here we are. Zad68 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I respect your very balanced response - thank you. I agree with your last sentence, but do I think this situation is being "gamed" by certain editors, hence my post at Wikipedia:ANI#Does_WP:STATUSQUO_actually_matter?. Let me now get back to focusing on your three points. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Hrrmmmm... regarding the ANI thread, it looks like it's a bit of public venting in anger, and not really a request to protect the encyclopedia with the use of Admin tools, which is really what WP:ANI is for. I calculate the chance of something productive resulting from that thread to be very low, and I suspect you might already know that. But, as you wish... Zad68 19:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC) It is a genuine question I have wanted the answer to for some time. Certain groups of editors have learned to subvert WP:STATUSQUO, and I am keen to understand whether the community cares about it. If so, it needs to be strengthened. If not, the guidance should be bolstered to let people know not to waste their time debating statusquo. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC) What is a waste of time is the repeated invocation of WP:Statusquo as a means of obviating necessary discussion. If you are so interested in exploring the reams of wiki guidelines, perhaps direct your attentions towards reverting or opposing on procedural grounds and accusing change proponents of tendentious editing. Ankh.Morpork 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Come on, Ankh, a sharp tone like that is just going to get in the way of moving this discussion to closure... Zad68 19:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC) @Zad68 - I have to disagree, I have seen this pattern of tag team edit warring content into articles rather allowing time to discuss controversial changes and reach consensus many times. Highlighting the issue to the wider Wikipedia community seems like a very reasonable step to protect the encyclopedia in my view. Dlv999 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC) @ Dlv - I have to disagree. "Highlighting the issue" might be reasonable in principle, but what Once actually wrote at WP:ANI is a completely misleading and partial account of the situation, written in provocative language, as was your comment, and Zad's description of it as "venting" is accurate. All the editors who have reverted Once have been willing to engage him intelligently on the talk page in the past and have spoken with him about our policy concerns regarding his edits. The fact that each of us, for our separate reasons, objects to his interpretations of policy, does not make us collectively right, but the fact that he is in the minority does not automatically make him right either. I am not a member of a tag team, nor have I usurped anything. If you have any policy-based arguments why I, rather than he, has behaved inappropriately, feel free to raise them, but please be as specific as possible. Zargulon (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Zargulon, with due respect, this doesn't make any sense. Look at your edit and my response from 4 months ago "The second sentence in the lead should be first, but I don't think a second article would work. Zargulon (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC) // OK, I have swapped them, and tweaked the lead to make it follow. Please could you let me know if any comments? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC) By supporting Jayjg's edits you are now taking exactly the opposite view on this point - a full u-turn! On all the other two points, you and others were given every opportunity to comment over the last four months on my very clear talk page comments, and you chose not to. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Once, your post doesn't actually seem to relate to my post, other than asserting that it "doesn't make any sense". Zargulon (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I was responding to your statement that you "have spoken with [me] about our policy concerns regarding his edits", by pointing out that I cannot understand what you are referring to given that I was reverting to the version which reflected the position you had previously shared. Is my understanding of your u-turn correct, or have I misunderstood? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC) But my post was not about that but about your provocative language, which you are strangely persisting with. Zargulon (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer Zad's questions:

1) Perhaps i could ask Zargulon to comment on this point first given his earlier comment.

2) Three scholarly RS sources connect the terms pogrom to genocidal massacre. We write to RS sources. It is not contradicted by any of the other sources you refer to. So why is this statement being whitewashed?

3) "and characterizations of a number of events as pogroms have been disputed by historians" is certainly not simply a logical consequence of "There is no universally accepted set of characteristics which define the term pogrom". It is a separate point, and is supported by RS. So why is this statement being whitewashed?

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

They assert an area of similarity between pogroms and their focal topic of genocidal massacre. They are not purporting to provide a comprehensive definition of a pogrom and to seize on this stray mention in sources that briefly allude to a single facet of pogroms and present this when we have excellent sources commenting directly on this subject is undue. Ankh.Morpork 21:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Noone is saying they do! They support six words describing an uncontroversial yet helpful synonym. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Once, their objection to the changes to the lead, which I am beginning to share, is that it wrongly suggests that all events other than the archetypal pogroms, are called pogroms by an equally weak analogy. Zargulon (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zargulon, could you possibly explain this in more detail, as I don't fully understand? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider this analogy styled on Schabas: "Examples [of quadrupeds] would be pogroms horses and mass executions cows." This does not mean one can now state in an article concerning horses that "a similar term for them is quadrupeds" as this ignores the many other defining characteristics: Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs, too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron etc. Simply stating a applicable term does not a mean an definition or synonym is being provided. That is why sources which directly discuss the topic at hand, and do not merely cite pogroms to illustrate tangential ideas, are eminently preferable.Ankh.Morpork 22:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Once, could you be more specific about what you don't understand? Zargulon (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try! First I'm going to split this debate into three parts before we all lose track. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Swapping the first two sentences around

I think this is the point which Zargulon's comment refers to. What I don't understand about your comment is the statement "it wrongly suggests that all events other than the archetypal pogroms, are called pogroms by an equally weak analogy". I don't understand what that conclusion means or how it was reached. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Once, I am really not getting what your problem is understanding this sentence. Are you a native English speaker? Zargulon (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume that question was rhetorical! Please could you humour me and try to explain it again in different words? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I lost my sense of humour when you said that I had usurped the discussion. I am not willing to repeatedly explain to someone who is not willing to invest a minimum amount of effort in trying to understand. Would you be? Zargulon (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. FWIW, my usurping comment was not aimed at you. However I don't believe your revert was correct, because it contradicted your previous talk comment on one of the topics, and your use of WP:BURDEN was technically wrong. I hope we can put this behind us and work together - my asking for clarification here is in good faith, and I had believed that by asking for clarification you would interpret it as a sign of my respect towards your thoughts on this topic. Let me try one more time to explain - it is the phrase "by an equally weak analogy" that i don't understand - analogy to what? and what parallel are you drawing? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Equally means equally to each other. I am bothered by the implication that all uses of 'pogrom' aside from the 19th century pogroms in the Russian empire have equal currency, whereas in fact e.g. Jedwabne pogrom is completely normative and Igbo pogrom is neologism. Zargulon (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, what is being swapped around is the presentation of the primary and secondary meanings, for the reason that 1) the sourcing is weak, and 2) the pre-edit content isn't even supported by those weak sources. Pre-edit, the primary meaning included "in the 19th- and early 20th- century in the Russian Empire" and secondarily "The term has been subsequently extended to refer to certain similar attacks against Jews in other times and places, and to certain attacks against other ethnic or religious groups." Post-edit, primary is "characterized by killings and destruction of Jewish homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers" and secondarily "originally referring to 19th and 20th-century Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, the term has been subsequently extended to refer to certain similar attacks against Jews in other times and places, and to certain attacks against other ethnic or religious groups."

