Talk:Alfonse Pogrom

Riot?

The term "Pogrom" is extremely inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.8.211 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I question whether "riot"/"rioting" is the correct term here. Uri, AFAICT, does not use riot to describe the events (which he does describe as organized violence) in his account. My understanding is that the Tsarist narrative was to cast these (and other events in the revolution of 1905) as "riots" (as well as usd "subversives"), whereas the revolutionaries/militants/activists describe this as revolutionary actions or violence against the Tsarist regime (seeing the "thieves" or "pimps" as part of those in the fold of the regime). Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll note that this seems deliberate by Ury - as he does use riot elsewhere - e.g. on page 130 (right after the section on Warsaw 1905) he uses a anti-Jewish riots to describe the widespread (through the Russian empire) pogroms that kill a few hundred in October 1905. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Common sense suggests it was a riot. There were lynchings, there were beatings, there were murders, there was looting and property damage. It does not seem to be organized by Bund party, more like spontaneous action by some low rank activists, so I don't find the argument it was some kind of revolution or planned action convincing. We can call it 'violence', pogrom is common but problematic, and IMHO riot is a common sense and simple English description of this. I am hardly endorsing Russian Empire gov't view point, but sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

In riot we are implying that the violence was unorganized or spontaneous - whereas the description seems to be quite organized (bands forming, and purposefully attacking certain places of business). Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Riots are not pure chaos. Bands forming seems to be normal in many riots, it's not 'everyone for himself', and riots can be focused on some targets more than others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Conflicting narratives

Looking through sources, I see a number of different conflicting narratives here:

1. Framing this as Bund against Jewish pimps (legals and illegals, I think!). e.g. Ury or Engelstein are examples of this.
2. Illegal vs. Legal prostitution - the illegal pimps targeting the legals. e.g. - here. In this regard - those who claim this tend to say that only forty legal brothels were destroyed - whereas other sources state 100 (and above) apartments would would probably include illegals.
3. Polish (non-Jewish participation on either side) - seems to be present in some of the Polish sources, I don't quite see it elsewhere.
4. Framing this as some sort of "anti white slavery" / impropriety (usually tied into (1)). e.g. Engelstein.
5. The (failed) Russian attempt to organize a counter-pogrom - seems missing from many sources.

Ury's account that "Although accounts differ over the exact origins and course of the violence, most renditions concur that bands of Jewish workers went from brothel to brothel for several days ransacking property and assaulting both prostitutes and pimps" (bottom of page 126 through 127) confirms that there are different accounts here - but also stresses a commonality (Jewish bands attacking brothels). All this being said - I think we should, besides this point of commonality, attribute each different narrative - as it would seem that this is a case in which sources we would generally consider reliable for history (academically published by specialist authors) disagree on details/narrative (possibly since accounts from the 1905 revolution are sketchy and conflicting to begin with). Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I tentatively agree with you, through I am not sure what can be done. Feel free to clarify/attribute the narratives in text further, clarity is always good. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Antony Polonsky, the pogrom came about because of competition between legal and illegal brothels, with gangs associated with the illegal brothels going on a rampage against the legal brothels. "In Warsaw competition between legal and illegal brothel owners led to violent attacks on the legal brothels in May 1905 by gangs associated with the illegal trade, which eliminated most of their legal competitors. The view that this was a political action organized by the Bund, a reaction of Jewish workers to the exploitation of Jewish women, cannot be sustained given the documented participation of the criminal underworld and the fact that only licensed brothels were affected.” Polonsky, The Jews in Poland and Russia, vol. 2 (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2010), p.93. So query as to the accuracy of the introduction to this article.Tatzref (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And other sources, e.g. the recent Ury who treats this at some depth, do not even mention an illegal/legal aspect, have a higher apartment destroyed count, and frame this as a worker/Bund action. We probably should attribute both (and there might be a third "White slavery version" per my reading) in the lede - I did so in the body.Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Referring to Polish Christian participants in the intro places undue weight on marginal participants. It also distorts the proper characterization of the events, which were essentially clashes between various Jewish factions. That is how the pogrom is characterized by all leading sources -- Bristow, Polonsky, Ury, etc., none of whom even mention the participation of Polish Christians. The participation of some Polish Christians is appropriately mentioned later in the article. It should not be in the intro.Tatzref (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Polish partakers in the violence should be attributed IMHO, as they are missing in many sources. It may merit a lede mention - briefly - depending how many sources mention them (so far, I have only seen Polish language sources refering to aome joining in).Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Jakubczak - Jewish/Catholic prostitution rates

