Talk:Pogroms in the Russian Empire

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonah12431, Valeriya2601, Emily2710.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Circumstances which triggered the pogroms

This section is in dire need of expansion. As much as the casualties of the pogroms, the reasons why they were initiated are paramount to the understanding of the historical, and socio-economic context of the pogroms. There are many speculative theories regarding this, and I think all views require a decent coverage.

-- previous section by User:124.169.147.164

I agree.

This article fails to take into account the detailed and extensive work of several distinguished scholars, especially Prof. John Doyle Klier of London University, who spent most of his academic life investigating the life of Jewish people in the Pale of Settlement, consulting original sources (newspapers, official document etc.) from the time. I would advise those who contribute to this article to read especially: Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–1882 and Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History These two works demonstrate an academic, investigative and much more differentiated approach than many of the opinions in this article. Wikipedia usually values proof, verified sources and academic integrity. This article needs considerable revision in the light of these principles.

Klarheitschaffen (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Name of Ukraine without the Definite Article Adjective

Rules for English are not abstracted from the nature of reality like the rules of science and mathematics. They are like the rules for operating Wikipedia, an effort by English speakers to form a consensus. Sometimes the authorities on English usage just report how people write and speak, and sometimes they are able to put over a change by suggesting it. This, I believe, is the case when people began referring to Ukraine as "Ukraine" instead of "the Ukraine." The motive was to accommodate influential Ukrainians and people of Ukrainian extraction. This change shows considerable evidence of being accepted by English speakers as shown by: The style guide of [The Economist] [1], The style guide of [the guardian] [2] and The style guide for [ TIMESONLINE] [3].

Lothar von Richthofen in the edit summary explaining his revision of my edit 365507043 wrote: " 'the Ukraine' is acceptable when we are speaking of the historical region." This would seem to me to be a cumbersome rule that English speakers would be incapable of accepting. Where in history would be the dividing line between when to use "the Ukraine" and when to use "Ukraine?" The article Name of Ukraine #History refers to three events in the history of Ukraine before 1921 with the words: "each named their state Ukraine." What is the evidence that simply using "Ukraine" at some period of history is unacceptable? I am inclined to think that current references to periods of Ukrainian history should use the form "Ukraine" simply to lessen the confusion among general readers. Certainly we won't erase the definite article from the pages or titles of works published in paper and we will refer to them by their titles. However, Wikipedia is a current work and I think any removal of the definite article from the name of the country or region is an improvement. I will not lose money on it either way. --Fartherred (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

When we speak of the modern country, I agree, the article should be dropped. However, during the time of the pogroms, there was no independent Ukraine. The dropping of the article, at least in my mind, makes a distinction between Ukraine the sovereign state and the region controlled by the Russian Empire. But I may be just splitting hairs. Change it if you really feel it makes a world of difference. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to respond. I can see how using "the Ukraine" for periods of the Russian Empire and before could be a logical rule, but it would not fit as compactly into style guides as the rules now expressed. I agree that "the Ukraine" is acceptable for the historical region, but changing it to "Ukraine" is also acceptable. Though I do not feel it makes a world of difference, I will change it, because accomplishing next to nothing is a reasonable alternative to accomplishing absolutely nothing. Live long and prosper. --Fartherred (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Kozhinov

A "career antisemite", per http://www.bu.edu/partisanreview/archive/2000/3/shrayer.html . Unfit as RS.--Galassi (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But is the statement, that Jews do not constitute a majority of pogram victims, accurate? If not, remove it. If so, it is the editor's job to find a suitable source. I realize the article is specifically about anti-Jewish pogroms, and for this reason I do not object to you deleting the image of Armenian victims. However a statement of the percentage of pogrom victims that were Jewish is clearly within the scope of the article. Be a good editor and work for Wikipedia. It is not your sandbox in which to bury things that offend you. beefman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

Galassi, where does it say he is an anti-semite? The article talks about his fictive works (re:Belov), but nowhere does it say what you quoted. Why do I get the feeling you are POV pushing here?--Львівське (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the second instance of "kozhinov" on the page. While this single piece hardly establishes that Kozhinov is no good, it seems English resources on Kozhinov are in short supply, and since the question of his racism is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, it is fine by me if he is no good. The only relevant question is: What portion of pogrom victims were Jewish? It is the editor's job to answer this with a reputable (preferably English) source. beefman (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lvivske: google up kozhinov+antisemitism or кожинов+антисемитизм, and you'll get plenty of sources. He is notorious in that quality, and very visible. Beefman: there were nonJewish pogrom victims, both pogromists and those Ukrainians who joined Jewish self-defence groups, but the claim that Jews constitute a minority of casualties is an undocumentable hoax.