Details: The pre-edit sources say:

• Mojzes: 'pogrom' "is usually encountered in the experiences of violent anti-Semitic outbursts in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia" and "A more accurate meaning of pogrom is genocidal massacre, that is, a semi-spontaneous mob attack, an outburst by a more dominant ethnic or religious group over a minority that is usually scapegoated for an alleged undermining of values that weakens the entire society..." Again, Mojzes appears to be using the scholarly consensus definition of 'pogrom' and applying it to 'genocidal massacre', and as has been pointed out, this is out of step with the other sources we have. Regardless, a careful reading Mojzes shows his definition of 'pogrom' is "a semi-spontaneous mob attack, an outburst by a more dominant ethnic or religious group over a minority that is usually scapegoated for an alleged undermining of values that weakens the entire society..." without limiting its primary use to the Russian Empire. Mojzes says the term is "usually encountered" in describing the attacks during the Russian Empire, but that's not part of his main definition. So Mojzes as a source actually does not support the pre-edit content.
• Andreopoulos does not actually provide a definition of 'pogrom', he provides a definition of 'genocidal massacre' and says with that definition, the use of the term 'genocidal massacre' can be used in talking about pogroms. So, here as well, Andreopoulos as a source actually does not support the pre-edit content.
• Schabas as well does not provide a definition of pogrom, but says a pogrom is an example of a 'genocidal massacre'. Note that Schabas is writing specifically within the context of subject area of genocide, and outside of the context of his writing, there are events considered by reliable secondary sources that are pogroms but are not 'genocidal massacres.' So, here as well, Schabas as a source actually does not support the pre-edit content.

So this is the improvement the edit is doing: The pre-edit content has three relatively weak sources--weak for the specific task of providing a definition of 'pogrom'--providing a definition that is actually not supported by those weak sources. The post-edit content has strong sources and represents them accurately. Zad68 15:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks Zad for the very clear message. I now understand how we were talking past each other. As I read the article, those three sources were only intended to support the "genocidal massacre" sentence, not the whole first paragraph. I wholly agree with all comments (including Ankh's) that these three sources are not relevant to the first couple of sentences. I didn't put two and two together to understand why people were so strongly against those three sources. That's because I didn't realise that the source which originally supported the first sentence had been removed. I went back and had a look to find out what happened to that - you won't believe it, but here is the diff! :-) So now we need to work out what are the best sources for these two key first sentences. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Weird! I don't even remember that, what a fumble on my part. Zad68 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the proposed change and the reason why it's an improvement over the current article content:

Proposed change: "A pogrom is a violent riot generally against Jews, condoned by the forces of law, in the 19th- and early 20th- century in the Russian Empire, characterized by killings and destruction of Jewish homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers. Originally referring to 19th and 20th-century Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire,"... and continuing with "the term has been subsequently extended..."

Sources in support of change:

• Engel's Anti-Jewish Violence: Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History -- This is probably our strongest, most exhaustive source focused most closely on the topic we're covering in this article, and provides the strongest argument for the change. Engel spends the entirety of Chapter 1 "What's in a pogrom?" explaining how the term 'pogrom' is used by people in such a way that it is impossible to pin down precisely, explaining at one point, "No doubt many will contend that history suggests the need for a serious attempt to clarify what a pogrom is or is not. In the event, however, no such clarification is possible," and provides examples of valid uses of the word outside the Russian Empire time and location. This argues for us to use as our primary definition something more inclusive and general, and not specific to a particular time period or location, as the current content does.
• Encyclopedia Britannica "Pogrom: a mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious, racial, or national minority. The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." -- Primary definition is more general, secondary definition is more specific to Russian Empire, proposed change brings article content in line with this new source.
• Klier's Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882 "By the twentieth century, the word 'pogrom' had become a generic term in English for all forms of collective violence directed against Jews. The term was especially associated with Eastern Europe and the Russian Empire, the scene of the most serious outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence before the Holocaust." -- Primary definition is more general, secondary definition is more specific to Russian Empire, proposed change brings article content in line with this new source.

We also have Wiley-Blackwell "Pogroms... were antisemitic disturbances that periodically occurred within the tsarist empire. ... The term pogrom has been applied additionally to the campaign of anti-Jewish violence perpetrated by Nazism...." which supports the current content of Russian Empire events as primary definition, more general second, but this is outweighed by our other sources. Zad68 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zad, thanks for this. Please could you also comment on my response to you re the below (see this diff)?

I agree with you regarding the choice of those three sources as three of our best references for the first two intro sentences. So we're agreed on that, and I think I can get there on the general first vs specific second (it was originally Zargulon's suggestion and he seems to have changed his mind).

I would like to amend the language of your first sentence though, because looking at the quotes you have shown, the first sentence should actually be a lot more "general" rather than suggesting a rather specific definition which our sources suggest does not exist. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Our sources are actually pretty clear, and there's a fair bit of unanimity, as Zad's quotations show. The define a pogrom as a violent riot generally against Jews, condoned by the forces of law, characterized by killings and destruction of Jewish homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers. They also note that the term was originally used to refer to specific 19th and early 20th century attacks in the Russian Empire, but was also expanded to include other similar attacks against Jews, and even similar kinds of attacks against non-Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Once, you have showed that you are incapable even of speaking for yourself coherently, so please refrain from speaking for me. Zargulon (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What Once apparently meant when he said I "changed my mind" was that I disagreed with his interpretation of a remark that I made. This seems to be par for the course. Zargulon (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, I don't agree. To break your definition down:

1. ...violent riot
2. ...generally against Jews
3. ...condoned by the forces of law
4. ...characterized by killings
5. ...and destruction of Jewish homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers

For each of these five clauses, please show me where our three sources support this. It seems like selective WP:SYNTH to me.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, I noticed that you made a few edits to the section below yesterday. Please could you kindly respond to this challenge as well? Thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Pogrom § Regarding "Swapping the first two sentences around": Sources and proposal--seeking consensus on this

Deleting the phrase "A similar term is "genocidal massacre"

I think this is the point which AnkhMorpork's comment refers to. We have three scholarly sources here:

• Paul Mojzes (2011), Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield, p. 5."The word pogrom, meaning "riot", is of Russian origin and is usually encountered in the experiences of violent anti-Semitic outbursts in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia. Pogrom became a more nuanced term than riot, though they share common elements. A more accurate meaning of pogrom is genocidal massacre, that is, a semi-spontaneous mob attack, an outburst by a more dominant ethnic or religious group over a minority that is usually scapegoated for an alleged undermining of values that weakens the entire society (such as defence of the country in time of war, spying, cooperating with the enemy, hoarding of goods or selling at exorbitant prices, and attacking or murdering innocent members of the majority group)."
• George Andreopoulos (1997), Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions, "Events of mass murder that are on a smaller scale than mass events may be defined, as Leo Kuper originally proposed, under a category of "genocidal massacre". I would define genocidal massacre as follows: Mass killing as defined above in the generic definition of genocide, but in which the mass murder is on a smaller scale, that is, smaller numbers of human beings are killed. With this category we are now equipped to describe many pogroms, mass executions, and mass murders""
• William Schabas (2000), Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes, "Within the quantitative or numerical context, there have been suggestions that the law recognize the existence of acts falling short of full-blown genocide, that might be characterized as 'genocidal massacre'. Leo Kuper originally proposed the concept, that differs from genocide in that 'the mass murder is on a smaller scale, that is, smaller numbers of human beings are killed'. Examples would be pogroms and mass executions."