I made this edit, as the previous text implied Jewish madams oversaw mainly Catholic prostitutes. This is not borne out by the source, which reads: "Jak wykazała Sikorska-Kulesza na podstawie analizy rejestrów z końca XIX w., na terenach Królestwa Polskiego i Warszawy w oferowaniu usług seksualnych przodowały Polki wyznania katolickiego: 72,7% w stosunku do 21,36% Żydówek. To właśnie w Warszawie jednak odnotowano najwyższy w całym Królestwie Polskim odsetek udziału żydowskich kobiet w prostytucji12. Co więcej, Żydówki w nieproporcjonalnej liczbie pełniły funkcje prowadzących domy publiczne. W 1889 r. aż 75% domów rozpusty prowadziły żydowskie madamas13.". The source specifically contrasts the situation in Congress Poland overall (72.7% Catholic prostitutes) to the situation in Warsaw specifically (once, per Sikorska-Kulesza - the highest, the second time - by providing a madam statistic for Warsaw from a different source). Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I belive you are translating the text wrongly, she says that Jewish women were overrepresented in Warsaw in prostitution, the text about brothels is in seperate sentence, and madams aren’t prostitutes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The 72.7% refers to Congress Poland overall (her first sentence). The second sentence contrasts Warsaw to the overall rate - saying higher. The third sentence (sourced to a different page range (20 pages or so) in her source (footnote 12 vs. 13)) refers to madams in Warsaw. Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that given Jews were 34% of Warsaw's population in 1897 - 21.36% would be an under-representation (whereas 75% is approx. over-represented by a factor of two). Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There’s nothing about madams in Warsaw, if you have any sources about Warsaw madams and Jewish women percentages in this trade, feel free to present them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The third sentence is a run-on continuation of the second sentence (whose subject is Warsaw), and would seem to refer to Warsaw.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Pimp pogrom

In Polish, "alfons" simply means "pimp". The article should, accordingly, be retitled "Pimp pogrom", which would convey the correct sense in English.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is also in bad need of editing by someone with access to the sources. For example, what does the following mean?

"While in Congress Poland and Warsaw overall 72,7% prostitutes were Catholic and 21,36% Jewish, in Warsaw the rate was much higher." What rate was higher?

Nihil novi (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed - diff. I have misgivings on the use of that (and other) non-English source and that particular factoid, but I think I corrected it now - the proportion of Jewish prostitutes in Warsaw was higher in relation to the rest of the country. Look at English sources, it seems to me that "Alfonse pogrom" is the COMMONNAME (most lead off with it, and then say it means pimp). Whichever way the article is titled (Alfonse or pimp) - we need the other one as an alt. Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree about WP:COMMONNAME. Pimp has different connotations in different parts of the English speaking world. In it's broadest sense it means someone who exercises control over and benefits from the prostitution of others, so the owner of a brothel is a pimp. In New Zealand and parts of Australia where brothels are legal, a pimp is someone who works outside the law, usually using coercion and violence. In the UK, to avoid ambiguity the term 'pimp' was dropped from UK law 150 years ago. To make things worse Pimp redirects to Procuring (prostitution), which is not quite the same thing. Because pimp means different things to different people I don't think the article title should be changed. --John B123 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Alfonse pogrom does seem to be the COMMONNAME of the event. I think it is sufficient to explain pimp=alfons in the lede. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the authentic Polish term "alfons" is spelled without an "e" at the end, please consider dropping the gratuitous "e".

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why but every single book I see that discusses this in English is using "Alfonse". Please see sources, they should be clickable-through to the original text(s). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The origin and uses of the name "Alfons" in Polish are discussed in the Polish Wikipedia article, "Alfons".

Variants of the name include: Alfonso (Spanish and Italian), Alfons (Dutch, German, Catalan, Polish, and Scandinavian), Afonso (Portuguese), Alphonse, Alfonse (Italian, French, and English), etc.

Foreigners like to adapt names to forms familiar to them. The Czech artist Alfons Mucha appears on the English Wikipedia as "Alphonse Mucha".

I see no reason to alter the authentic spellings of most names.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The question here is the WP:COMMONNAME in English (particularly given this is an event with quite a few English sources covering it) - if English sources use "Alfonse" - so do we. Polish - or Yiddish for the matter - spelling is irrelevant here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought the "authentic" Polish spelling was "Alfonsów" as in the Polish version of this page Pogrom alfonsów --John B123 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"Alfonsów" is the genitive, or possessive, plural of "alfons". "Pogrom alfonsów" means "Pogrom of the alfonses".