Only in 1 pogrom casualties among the attackers outnumber the attacked - American Jewish Committee Special Articles (1906-1907) // American Jewish Year Book (1906-1907) = American Jewish Year Book (1906-1907). — Jewish Publication Society. — Т. 8. — P. 47.

In general: Jewish casualties prevail - http://history.machaon.ru/all/number_20/pervajmo/amanzholova_print/index.html

--Galassi (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it in the text, can you give me the quote so I can search/verify?--Львівське (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Этническая принадлежность жертв была различна, но большинство составляли, разумеется, евреи (29)."--Galassi (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Google's autotranslater [4] translates this as "Ethnicity of victims were different, but the majority were, of course, Jews". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Why don't you add this to the article? But you will need better sources. The first has got no URL, and is from a potentially biased source. The second is in Cyrillic. Lvivske, can you verify it? Or Galassi, can you find an English source with a URL? beefman (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Value of a rouble?

• In the text "The greatest number of pogroms were registered in the Chernigov gubernia in northern Ukraine. The pogroms there in October 1905 took 800 Jewish lives, the material damages estimated at 70,000,000 rubles ...", what was a rouble worth then?, in terms of UK pounds and USA dollars and their buying power then and now. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

First Section, Second Paragraph = Unreadable

The second paragraph in the first section barely makes sense. Someone with knowledge on the subject should rewrite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.89.1 (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Pogroms and the Pale

re: "The issue of pogroms arose sometime after the Pale of Settlement was created ...."

I move to strike out this sentence. It suggests a causation, while it is reasonably sure that pogroms would have occurred even without the Pale created. Anyway, the sentence is unreferenced, so that it is impossible to fix it by figuring out what exactly the author had in mind (or was misread, etc.) - Altenmann >t 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Move to Tsarist Pogroms

"Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire" is a bit of a mouthful - any objections to the more commonly used "Tsarist Pogroms"? See e.g. [5]. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Object. No problems with the current wording.--Galassi (talk) 11:46, 16 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 16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that British responses to the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire be merged into this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - A separate and subordinate topic. Merger would clog the main article. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Organization and Influence state several conclusions without supporting references

Organization and Influence section state several conclusions without supporting references.

What constitutes a cultural reference?

The television show, Downton Abbey, introduced the Odessa pogroms as a storyline in their 5th season (2014-2015), through a character whose family migrated to England to escape them. The television series has an average 10 million viewers per episode in the United States and many millions more worldwide. The storyline uses factual references of the Odessa pogroms as an ongoing storyline to explain antisemitism that followed Russian Jewish refugees to England.

For information: Downton Abbey is the most watched and award winning scripted series in PBS's history. It is also significantly active on social media, so their decision to make the pogroms part of their storyline is reaching people whom had never heard of them before.

I put in a reference to the storyline under cultural references. User:Galassi, from the Ukraine, deleted the reference saying it was UNDUE and COATRACK. I don't know if he is aware of Downton Abbey's reach in the West or feels that television shows, in general, do not earn a place beside novels as a cultural reference.

I would appreciate if others could weigh in on what constitutes a cultural reference in the 21st century.