To Ankh's quadruped analogy, there are a number of formulations which would solve that problem. For example, "A pogrom is a type of genocidal massacre". Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

But a pogrom isn't, definitionally, a type of genocidal massacre, even your sources don't say so. You just haven't read them carefully enough. And even if the aim of this page were to find a definition for pogrom, which it isn't, some pogroms were primarily directed against property, with loss of life being occasional or incidental. Zargulon (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Your counter assertion is not based on any source, is it? The underlined sentences in the three sources above are quite clear. You suggest that your interpretation of them is different to mine. What do you think they are saying about the connection between a genocidal massacre and a pogrom then? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That the term genocidal massacres can be applied to describe one feature of one type of pogrom. Hence, the source says "we are now equipped to describe many pogroms"; note many, not all, because this is a descriptive incidental term and not a definitional concept. An indication of this is provided by a brief glance at the book which focuses on genocides and has nothing to do with pogroms at all. Ankh.Morpork 12:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Once, I did not make a "counter assertion." Your question nicely illustrates your misunderstanding of the proper use of sources - you find your favourite sources, presume that using them is appropriate, and then demand that everybody else find a way to use them. Could you please take a break and come back when you are ready to behave maturely? Zargulon (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i find this quite rude. And totally incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Once, you really need to address the core of the argument here, which isn't that the pre-edit sources aren't "scholarly sources" but that the edit replaces weakly-sourced content with strongly-sourced content. Here's a breakdown of the pre-edit support for "genocidal massacre":

pre-edit support for "genocidal massacre" sources table

Source Source scope Level of focus on "pogroms" Quote Note Mojzes Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century link Ethnic cleansing in the Balkans The word "pogrom(s)" appears 13 times on 6 of the nearly 300 content pages in this book (excluding index, etc.). In contrast, "genocide(s)" appears on about 183 pages (including in chapter titles), "ethnic cleansing(s)" appears on about 87 pages, "massacre(s)" appears on about 110 pages. Clearly the focus of this book is not "pogroms". "The word pogrom, meaning "riot", is of Russian origin and is usually encountered in the experiences of violent anti-Semitic outbursts in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia. Pogrom became a more nuanced term than riot, though they share common elements. A more accurate meaning of pogrom is genocidal massacre, that is, a semi-spontaneous mob attack, an outburst by a more dominant ethnic or religious group over a minority that is usually scapegoated for an alleged undermining of values that weakens the entire society (such as defence of the country in time of war, spying, cooperating with the enemy, hoarding of goods or selling at exorbitant prices, and attacking or murdering innocent members of the majority group)." What is interesting here is that the definition of "genocidal massacre" Mojzes uses actually matches the definition of "pogrom" in our best reliable secondary sources pretty well, but Mojzes's definition of "genocidal massacare" does not match the definition provided at our article genocidal massacre! The term "genocidal massacre" is attributed to Leo Kuper, and his definition does not include the "scapegoating" component that is essential to the definition of "pogrom." To handle this, in the article we might instead attribute this definition of pogrom to Mojzes and explain that his definition of genocidal massacre does not match other sources, but why would we do this at all when we have better sourcing that does not have this problem? Andreopoulos Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions link Genocide The word "pogrom(s)" appears 6 times on 6 of the about 260 content pages in this book (excluding index, etc.). "Genocide(s)" appears hundreds of times on 134 pages. "Events of mass murder that are on a smaller scale than mass events may be defined, as Leo Kuper originally proposed, under a category of "genocidal massacre". I would define genocidal massacre as follows: Mass killing as defined above in the generic definition of genocide, but in which the mass murder is on a smaller scale, that is, smaller numbers of human beings are killed. With this category we are now equipped to describe many pogroms, mass executions, and mass murders." Andreopoulos is not providing a definition of 'pogrom.' He is saying that a definition of "genocide massacre" is useful in describing pogroms. Note the correct use of Leo Kuper's definition here, in contrast with Mojzes. Schabas Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes link Genocide and law The word "pogrom(s)" appears 3 times on 3 of the about 600 content pages in this book (excluding index, etc.). "Genocide(s)" appears hundreds of times on over 100 pages. "Within the quantitative or numerical context, there have been suggestions that the law recognize the existence of acts falling short of full-blown genocide, that might be characterized as 'genocidal massacre'. Leo Kuper originally proposed the concept, that differs from genocide in that 'the mass murder is on a smaller scale, that is, smaller numbers of human beings are killed'. Examples would be pogroms and mass executions." Schabas is quoting someone else and saying that a pogrom is an example of a genocidal massacre, but it is not a definition of it. Leo Kuper is again mentioned here. Schabas is saying that, using Kuper's definition, a pogrom is an example of a "genocidal massacre," but they are not equivalent. This goes back to what Ankh was saying: A horse is an example of a quadruped, but they are not similar terms.

Can you address this please? Zad68 13:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd first like to say that this is an outstandingly helpful table - thank you for preparing it. If all editors looked at these complex questions with such well structured analysis, this encyclopaedia would be able to incorporate the academic community as I hope one day it will. I will give this table the respect it deserves and consider it carefully before replying. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Zad, thanks again for your work on this.

I have covered the question about weak vs strong sources above - seems that was just a miscommunication between us, and we are aligned on the concept - so I will focus my comments on the points brought out in your table about the genocidal massacre connection.

In essence I agree with you (and Jethro) that the two terms are not the same. I also agree with the notes you wrote next to each source, excepting that i don't think that Leo Kuper's definition of the term is the only / official way of defining it - he was just the first one to do so. Our article genocidal massacre compares three different definitions. Also, having thought again about Ankh's quadruped analogy I now realise it is wrong - the analogy doesn't work because cow is clearly a subset of quadruped (a hypernym) whereas Pogrom and Genocidal massacre do not have that relationship - they are in fact partial synonyms, with partially overlapping meanings.

One might say that "genocidal massacre" is to "pogrom" as "genocide" is to "holocaust".

The point of drawing the connection in the article is that genocidal massacre is a more technical term, with a more narrowly and consistently defined set of characteristics. There is also a push for the term genocidal massacre to be officially recognised by governments to describe these events.

The one thing we can say with certainty across the three sources is that many pogroms can also be termed as genocidal massacres. In this light, would you be ok if we say that where a pogrom involves multiple fatalities it may also be labelled a genocidal massacre?

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how involved I'm going to get here, I've been monitoring this for a while and chose not to get involved yet, but before I begin, I'm impressed by the discussing taking place here from both sides, the resources used, the overall civility, etc, and hope it continues.

Honestly, I don't see what the net loss or gain can be found in either including or removing it, and what POV is suspected of being pushed by removing (or keeping) it. From what I've read, Once suspectes a POV involved here. While that may be true, I don't understand what POV this could possibly be. Once, can you clarify these comments? To me, it seemed more like a content dispute than a POV, but you've obviously been involved here longer, and I'm just curious to know what the POV is here.

From personal experience, though, I know intimately a pogrom targeting a village that resulted in deaths, although nothing like a genocide. If we simply have a look at various pogroms throughout history, even those in Russia, it'd be a fallacy to say they were all genocidal massacres. Just a few examples - the Kielce pogrom (1918) resulted in 4 deaths, and even though this is too much and is abhorrent, it's nowhere on the scale of a genocide, and to say so is to diminish real genocides, such as those in WWII, the Balkans, Darfur, etc. Another example would be the Kraków pogrom, where 1 Jew was killed.

Our article on genocide writes that "Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." While tragic, there certainly was not a deliberate and systematic destruction of Judaism in the Krakow pogrom. Without getting into what exactly the source says, which is being discussed as well, we should see that just because a book says something, it could be an anecdote, comparison, an exaggeration, etc, or a personal opinion on the subject matter, and may not represent a wordlwide view, or a compatible view. This is just logical.

I think some of these examples also illustrate why it'd be a fallacy to say that pogroms mainly refer to those in Russia. While Russia may have been the main source (I'm not saying this as a fact, it seems possible though), there were plenty and plenty of pogroms elsewhere in Europe, as well as the Arab world. Again, Krakow pogrom. In addition, there were pogroms in Medieval Europe, not just in the 19th and 20th centuries, for example, during the Black Plague, or during the Crusades. One example, Pogroms of 1096. I'd be willing to compile a table, like the one above, with a list of as many pogroms I can find, with their location and date, for analysis, if I have the time later. --Jethro B 02:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, thanks very much for your excellent post. You raised a number of complex points so I will do my best to respond to them.

Your last paragraph contains the assumption that the word pogrom can be used to formally classify events pre-1880 retrospectively - e.g. there "were" pogroms during the Crusades. This view is contradicted by all of the pogrom-specialist sources that we have in this article.

The term entered English in the 1880s after the first Russian pogroms, and was subsequently used for other Russian-sphere events such as those in Russian Poland that you referred to. It gained political currency and began to be extended more widely to events with similar characteristics by politicians. In this extension it was used as a metaphor rather than a scientific classification. Only in recent years have scholars tried to encourage its usage in a consistent fashion.

To put this another way, and as our scholars attest, there isn't a single widely agreed definition for the word. Which means that it is used extremely liberally, often metaphorically, to describe many events throughout history. Despite this, when contemporary politicians use the term enough, it will stick to a particular event and become its common name. But since that process didn't / couldn't happen pre-1880, and because of the fuzziness of the meaning of the word, scholars of pogroms do not generally apply it retrospectively. Historians describing a specific medieval event may call it a pogrom or a massacre or a genocide, but to say a historical event "was" a pogrom when the term wasn't used at the time is discouraged.

I have typed out an interest quote from one of our article's best sources in the box below. It raises a number of interesting points that would be good to discuss (not least that the usage of our lead picture appears to be "unusual"!).

I'll respond to the genocidal massacre point above, under Zad's table.

Engel quote

From David Engel in Anti-Jewish Violence Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History, p21-23 Disputes over labelling of certain events as pogroms: "the repeated protests of some scholars that what happened in Lwów in November 1918 was not, strictly speaking, a “pogrom”— or similar claims about the killing of two Jews and one Pole in the townlet of Przytyk in March 1936, which became the subject of a similar bit of semantic legerdemain and ongoing argument in Poland and beyond in 2001" Engel's list of events "habitually tagged pogroms": "...such disparate occurrences as the killing of two Jews in Balta in March 1882, forty-fve in Kishinev in April 1903, and upwards of fifteen hundred in Proskuriv in February 1919 [...] the riot in Warsaw on Christmas Day 1881, when street mobs took revenge on Jews for allegedly disrupting midnight mass in the Church of the Holy Cross, damaging much property but killing no one; the deadly confrontation between striking factory workers and local Jews in Łód in May 1892, in which the strikers killed three Jews while 140 Polish workers were shot by strike-breaking police; the riot of Russian and Ukrainian miners in the companytown of Iuzovka in the Donets Basin three months later, in whose course 180 Jewish-owned shops and the local synagogue were burned, but no Jews lost their lives; the June 1898 plunder of the tavern of one Naftali Löw in the west Galician hamlet of Frysztak by a crowd of peasants coming to market, who caused no Jewish casualties and did minimal damage to property but who lost twelve of their own number when the Austrian police shot into the crowd in an effort to break it up; the punitive expedition conducted by Russian military personnel against the Jewish quarterin Siedlce in September 1906 following the assassination of the local police chief, which claimed some thirty Jewish lives; the April 1919 execution by Polish soldiers in Pinsk of thirty-five Jews groundlessly suspected of abetting the Bolsheviks in the Polish–Soviet war; the so-called White Terror in Hungary of 1919–1920, which left perhaps as many as 3,000 Jews dead; the massacres of perhaps 60,000 Ukrainian Jews during the same years byarmies competing for control of the territory; the repeated but nonfatal beatings of Jewish students in universities throughout Greater Romania between 1923 and 1928; the officially instigated Kristallnacht attacks upon synagogues and Jewish-owned property throughout Germany and Austria on 9 November 1938 in the wake of the shooting of a Nazi official by a Jewish teenager, in whose course ninety-one Jews were killed; the coordinated onslaught against the Jews of Iaqi by Romanian police, soldiers, and civilians on 29 June 1941, where the single-day death toll may have reached five thousand or more; or the slaughter of forty-six Jews in Kielce on 4 July 1946 in response to a blood libel." Engel's list of events which "do not usually receive the designation" pogrom: "the 1819 Hep! Hep! riots in Germany, for instance,or the disturbances in Budapest during the Tiszaeszlár ritual murder trialin 1883– 1884, or the multiple assaults on Jews and their businesses that spread throughout France in conjunction with the Dreyfus Affair in 1898?"

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that I've glanced at what you've wrote, and hopefully will read it all and respond when some time clears up soon. --Jethro B 23:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

These quotes are not really relevant Once - you should once and for all familiarize yourself with WP:DICDEF. The best description of a word is an curated list of the contexts where it is used. A dictionary does not have enough space to do this, thus the need for a "definition". An encyclopedia does have enough space, in fact that is its whole point.

So even if a reliable source gave a certain definition of a pogrom which implicitly excluded an event, it would be trumped by a reliable source which actually used the word pogrom to describe the event. All the things you have said are not pogroms because they do not meet the definitions in your sources, which at best describe pogroms abstractly, are pogroms nonetheless because they are called pogroms in reliable sources which focus on each one concretely.