Oakbranch (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TRIVIA, cultural references are usually good to go if the article subject constitutes a significant feature in the "cultural reference" in question. Usually this should be corroborated with references to reliable sources which discuss the significance of the article subject for the "cultural reference". Also, if we have one, it is also advised the wikipedia article about the "cultural reference" in question must be expanded with this fact as well. -M.Altenmann >t 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with Altenmann. In more detail: I believe the addition is not WP:COATRACK, as this was just one sentence without going into details of the TV show. Furthermore, Galassi states on the user page that she/he lives in the US, and I assume that this user may know the actual role of TV shows in the society. As a reference, even a link to a video (legal copy, even if it is available by subscription only) may be provided as a primary source, though secondary sources should be preferred if available. However, the major point here is the importance of the topic in this cultural reference. Does it show the pogrom in detail? Is the pogrom itself a major issue in this story? If yes, this should be clearly explained. If it's just a background information, that someone emigrated because of a pogrom, then it is probably WP:UNDUE. --Off-shell (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt this particular case were more than than a mention in passing. Looks like WP:UNDUE and the like. So....--Galassi (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That is why I mentioned the necessity of footnotes, which would confirm that pogroms are "an ongoing storyline to explain antisemitism" in the show. -M.Altenmann >t 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

is Downton Abbey talking about Jews? Man, what did the world come to?--Lute88 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire → Tsarist Pogroms – Per WP:COMMONNAME, titles should be as short as possible. The term "Tsarist Pogroms" has over 1,000 hits in google books, and is much easier to recognise. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the defining feature of these pogroms was that they were anti-Jewish. That should not be removed from the title. That term also gets more google book hits, if that counts for anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment A shorter but more appropriate name than the one suggested above ("Tsarist Pogroms") would be "Russian Empire Pogroms." warshy ^(¥¥) 20:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name is more descriptive. The Tsar had no direct connection with these events. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Tsarist" is not an applicable adjective. RGloucester — ☎ 13:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pogroms after 1917

The passage is removed to reflect the fact that the subject of the article, the Russian Empire, ceased to exist in 1917. Therefore any atrocities during the subsequent Civil war are IRRELEVANT here, per WP:COATRACK.--Lute88 (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Several users think that this paragraph is relevant to this article. Pinging @Anthony Appleyard:, @Cathry:, @Mproncace: to start a discussion here. In fact, mentioning related events in a history article which immediately followed the main topic is normal and reasonable. E.g. section Roman Empire#Political legacy describes the events happened after the downfall of the Roman Empire but which were related to it. Section World War II#Aftermath describes what happend in the aftermath of WWII. Here we have a series of pogrom waves which occured on the same territory in a defined time span. Overview articles in cited sources (e.g. article in Encyclopaedia Judaica and article in Russian Jewish Encyclopedia) describe these events together. So I see the following solutions to the dispute:

• Keep everything in one article as before following the cited sources;
• Adjust article name to cover all time periods. It seems to be not easy. "Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia and Ukraine"? "In Eastern Europe" (then also including Poland, Romania etc.)?
• Create a separate full-fledged article on Anti-Jewish Pogroms During the Russian Civil War.

In any case, this information is of major importance and must be presented somewhere in Wikipedia. --Off-shell (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Main article here Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms is absent. But i think current article can include "Anti-Jewish Pogroms During the Russian Civil War." part, as Russian Civil War was in former Russian Empire Cathry (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The Empire ceased to exist in February of 1917. An entirely separate article is necessary, as this para is POVish antiUkrainian diatribe. @Iryna Harpy: for an opinion.--Lute88 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lute88: Please, explain your logic: If it is POV and there is no such topic, as "Anti-Jewish pogroms during the Russian Civil War", then no article is needed. If there is such a topic, then its placement should not depend on the details of its content. The text of the paragraph in question is based on reliable sources. Your comments however make clear, that your main motivation is unfortunately not the article quality, but of political nature. These source put the main blame on UPA and Ukrainian warlords. Here are the numbers: "Of the recorded 1,236 pogroms and excesses, 493 were carried out by Ukrainian People's Republic soldiers under command of Symon Petliura, 307 by independent Ukrainian warlords, 213 by Denikin's army, 106 by the Red Army and 32 by the Polish Army." These numbers should be put either here or in a separate article which also will be linked from here.

• @Off-shell, Lute88, and Cathry: If this information can't be put in this article, where can it be put? It is important and must be put somewhere. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The logic is simple: no more Empire after 1917. It is an anachronism.--Lute88 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as I'm not convinced in the opposite, I believe it can be put here. So far, at least 3 editors plus an IP account voted with their edits to restore this paragraph here. So we clearly outnumber Lute88. But let's see what other editors say. Perhaps we find another solution. --Off-shell (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Off-shell, Lute88, and Cathry: So far, this paragraph has been restored and deleted 6 times since start of April 2016, and twice in 2015. Please get this edit war resolved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It really should go into a separate article, along the lines of Pogroms During the Civil War in Ukraine (1917-1920). Definitely not unto a Russian Empire.--Lute88 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Also an army cannot conduct a pogrom, an army conducts a MASSACRE. A pogrom is a civilian act of violence, by a mob, not an army.--Lute88 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That depends on whether the soldiers were obeying an order from army command, or acting without orders for themselves in that time of disorder. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. For example Lwów pogrom (1918) was commited by Polish sodiers. The overview article Pogrom also contains a subsection on this period in Ukraine, in section "Events which were originally called pogrom"(!). --Off-shell (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Off-shell, you've just argued against your own position. As it stands, the Pogrom article already carries all of the content in the section here already without resorting to WP:SYNTH-come-WP:OR-come-WP:COATRACK as it is presented here. Possibly the most bizarre part of the SYNTH is the conclusion asserting that, "It was stopped by the end of the Russian Civil War (1918-1922) won by Bolsheviks, who were internationalist and atheist by ideology and enlisted a relatively large number of educated non-religious ("ethnic") Jews (e.g. Lev Trotsky)." I'm sorry? Anti-Semitism was stopped dead in its tracks by the fact that there were atheist Jews in the Bolshevik party. Can we have some WP:RS attesting to that interpretation?

The Pogrom article basically stands as the in-between article servicing this and Antisemitism in the Soviet Union (which is a pretty sloppily put together article using some dubious and undoubtedly WP:BIASED sources to make assertions about how fine and dandy the treatment of Jews "suddenly" became during this particular period in this region of Europe}. However it is handled, the section is SYNTH is remains WP:OFFTOPIC within the scope of this article. It probably merits a well written and researched article unto itself. Anti-Semitism most certainly persisted, but Wikipedia's current articles surrounding the subject matter read as 'hoorah for Lenin and Trotsky' because they 'fixed it' until that ratbag Stalin came along.

Any argument about the number of reversions is moot. We all know that article content is not contingent on a !vote. It certainly doesn't boil down to "... already 4 editors consider this well-sourced, NPOV and extremely relevant. You are by far outnumbered in your opinion." shoved into an edit summary is by no means a substitute for a well discussed, policy and guidleline based decision based on discussions on the article's talk page. Please present you arguments, sources, and NPOV rationale for retaining this piece of synth here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Irina, I don't understand your interpretation of the text. Not simply the anti-Semitism was stopped but the "violent anti-Semitism". And this is correct. The reference to Trotsky and other Jews among Bolsheviks as the reason for stopping pogroms is currently unsourced. Either a source may be found, or this can be part can be rephrased. In general I consider this paragraph not COATRACK, but a closely related information. I already presented examples where events happened in the aftermath of something are still briefly covered in history articles (s. above). There was a period of many extremely violent anti-Semitic acts in Russian Empire and subsequently in Russia and Ukraine. This period started with the rule of Alexander III and ended with the end of the Civil War. This is how the major sources on pogroms treat it. A formal argument that Russian Empire ceased to exist in 1917 is insufficient for removing this information completely from this article. Taking into account the scale of the last pogrom wave one can create a separate article with more details, but still keep a short summary here, as closely related, and point to that article. One can also export part of the current text from Pogrom and from here into this new article. Or as long as the new article does not exist one can put a standard "main article" link at the beginning of this section to Pogrom#During the Civil War period in Ukraine. But a short summary of the events during the Civil War is in any case necessary here. And as far as I understand, the majority of the editors here support this position. Just to make it clear: I don't insist that the current text must stay here in exactly this form. I oppose the complete removal of this information. --Off-shell (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• So, what is the argument here, exactly? So far, I can see only one: "Russian Civil War was in former Russian Empire". Well, but this is simply ridiculous. By the same argument one could include here everything that had happen in the Soviet Union, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