The problem is that you refuse to realize this, but instead produce reams of talk page verbiage which ignores this point every time it has been made, while makin edits which take the article deeper into the territory of a WP:DICDEF, at the same time running roughshod over WP:BURDEN, and making WP:OR inferences from your sources. It's clear to everyone except you that you are doing serious harm to this article and I wish you would stop. Zargulon (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon, I would have liked to respond in good faith to the main points you raised, to help you understand the subtleties that are being discussed here (this debate does not have a binary black-or-white answer as you are suggesting - all mainstream viewpoints should be made clear in the article). But I feel constrained from interacting further with you because of the offensive and irrational nature of your last sentence. It suggests that you are unwilling or unable to enter into serious discussion of what is an interesting and complex question. Writing emotive statements like that can only hinder the thoughtful discussion that has been going on, and it is this thoughtful discussion that the article needs to improve further. Further hinderance of open discussion is the most likely thing that would seriously harm this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Once, you are living in a fantasy world, where a "thoughtful discussion" of an "interesting and complex question" is you extracting from the contributions of others those elements which can be twisted into affirming your prejudices and judiciously ignoring everything else, and in which any remarks that you cannot use to further your end are "binary black-and-white" or "offensive and irrational". I'm not sure how you found out about Wikipedia but it is clearly not for you. Zargulon (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems you are doubling-down on your "ignore the content discussion but focus on the wp:battleground" tactics... Emotive statements like those that you continue to make ("fantasy world", "Wikipedia is not for you") distract from meaningful discussion and turn off editors willing to put time into research and proper discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that way it your fantasy world, doubtless. In the real world, it takes about a two seconds of scanning this talk page find all constructive points I have made that you have judiciously ignored. Zargulon (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I can't engage with you until you dial back the constant personal attacks. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the reality attested by this this talk page is very different. Zargulon (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The quotes from Engel do not appear to be related in any way to the fact that Mojzes, Andreopolous, and Schabas only address pogroms peripherally, are not experts in the subject, were replaced by far superior sources, and in any event don't define pogroms as "genocidal massacres". The quotes you've now brought from Engel don't even use the term "genocidal massacre". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the questions. This point was dealt with 5 days ago in this diff. Please answer the unaddressed questions. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree here, because I have indeed understood the questions, the point wasn't "dealt with" at any time, and the questions have all been addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There's not much I can add to the views posted by Zad68, Jethro B, Ankh.Morporkh, and Zargulon above. The stronger, more relevant sources support the changes I made, which is why I made them. Also, Oncenawhile, the huge quotation you posted on 09:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC) is undoubtedly WP:COPYVIO - I recommend you cut it down considerably. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on the copyvio - it doesn't qualify as brief. I've cut it down to the three relevant bits.

The rest of your comment is not additive, and suggests you are unwilling to put in any effort to support your position. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it possibly suggests that at all, and that is a terrible attempt to disqualify someone's comments when gauging consensus, as we've seen on other articles before... There's no reason why an editor should have to argue the same thing over and over for 3 months, when you're the only person here opposing, and when everything that the editor agrees with has already been said. --Jethro B 22:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you but i've been trying and failing to have a rational discussion on this with Jayjg for a long time now and he finds every opportunity to evade actual discussion of the content. Let's not forget that these changes were disguised with a bland edit summary, and when reverted were reinserted with a refusal to break the edit down into pieces. It's a personal view, but I think given such behaviour it is appropriate for him to make the effort to answer some of the points raised. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

He took a short break since he made those edits until he returned and made some more edits. Since then, the discussion was already large with many editors contributing. It seems normal to me that he wouldn't feel that there is that much more information to add to the discussion, especially since there was already so much in it. --Jethro B 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Jethro. Oncenawhile, do you have anything to add to the discussion regarding the sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I am awaiting responses to my two posts here and here. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The first post has been responded to. The second post did not appear to disagree with Zad68, and posed a question to him that appeared to invite original research on his part. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not correct and not helpful. Please answer the unaddressed questions. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean; my statement is correct and the questions have been addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Zad68 delineated the difficulties with Once's insertions in an excellent manner and these substantive issues remain unaddressed. It is increasingly apparent that trivial mentions of pogroms in wholly unrelated sources have been seized upon and dubiously cast in a particular light to support a particular POV. If this issue divides opinion as much as Onceawhile claims, there will no doubt be a plethora of high quality sources that can be relied upon as opposed to the current undue focus on extraneous material. Ankh.Morpork 23:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify which points remain unaddressed. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that all three sources only address pogroms peripherally, are not experts in the subject, were replaced by far superior sources, and in any event don't define pogroms as "genocidal massacres". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the questions. This point was dealt with 5 days ago in this diff. Please answer the unaddressed questions. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Genocidal massacre - breaking down the discussion

This discussion was making good progress until 18 October, after which no new discussion points have been raised. Let me try to summarise the remaining discussion points as I see them - perhaps this will help focus the debate.

Points now dealt with:

• 1. Replacing of sources for the first sentences - this misunderstanding has now been cleared up
• 2. Quadruped analogy - this has been shown to be an incorrect analogy (hypernym vs. partial synonym)

Points raised for later discussion (not relevant to the genocidal massacre question):

• Scholarly views on naming events retrospectively
• Whether our HepHep picture is appropriate given Engel's statement

Points remaining to close this specific debate:

• 3. Whether the three sources (Mojzes, Andreopoulos and Schabas) are appropriate to support even the lightest sentence referring to genocidal massacre?
  • The concerns about sourcing here appear to have been mixed up with point 1. above, so comments on whether these sources are adequate to make just this simple comparison would be helpful
  • Specifically, does anyone have any concerns with sourcing this: "Some scholars have suggested that a related term is genocidal massacre, [although a pogrom can also include...]"
• 4. Whether including a partial synonym like genocidal massacre in the lead is helpful to readers?
  • Specifically, my rationale for this is that clarification of similar topics is always helpful for readers in a given article. I haven't seen anyone taking the opposite position on this question

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Clarifying consensus and upcoming action on the "genocidal massacre" sentence

It's apparent from this talk page discussion that we have not quite driven this part of the discussion to clarity yet, and we need to do that. Once, it appears that you agree that the sentence "A similar term is 'genocidal massacre'" does not reflect our best secondary sources accurately and should not stand in the article as-is. I am basing this on what you wrote earlier, In essence I agree with you (and Jethro) that the two terms ["pogrom" and "genocidal massacre"] are not the same. Given this consensus, we will remove this sentence when the article is unprotected tomorrow.

 Done As mentioned, with unanimous agreement that the sources do not support such a sentence, it is now removed. Zad68 18:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

We are still discussing what content related to this phrase the article might carry, and insert it later if and when we have consensus. Once, you proposed: The one thing we can say with certainty across the three sources is that many pogroms can also be termed as genocidal massacres. In this light, would you be ok if we say that where a pogrom involves multiple fatalities it may also be labelled a genocidal massacre? I am not convinced that our reliable secondary sources emphasize this idea enough to warrant its inclusion in the article, or that it is free of WP:SYNTH. What reliable secondary sources support this sentence? Cheers... Zad68 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Swapping the first two sentences around": Sources and proposal--seeking consensus on this

Hi Once, I'm happy to bring sources, here they are:

• Dekel-Chen's Anti-Jewish Violence: Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History, Chapter 1 "What's in a pogrom?", pp 23-24:

Relevant passage from Dekel-Chen

"As it turns out, the large majority of the events or sets of events listed in the previous paragraphs, though manifestly dissimilar in detail, appear to display a surprising number of shared characteristics. To begin with, all took place in divided societies in which ethnicity or religion (or both) served as signifcant definers of both social boundaries and social rank. Moreover, all involved collective violent applications of force by members of whatperpetrators believed to be a higher-ranking ethnic or religious group against members of what they considered a lower-ranking or subaltern group. Indeed, those against whom such force was applied were identifed primarily on the basis of their group membership, not because of anything they might have said or done as ethnically or religiously unlabeled individuals; at most it can be said that the appliers of the decisive force tended to interpret the behavior of victims according to stereotypes commonly applied to the groups to which they belonged. Either during or following violence, perpetrators expressed some complaint about the victims’ group, claiming collective injury or violation of one or more of their own group’s cardinal values or legitimate prerogatives as a result of some action allegedly taken on behalf of the lower-ranking group by one or more of its members, or by that group as a whole. And, according to the perpetrators, the injured, higher-ranking group could be made whole only through violent action unmediated by the mechanisms that the state normally provided for resolution of disputes or redress of grievances. In other words, the episodes in question all seem to have embodied a fundamental lack of confidence on the part of those who purveyed decisive violence in the adequacy of the impersonal rule of law to deliver true justice in the event of a heinous wrong. In the perpetrators’ hierarchy of values the transgressions of the lower-ranking group were of such magnitude that the legitimate order of things could be restored only when either they themselves took the law into their own hands or--as in Pinsk in 1919, Ukraine during the Russian Civil War, Kristallnacht, or Iasi in 1941--instruments of the state or claimants to state power bypassed normal political and legal channels in favor of direct action against the offenders. Such a moral balance made perpetrators believe that what they had done was right, even where, as in the majority of the cases at hand, state authorities representing the community whose integrity they sought to defend told them the opposite by trying them for their misdeeds. Please note: I do not claim that these features, taken together, constitute the essential defining characteristics of a 'pogrom.' My claim is merely that it is possible to identify a set of historical incidents that display all of those characteristics."

• Encyclopedia Britannica (2012) "Pogrom: a mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious, racial, or national minority. The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

• Encyclopedia Judaica (2007) "Pogrom is a Russian word designating an attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, and rape, perpetrated by one section of the population against another. In modern Russian history pogroms have been perpetrated against other nations (Armenians, Tatars) or groups of inhabitants (intelligentsia). However, as an international term, the word "pogrom" is employed in many languages to describe specifically the attacks accompanied by looting and bloodshed against the Jews in Russia. The word designates more particularly the attacks carried out by the Christian population against the Jews between 1881 and 1921 while the civil and military authorities remained neutral and occasionally provided their secret or open support."

• Dictionary of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2005) "Pogrom: Russian word meaning 'attack' or 'devastation.' Historically, it designates mob attacks accompanied by pillage and murder that were perpetrated against the Jews of Russia—for example, in 1881–1882 and in 1903 at Kishinev. An important component of a pogrom is the usually silent complicity of the police and other authorities."

• Webster's NewWorld Dictionary (1988) "Pogrom: an organized persecution and massacre, often officially prompted, of a minority group, esp. of Jews (as in czarist Russia)."

• Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture (2003) "Pogrom: Originally used to describe violent and often murderous anti-Jewish persecutions (the most important of which took place in Kishinev) in Russia following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, more recently the term 'pogrom', from the Russian pogrom (total destruction, devastation) has also been used to refer to attacks on other groups."

• The Macmillan Encyclopedia (2003): "Pogrom: An attack on Jews and Jewish property, especially in the Russian Empire. Russian pogroms, which were condoned by the government, were particularly common in the years immediately after the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 and again from 1903 to 1906, though mob persecution of Jews continued until the Russian Revolution (1917)."

• Encyclopedia of Nationalism (2001): "Pogrom: Mobilized crowd violence (usually officially encouraged) against members of a subordinate cultural group."

Now we have 2 questions:

1) What is the consensus across our reliable sources for the characteristics that make up a 'pogrom,' and therefore will be used in the article definition?

2) How shall we divide those characteristics up into a "primary" and "secondary" definition?

Answers:

1) Here are the characteristics that receive the most consistent emphasis across the sources:

Characteristic	Supporting sources
"a violent riot"	Dekel-Chen, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica, Dictionary of I-P Conflict, Webster's, Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture, Macmillan, Encyclopedia of Nationalism
"generally against Jews"	Dekel-Chen, (whole book generally--titled Anti-Jewish Violence: Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History), Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica, Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture, Macmillan
"condoned by the forces of law"	Dekel-Chen, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica, Dictionary of I-P Conflict, Dictionary of I-P Conflict, Webster's, Macmillan, Encyclopedia of Nationalism
"characterized by killings and destruction of Jewish homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers."	Dekel-Chen, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica (generally), Macmillan
"originally referring to 19th and 20th-century Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire"	Dekel-Chen, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica, Dictionary of I-P Conflict, Webster's, Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture, Macmillan

2) I believe we already have agreement now that consensus across the sources is not to limit the primary definition of to a particular place and time (tsarist Russia), and so mention of that will be part of the secondary defintion.

Proposed article content to reflect the consensus of the sources in the article:

• "A pogrom is a violent riot generally against Jews, condoned by the forces of law, characterized by killings and destruction of Jewish homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers. Originally referring to 19th and 20th-century Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire,"... and continuing with "the term has been subsequently extended..."

Request would everyone please weigh in here--do we now have consensus supporting this change? It is time to make a decision and wrap this up. Cheers... Zad68 15:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to not revert this but it has significant problems of both content and style. I'll start with the most glaring - "Generally against Jews, condoned by the forces of law", suggests that a pogrom is always condoned by the forces of law, which is untrue, e.g. the Khmelnitsky pogroms.

This and other issues reflect the general mistake of extracting the lead definition from sources which define pogroms, rather than what it should be based on, which is the article body.

I propose as a more accurate, concise and stylistically better alternative

• "A pogrom is an ethnic riot generally against Jews and often condoned by the forces of law, characterized by killings and/or destruction of Jewish homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers. Originally entering English as a reference to 19th and 20th-century Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, similar attacks against Jews at other times and places also became known as pogroms. The word is now also used for attacks against non-Jewish ethnic or religious groups.".

It is of course out of the question to refer to the term "genocidal massacre" in the lede - even if some sources made a sufficiently special connection between the two terms, which they don't, genocidal massacre is not part of the definition of pogrom or the content of the article, the two words are not synonyms, and wikipedia is not a thesaurus, so it is inappropriate to the extend that it would sound dumb. Zargulon (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon, good input, and I would support your proposed content as well. (There is consensus to remove 'genocidal massacre' but that is being discussed elsewhere--this talk page is already getting too difficult to follow.) Zad68 16:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon, I think your version is good, but I would make some copyedits as follows:

*"A pogrom is a violent riot generally directed against Jews and often condoned by the forces of law, characterized by killings and/or destruction of homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers. The term originally entered English to describe 19th and 20th-century attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire; similar attacks against Jews at other times and places also became known as pogroms. The word is now also sometimes used to describe attacks against non-Jewish ethnic or religious groups.".