References

1917-22

Multiple problems:

• only one source,
• The pogroms belonged to the civil war, which isn't explained.
• The bolsheviks also murdered Jews.Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. After all of the discussion above, the paragraph has remained in its original form, complete with being replete with loaded language. It's been a couple of months since Anthony Appleyard restored it in its entirety so that all editors involved in the discussion could see what was being discussed. Well, the discussion ground to a dead halt, and the entry remains the same. In all seriousness, who actually believes that "Petlyura's trident became the symbol of mass murders of Jews for over 20 years, until it was replaced by the swastika." is a balanced, encyclopaedic presentation? In what universe? I'm removing the section again until some sort of reasonable solution is found. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• So that people can see this paragraph, I am quoting it here. I have struck-out the sections that seem to be queried hereinabove. For the rest, the paragraph contains a reference. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Despite the period of relative peace, a third and final wave of pogroms began in 1917, lasting for about five years. This wave of riots was easily the bloodiest, leaving potentially tens of thousands dead. Statistics from this era are incomplete, but at least one thousand pogroms occurred, with 887 being reported as "major". They were typically led by units of both the decaying tsarist army and especially by the newly formed army of the nationalistic Ukrainian People's Republic led by dictator Simon Petlyura, as well as by numerous 'gangs', or local personal 'armies' of rebels like those of Makhno, Maksyuta, etc. There was a strong common belief among the Jews of southwest Russia (the Ukraine) that "Petlyura had killed the Eternal Jew." Petlyura's trident became the symbol of mass murders of Jews for over 20 years, until it was replaced by the swastika. The riots were massive, sometimes claiming the lives of thousands of Jews in a few hours. The total is put between 50,000 to 250,000. This wave marked the end of violent anti-Semitism in modern Russian history. It was stopped by the end of the Russian Civil War (1918-1922) won by Bolsheviks, who were internationalist and atheist by ideology and enlisted a relatively large number of educated non-religious ("ethnic") Jews (e.g. Lev Trotsky).

• Fine with me. I would also add the "see also" Wiki template in the beginning of this section pointing to Pogrom#Russian Civil War period. --Off-shell (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also good with the suggestion. I'm also in agreement with Off-shell regarding the hatnote. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just removed the use of 'dictator' as a descriptor for Petlyura. I'd been reading it as 'director', which was his official status, even though I've encountered a couple of heavily biased sources stating that he'd taken on the mantle of 'dictator', but completely bypassing the fact that this pre-dates the use of the term 'dictator' as with Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, yet connotes this loaded language in order that it be understood in that pejorative manner. The descriptor is not used in the source cited, nor have I found any any emphasis on this one (of many) mantles to be the dominant one outside of a handful of WP:FRINGE sources (and a couple of blogs and forums actually quoting from this article: i.e., WP:CIRCULAR) including a couple of other Wikipedia articles (not properly attributed, to boot), and is the subject of much discussion relating to these articles (see Talk:Symon Petliura). I'm not particularly fussed whether he's referred to simply as Simon Petlyura, or as director Simon Petlyura. Given that no other titles/positions are given in the section, I don't really think it's necessary to use his. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• This was also discussed above. I think all these materials should indeed be removed, but not because this is poorly written, but because the Russian Empire did not exist after February 1917. Hence this belongs to other pages, please. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• • This was indeed discusse above, and the arguments were provided for keeping this paragraph here. The majority voted for keeping this. Please, read that discussion first. If you still insist on removing it then start a new discussion with new arguments. --Off-shell (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? Any link? I do not see a single vote by anyone. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm now wondering why I conceded to this section being restored, even in a redacted form. Since nominating to make a compromise I was wasn't convinced was WP:DUE, I've realised that Antisemitism in Ukraine's largest section is dedicated to the self-same information in spades... as is the case with the Russian civil war article Off Shell asked to be linked... As has already been noted, this article is about the Russian Empire. This begs the question of why Anthony Appleyard and Off-shell are convinced that WP:ITSIMPORTANT for an article dealing explicitly with a period prior to the WP:TITLE to carry WP:OFFTOPIC content? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, obviously I need to repeat all my arguments given above:

1. The period starting with the rule of Alexander III in 1881 and ending with the end of the Civil War is known as the time of pogroms in Russia(+Ukraine). This is how the major sources on pogroms describe it (e.g. here).
2. For a history article, it is common and reasonable to describe shortly, as an outlook, events which are closely related to the main topic. For example, Roman Empire includes a section Political legacy describing the countries which emerged much later. This section includes a hatnote pointing to the main article on the subject. If the article here restricts its subject to a subperiod ending with the downfall of the Russian empire, it is necessary to provide an outlook on the subsequent events. So far, there is no separate article, but section Pogrom#Russian Civil War period plays its role. Therefore we give a brief outlook here and place a hatnote pointing to that page. If we removed this paragraph completely, the reader would get a wrong impression, that the period of pogroms ended with the end of the Russian Empire. In this particular case, it is even more important to mention it, because the subsequent subperiod overshadowed by orders of magnitude everything which happened before.
3. The Revision history shows that the same opinion is shared not only by me and Anthony Appleyard, but also by Cathry, 181.171.193.66, Mproncace (contribs), and Mlc1968 (contribs).
4. Anthony Appleyard and me fully accepted the critisism of several particular statements in the previous version, and the new trimmed version really left only a short mention of those events without going in any detail. The fact that some editors do not accept it altogether calling this WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, or WP:COATRACK, and that I need to repeat these same obvious arguments once again does not allow me to assume WP:GOODFAITH anymore for these people. I believe their real motivation is the desire to avoid any mention of the mass murders perpetrated by the Ukrainian People's Republic forces. Unfortunately, the current war in Ukraine turns any page on Ukrainian history into a virtual battle field. The best decision would be to let other people decide on this matter, preferably those who have no personal relationship to Ukraine or Russia whatsoever and never edited any article related to these countries. --Off-shell (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Off-shell: I've only just seen your comment, and find your perception of why there are editors (including me) deeming this to be OFFTOPIC deeply offensive. It appears that my belief that, while we don't always agree, there has always been a civil, respectful, and collaborative editing relationship between Anthony Appleyard, you, and I alone over the years. The articles where the information is relevant has never been disputed by any of the editors you are pointing your finger at, nor have any attempts been made to modify - or excuse - the level of atrocities perpetrated by Ukrainians against Jews: it's an horrific fact well documented at the relevant articles. You're pointing to drive-by and SPA editors who have !voted by means of poor edit summaries, not by actual discussion here. Bear in mind that the converse of your argument is equally valid given the high profile of recent events in Ukraine. What you are bringing to the table is not the point, but is WP:POINTy. The argument for UNDUE for this article still stands. Start an RfC, or whatever you wish. I've had jack of these insinuations. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, my opinion is based on the behaviour of the editors as seen in the history. When someone reverts edits done by 4 different people ignoring their opinion, there must be a very strong motivation for removing this information from the article as quickly as possible. If the motivation were simply to remove WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, or WP:COATRACK, then facing such a response one would start a discussion and, when a consensus is reached, arrive at the final version. I found this behaviour so destructive, that I found it necessary to revert several times urging to start this discussion in the first place. But the same behaviour continues now, despite the discussion. My opinion became even stronger when I saw similar edits on other pages like this. This was also appealing to "WP:COATRACK", and I really cannot take such arguments seriously. The current result is: for an unexperienced reader, the article suggests that the last pogroms in the region occured in 1906. This article was too short before and now it deteriorated even further, well on the way to reaching the same miserable condition, as many other articles on Eastern European history. --Off-shell (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That is when the last pogroms took place in the Russian Empire. It was no longer the Russian Empire. I don't know how that can be made clearer. You're also arguing that you are justified in edit warring, while it's every other editor who is wrong to do so because, somehow, they are the POV editors while you're not. You're not even discussing the editing history of this article, but are pointing to the Antisemitism in Ukraine article. Whatever needs to be discussed on that article needs to be discussed there. Instead, you're openly admitting that you want to stick content that isn't relevant to this article here in case how you want the content to read on other articles doesn't look exactly as you, personally, want it to read. Do I have to toss a WP:OWN into this? I suggest that you take your arguments to the talk page of the relevant article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As a P.S., try looking at Antisemitism in Russia and Antisemitism in Poland as a comparison between the 'antisemitism in' articles and how the subject is treated... then tell me that there's some sort of systemic bias pervading Wikipedia. I've only just done my own comparison and, yes, I agree that there is definitely bias... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