I think it's more accurate to the sources, and a bit clearer stylistically. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I never heard of a non-violent riot ;) but whatever you say. Zargulon (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg's proposal would also be acceptable to me. It still achieves the same goal of bringing the article into line with the meanings and emphasis provided by the best reliable sources. Zad68 13:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zargulon that the use of "violent" is somewhat redundant here. However, I do not think the term "ethnic riot" is supported by the sources (which mention attacks on religious, cultural and racial minorities) so prefer either Zad68's or Jayjg's version. I'd also prefer "mob attack" to "riot" per the various sources. Ankh.Morpork 18:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done With consensus here, I have applied this change. Zad68 18:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Got here too late. But yeah, I'm fine with the way it is now, although think that "violent riot" isn't necessarily redundant. It helps portray pogroms more accurately than just a "riot," which I'd imagine as a group of people gathering outside a house chanting "We demand justice!" Here, it actually shows the violent nature. --Jethro B 23:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be called a "demonstration" in my opinion. Zargulon (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Consensus content applied to article.

Genocidal massacre (bringing back from archive - for the second time)

According to Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century by Paul Mojzes, a similar term to pogrom is genocidal massacre. Does anyone have any objections to including this statement in the article? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of definitions; we can't include every one. Also, Mojzes says a lot more than just that it's similar to a genocidal massacre. What would you want to include? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this seems to me to be a pretty close comparator, and helpful for readers to compare. I had intended to add a very simple sentence that says:

A similar term is "genocidal massacre".

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mojzes said many thing; selective quoting of this specific statement is not an accurate statement of his views on the topic, and the material itself seems to add little. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Every source in this article says "many things", so this same comment could apply for every statement in the article! Oncenawhile (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Galassi, please could you explain your reversion of the Mojzes comparison with genocidal massacre? Do you think it's detrimental to make that comparison? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Galassi, I'd like to add this source back in a way that's acceptable to you. Happy to give it some more time but if I don't hear from you I'll add it back and would ask that you could amend as you feel appropriate. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's one of the many sources that's simply not required, as we have higher quality sources that give more meaningful information. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

But it's the only sourced synonym we have. Do you have any objection to including a synonym? In the article Palestine we have 10 synonyms in the first paragraph. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have found a couple more sources on this topic. Summary below:

• Paul Mojzes (2011), Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield, p. 5."The word pogrom, meaning "riot", is of Russian origin and is usually encountered in the experiences of violent anti-Semitic outbursts in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia. Pogrom became a more nuanced term than riot, though they share common elements. A more accurate meaning of pogrom is genocidal massacre, that is, a semi-spontaneous mob attack, an outburst by a more dominant ethnic or religious group over a minority that is usually scapegoated for an alleged undermining of values that weakens the entire society (such as defence of the country in time of war, spying, cooperating with the enemy, hoarding of goods or selling at exorbitant prices, and attacking or murdering innocent members of the majority group)."
• George Andreopoulos (1997), Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions, "Events of mass murder that are on a smaller scale than mass events may be defined, as Leo Kuper originally proposed, under a category of "genocidal massacre". I would define genocidal massacre as follows: Mass killing as defined above in the generic definition of genocide, but in which the mass murder is on a smaller scale, that is, smaller numbers of human beings are killed. With this category we are now equipped to describe many pogroms, mass executions, and mass murders""
• William Schabas (2000), Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes, "Within the quantitative or numerical context, there have been suggestions that the law recognize the existence of acts falling short of full-blown genocide, that might be characterized as 'genocidal massacre'. Leo Kuper originally proposed the concept, that differs from genocide in that 'the mass murder is on a smaller scale, that is, smaller numbers of human beings are killed'. Examples would be pogroms and mass executions."

So scholars connect the two terms in a variety of ways. On this basis, does anyone have any objections to the previous generic proposal "A similar term is "genocidal massacre""? If not, I will add it in to the lead. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? If not, I will add this in shortly. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

After waiting for almost a month, I will now add this in. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As before, Mojzes is a unique (and not particularly authoritative view), and the other two sources don't refer to pogroms. Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was achieved while you were away. Many other editors have come and gone but noone took issue with this. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

While Schabas and Andreopoulos state that the term genocidal massacre can be applied to pogroms, that does not mean that this is a total and complete definition of what pogroms were; after all, they are only obliquely mentioned to illustrate a tangential idea and highlight a single facet of pogroms, not to provide a comprehensive definition. Thus, it is better to use sources that primarily focus on pogroms. Ankh.Morpork 00:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Consensus result applied to article. Zad68 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To be continued

I am sorry I had to take a wikibreak when I did, as it meant leaving this discussion at a critical time. Zad, it seems from the comments that you and I were the only involved editors to have read the underlying sources directly, which I see meant that you had no effective counterweight to debate your changes with.

I will give you my detailed thoughts when I have time. In the meantime, one major issue for you to consider. Your comments above suggest that you agree with the scholarly view that the term "doesn't have a very clear, universally-upheld definition" and that the "definition is imprecise" and that there is "no universally agreed-upon definition". Isn't this wholly contradicted by the tone of the first sentence of the article?

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because there is "no universally agreed-upon definition," that doesn't mean a pogrom could be a ham sandwich, a John Philip Sousa march or even a wartime battle. To adapt that old phrase, "You're missing the forest for the trees," I think you're spending too much time staring at one particular tree instead of stepping back and seeing the forest of consensus across the sources. Take a look at the table I provided above, under "1) Here are the characteristics that receive the most consistent emphasis across the sources:". As the table shows, there are indeed some basic characteristics of a "pogrom" that enjoy consensus across the sources. Also, the opening sentence in the lead does indeed already have the qualifiers "generally" and "often" in it, qualitatively addressing the ambiguity in the definition discussed in the sources. Zad68 04:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The qualifiers "generally" and "often" are placed too narrowly to adequately qualify the sentence in light of the sources we are referring to. The problem with the analysis from your table is that you worked the analysis backwards. Rather than starting with a "blank canvas", you started with a pre-determined set of clauses and then looked at the sources to see whether each clause could be supported or not. Although well intentioned and thoughtful, it is not academically sound. You get a different answer if you just start from the sources and see where that takes you. Would you like me to show you what I mean? I will need to find some time to do the analysis. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Once, the consensus has been that your interpretation of the sources is wrong. Unless you have something new to say, which seems unlikely, I suggest you review WP:DEADHORSE and continue your discussion with Zad offline if he wishes to participate. Zargulon (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. If you wish to contribute to this article, please do try to be constructive and make comments which help improve it. Just because I am coming at this debate from a different angle to you doesn't mean that my thoughts are less valuable than yours. Stifling discussion helps no-one. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Zargulon's concern is that your comments appear to be repeating points that have been previously made by you, and rejected by the consensus of the editors here. Do you have any points you wish to make about content that have not already been made here and rejected by consensus? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia develops because of editors who are prepared to put effort into research and thoughtful discussion. This (pogrom) is a delicate topic that can only progress with that dedication. Vacuous comments won't get us anywhere. Let's just get on with it. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we all look forward to you proposing new ways of improving the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

Zad, I must admit I expected you to continue this discussion. Your discussion style has been thoughtful and constructive so far, and we made progress previously through our discussions. This article is far from perfect at the moment and it will not get better without further discussion between us.