My opinion on editor's behaviour is based on the history of THIS article. My opinion was further justified looking at similar edits by same editors on other articles. (My opinion on many articles on Polish history is similar BTW.) It is not "my article". I simply found it unacceptable, that one editor reverts 4 other editors (not vandals) without starting a discussion with them, independently on who is POV or NPOV. As for the content, I think the discussed content is extremely relevant to THIS article, independently on other articles. A faithful historical account must show the events in the common history context. E.g. article First Servile War ends with "It was the first of three large-scale slave revolts against the Roman Republic; the last and the most famous was led by Spartacus." One can find many other examples of this kind. Here, even the Russian Empire ceased to exist, the pogroms in the region did not stop. If this is not mentioned in any way, this creates a skewed picture of the history. --Off-shell (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Academic book

Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History

John Doyle Klier, Shlomo Lambroza

Cambridge University Press, 12.02.2004 - 416 Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

1881-1884 pogrom casualties

The casualties section states 40 deaths from April to December 1881. What about the rest of the duration? Iapetus (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing/Adding to the article

The Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire could use some addition to the article. The article is missing the Jewish response to the pogroms, which might be a good contribution to the article. The article has a subsential amount of information on the pogroms and why they happened in the first place, but by adding a part about the reaction of the Jews living in the Russian Empire at the time might clarify the relationship between the Jews and the Russian/Ukrainian people. The source that I am planning on using is a text by I. Michael Aronson called Geographical and Socioeconomic Factors in the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia' Aronson's article talks a lot about the response of Jew's to the pogroms. If there is anything else I could add to this topic or if anyone has any comments on my edits please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Thank you. Valeriya2601 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Valeriya Lozovan

References

Valeriya2601, that sounds promising, just watch out for typos and grammar please. Chapmansh (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing The Article and Adding A New Section

I plan to add some more detail to form a better understanding of the role that the railroads played.After reading an article my Michael Aronson called "Geographical and Socioeconmic Factors in the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia, I learned that Russia at the time was becoming more industrialized, causing Russians to be moving into and out of the major cities. People trying to escape the big cities carried their Anti-Semetic values with them, spreading these ideas throughout Russia and causing more pogroms in different regions of Russia. I also would like to add a new section to this article on the daily relationships betweens Jews and Russians, and the outcome of these relationships relating to pogroms in Russia. From the same article I learned that there were many Russians who were out of work and relied on Jewish employers for jobs. I would argue that the relationship with Jews and Russians day in and day out was peaceful, with the exception of Anti-Semitic acts in certain areas through out Russia. Please feel free to give me any feedback or let me know if you agree of disagree with any changes or additions I plan to make!Jonah12431 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Jonah Tipp

References

Welcome aboard, Valeriya2601 and Jonah12431! Please feel free to develop the content of this article as you see fit. If there are any issues with the content, or any problems you might encounter, there are a number of experienced editors watching this article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jonah12431, I'm a little confused: why did escaping from the big cities lead to more pogroms? Did anti-Semitism stem from the city, then? And where do the railroads figure into that point? Also, please watch out for grammar and typos. Otherwise, looks promising.Chapmansh (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing/Adding to the Article

I am planning to add some more information about the influence of the pogroms as well as the opposing views on whether the pogroms spread from the villages to the towns or vise versa. I will be using an article by Michael Aronson, "Geographical and Socioeconomic Factors in the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia". As the section of Influences of pogroms on this wikipedia article mentions,there were harsh laws established after the pogroms of the 1880s. One of these laws was the May Law (1882), which prevented Jews from moving into villages. The High Commission for the Review of Jewish Legislation had some members who viewed the law as just and some viewed it as unjust. The opposing views originated from the argument of where the pogroms had started and spread from (village to town or town to village). If anyone wants to comment on the changes I plan to make please comment on this talk page or on my talk page! Thanks (Emily2710 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC))

References

Why editwar?

This is absurd, Wiking. The scarequotes are both confusing and a violation of MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Why do you choose to editwar and demand "discussion" instead of just fixing it, if you "know" what it's supposed to "mean" anyways? Just do the right thing and stop being disruptive in article space. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Per MOS:SCAREQUOTES, the potential issue with quotation marks is that "the writer is distancing herself or himself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression". That's not the case here - rather, they are used to distinguish non-specific "Jews" from either specific people or from the Jews collectively; in Russian, which I speak natively, quotation marks would be used similarly. However, due to your objections, I have expanded the section a bit and added more references. I doubt that further details would be appropriate for this article, and don't want to overemphasize this in Alexander II of Russia#Aftermath either. --Wiking (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wiking: Thank you for clarifying. The issue had nothing to do with "distancing", though—in the context, they could—as one example—imply a group being called "Jews" who were not actually Jews, when the rest of the article makes clear the target was the Jews (not "the Jews"). The point is, quotemarks load the quoted phrase with many conflicting interpretations (irony? sarcasm? distancing? some other non-standard meaning?), and the wording in an encyclopaedia article should not be ambiguous. It certainly wasn't clear to me, as a reader, how I should read it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

1742

I came across https://legallegacy.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/december-1-1742-empress-elizabeth-orders-expulsion-of-jews-from-russia/ which claims:

December 1, 1742 – Empress Elizabeth Orders Expulsion of Jews from Russia

When she ascended the throne, she proclaimed that “The Russian people have been groaning under the enemies of the Christian faith, but she has delivered them from the degrading foreign oppression.”

In futherance of that goal, on this day in history, the Empress issued an Order of Expulsion against all Jews in Russia except those prepared to adopt Christianity. When the city of Riga submitted that consideration should be given to the losses that would ensue for the merchants of the city through that expulsion, the Empress wrote with her own hand: “I do not wish to obtain any benefit or profit from the enemies of Jesus Christ.”

Part of the impetus for this action resulted from the outcome of one of her wars with Sweden. Russia had acquired the Baltic territories of Livonia and Courland, which were inhabited by a fairly large Jewish population. Annexation made them all Russian subjects, but the Empress did not want them at all, much less the prospect of their leaving the provinces and coming into Russia proper.

Is this true? Russian Empire says it began 1721 so why wouldn't this be included at the start of the article? Instead the earliest instance is 1821. Unihoof (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This sounds true.

Also see the Tottenham Outrage for the usual background of Jewish "revolutionaires" in Russia and elsewhere. Zezen (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Main photograph

The photograph displayed in the lede does not in fact show victims of one of the pogroms. (Westerhaley (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

Yes, it does. It shows victims of a pogrom in Dnipro. It's right there in the picture's source.--37.142.166.198 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It was actually a photograph of victims of the Bolsheviks. (Westerhaley (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC))

Where is your evidence for that? Until you prove this, leave image in article.--Shapur Palab (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Modern Russian historians have determined the photograph actually showed victims of the Bolsheviks. (Westerhaley (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC))

Which "modern Russian historians"? You need to provide a reliable source for your claim.--Shapur Palab (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple historians have determined the photograph was taken later than it was earlier believed. (Westerhaley (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC))

"Multiple historians" isn't good enough. You have to be specific. On top of that - historical revisionism is prevalent in Russia, and it greatly undermined Russian historiography.--Galassi (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It was found to be a fake photograph used by the Bolsheviks as propaganda. (Westerhaley (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC))

Found to be by who?--Galassi (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Russian historians. It was faked as propaganda by Bolsheviks who wanted to overthrow the Romanovs. (Westerhaley (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC))

Got sources?--Galassi (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)