In the meantime, I propose to amend the first sentence with the below:

Pogrom (Russian: погро́м) is a term which has been used to describe a wide variety of violent incidents. Common characteristics of incidents described as pogroms include being targeted at an ethnic minority (particularly Jews), being perceived to be condoned by the forces of law, and involving killings and destruction of property.

Oncenawhile (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand how this would be any sort of improvement. Reliable sources consistently emphasize that a pogrom is generally against Jews, just as the current wording says. The proposed wording de-emphasizes that fact far too much. Zad68 02:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

By de-emphasizing, you mean that the reference to "particularly Jews" is in the second sentence rather than the first? To use your own proposed set of reliable sources above:

• Those who do refer to Jews in the first sentence (3 sources): Webster's, Dictionary of Race Ethnicity and Culture, Macmillan
• Those who do not refer to Jews in the first sentence (4 sources): Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica, Dictionary of I-P Conflict, Encyclopedia of Nationalism

Now do you see what i mean by your analysis having been done backwards? This is just one example. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Once, can you try to explain to us, slowly and clearly, what Wikipedia guideline says that content has to appear in an article in the same sentence number as it appears in a source? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't really understand your point here either, Oncenawhile. All sources mention Jews, and indicate that the term entered the English language to refer to attacks on Jews. I'm not understanding what you think the issue is with the current lede, or why reference to Jews would have to be moved to the second sentence and placed in parentheses. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, could you perhaps let this discussion remain between me and Zad for a bit? Unless of course you are willing to read the sources yourselves in which case i would be delighted to discuss real issues with you. If you don't understand it, I'm not sure there's much i can do about that. As I said above, I see a number of problems with the lede sentence which i can explain in detail but I would need to spend some time invested in an analysis similar to Zad's (but the other way round). Oncenawhile (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile, although it's flattering to think so, my opinion here has no more authority than anybody else's, and it's against Wikipedia's collaborative model (as frustrating as it is to work within sometimes) to suggest that an article Talk page conversation be restricted to only chosen editors.

Let's start with where we agree. Based on your proposed edit, we all agree that consensus across the reliable sources say that a "pogrom" (generally) has the following features--It's a:

• Violent attack/incident
• Targeting an ethnic/religious group
• Most often targeting Jews
• Condoned by forces of law
• Involving killing of people and destruction of property

This is the objective side of it--these are things can be provably detected in reliable sources that cover pogroms.

We appear to be having a disagreement on a more subjective side--how much relative emphasis is given to each of these characteristics, and how do we reflect that in the article? Making this judgment based on the idea that something like 3/5ths of the sources we happen to be looking at today place "Jews" in the second sentence and not the first, without really considering what the source says overall, is another "not seeing the forest for the trees" problem that is not going to lead to improvements to the article. To take one example, you're holding up Encyclopedia Britannica in support of the idea of de-emphasizing Jews because the word "Jews" doesn't appear until the second sentence of EB's article. But if you read the whole EB entry, all five paragraphs mention and cover pogroms in relation to attacks on Jews, and in fact the EB article mentions no other ethnic or religious group.

So, again, I don't feel the change you are proposing is an improvement along the lines of making our article reflect what the sources say better.

(Regarding what you were saying about my involvement here, I've been busy working on other areas and because I'm not seeing any consensus forming for your proposed change here I've been limiting my time.) Zad68 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the points you've made, Zad68, the proposed new first sentence seems both inaccurate and almost meaningless: "Pogrom (Russian: погро́м) is a term which has been used to describe a wide variety of violent incidents." That description covers everything from a slap to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and gives the impression that the term "pogrom" has wildly variant meanings - when, in fact, the exact factors you've listed define the term quite narrowly. It appears to be more of the same proposal that was rejected here last month; an attempt to indicate that there is some huge and heated on-going debate amongst historians about the term and what it covers, when the reliable secondary sources on the subject, of which I've read many, give no such indication. These proposals appear to be more an effort to discredit the term than explain it; as such, they can hardly be helpful to the reader, do justice to the subject, or improve the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, i'm sorry but your comment appears to be wholly exaggerated for dramatic effect. Please try to take a leaf out of Zad's book - instead of mischaracterisations of both sources and editor comments, try commenting directly on the sources. Your sledgehammer approach to try to end this debate has simply ensured this conversation has continued ad nauseam since April. If you instead engage thoughtfully with opposing editors on the same wavelength, as Zad is doing, I promise you that we will find a consensus way through that is mutually acceptable to everyone. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this. I interpret from this that you have no intention of considering my suggestions about how we can work together constructively. That is a shame, and not good for the project. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Once, if you are serious about "engaging with opposing editors on the same wavelength", could you please answer my question above? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your question was rhetorical, as I had never suggested that. Guidelines don't prescribe that level of detail. It is for us to review the sources with an open mind and reach a logical and reasoned position. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Once, I think I would know about it if my question had been rhetorical. So do I take it you are withdrawing your spurious argument based on line numbers? Zargulon (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? You have not presented a counter-argument. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary .. ? Zargulon (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not a counter-argument. I did not suggest that, so your questioning of it makes no sense. If there is an intended counter argument in there, please explain yourself properly. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As anyone can see, you did indeed suggest it, didn't you? And can you please explain why a spurious argument requires a "counter-argument" to refute it, anyway? Thanks in advance on both these points. Zargulon (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

By the words "I did not suggest that", I meant that I didn't suggest that there was a guideline like the one you described in your question. An argument can only be proven to be "spurious" if a convincing counterargument is shown to refute it. I'm enjoying chatting to you - I'm happy to continue this absurd back and forth until you are ready to provide something that resembles actual content in your posts. Thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating - would you care to explain why the counterargument needs to be "convincing", but the original argument it refutes apparently does not? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Of course the original argument needs to be convincing. If you disagree and wish to try to disprove it, you must respond using one of the top three tiers in the diagram on the right. So far, you have not advanced above the "contradiction" level. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am right at the top of your pyramid, observing your faltering efforts from above with decreasing enthusiasm. Just out of interest, do you have anything further to add to the article? Zargulon (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your "question" is not even on the triangle! If you want to understand how to get in the top three layers of the diagram, please take a leaf out of Zad's book. Otherwise you are just wasting time. I guess this is a game for you. If you don't wish to add any actual content to the debate, I will move on without you. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You said you were going to do that and we are all still waiting..? Zargulon (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Zad, apologies for the delay in responding to your post - I have been slightly distracted by this fascinating tangential debate with the other editors. I will prepare a response to your post of 10 December 2012 shortly. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll also have to respond in a meaningful way to these posts; you can't achieve consensus if you don't engage with those who have already refuted your arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to respond as soon as you provide the details behind your statement in your post that "the reliable secondary sources on the subject, of which I've read many, give no such indication". That statement is the core of your argument, so I will need to see a list of the sources you are referring to before responding. Many thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)