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The Yiddish spelling is probably more relevant in the PRIMARY source material (this being in the Jewish side of town, which spoke and wrote in Yiddish) - and is probably what set the English COMMONNAME. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

Recently, some lower quality sources have been introduced to this article. Specifically - [1] is some sort of local Warsaw freebie newspaper / internet portal (plwiki entry) - I am unsure whether this even qualifies as reliable at all for anything (such freebie newspapers elsewhere have a poor reputation), but it is definitely much lower quality than published academic sources. It is presently cited 13 times. WP:NOENG is policy, and it states - English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. In this case several in-depth (longer than our present article) published academic English sources are available - and I would question the need here for non-English sources at all. A source such as naszemiasto - shouldn't be used at all given better quality sources are available. Finally - different sources conflict on the details of this event (and they openly state so - e.g. the intra-Brothel sources explicitly say they disagree with the "anti white slavery / impropriety" sources. Likewise on casualties) - when different sources disagree - we attribute. We don't WP:SYNTH into a single account that is not supported by the disagreeing sources. Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - Scott Ury devotes some 4 pages to this - pretty in-depth - longer than our article. He, and other sources framing this in a Bund context, disagree on any legal vs. illegal aspect. Furthermore, asserting that warszawa.naszemiasto.pl is a "high-quality scholarly source" - is beyond counter factual. This is a freebie Warsaw newspaper. Per WP:NOENG - we prefer English language sources. And per our general WP:V and WP:NPOV practices - when sources disagree on details - we attribute. In this cases sources clearly state their disagreement with each other (referring to one another, referring to conflicting accounts). Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not referring to "Nasze Miasto," there are plenty other top-notch sources cited. Please stop putting words into my mouth. The academic Scott Ury in his brief analysis doesn't say that there were "NO" Christin Workers. It appears to be your OR, and I see no conflict between scholars. GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I examined the rest of the sources again, none declares a lack of Christian workers. Please point me to the reference that claims the absence of Christian workers in the riots, as per your dismissal and eventual removal of sourced data here.[2] GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all - I did not remove. I noted all the different versions in the lede (e.g. Bund / sexual slavery as opposed to legal / illegal. The possibility of Christian workers joining in). There are several in-depth English language sources available - none of them mention Christian workers and state this explicitly as an action by Jewish workers (e.g. Ury - who per my reading frames this as only Jewish Workers). When sources disagree - we attribute or present the different versions. Nasze Miasto (a local freebie newspaper) is used extensively in the text a present - over half of the article's sentences are sourced to it - this is not a reasonable source by any stretch. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, you removed it and you did it twice. Here[3] and later here[4] without citing any sources that say " there was no Christian workers participation in the riots". Several in-depth, top-notch academic sources accessible (not Nasze Miasto) - all declare Christian workers participation and none states otherwise. The source you keep referring to just does not discuss it, but doesn't say there were "no Christian workers participants". Again, please point me to the source that clearly states that - No Christian workers participated in the riots. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I left it in - "Sources differ on participation of Jewish and possibly also Christian workers.". We have some sources saying just "Jewish workers" (or Bund). Other sources state otherwise. The correct thing to do in such a case - is to attribute. If one source says "just A", and another source says "A+B" - this is a conflict - a source explicitly saying "not B" is not required for this to be a conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you entirely removed it from the lead twice[5] and later here[6]. And replaced it with "Sources differ on participation of Jewish and possibly also Christian workers" but later in the article, not in the lead. If the academic documents clearly note the participation of Christian workers in the riots and none (again - none) claims otherwise how come you attributed it with the word "possibly" and changed the entire description in the lead? This is your OR unsupported by any source. If you are unable to provide a source that declares lack of Christian worker participation then perhaps you can point to the source that says "possibly”. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A minority of sources mention Christian workers. Some sources disagree on workers all together - Polonsky asserts this was illegal pimps attacking legal pimps (whils Ury, and others, disagree on the legal/illegal aspect - saying workers (Jewish in the case of Ury) attacked legal and illegal brothela) - per Polonsky (and a few others) - this was not workers at all (Jewish or Christians) - but a fight between pimping group. There are at least three different versions - all of these versions should be in the lede - but attributed as a different version of events.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Not true. I'm assuming you didn't count, so I did it.

• 8 references devoted particularly to the 1905 pogrom claim the participation of Christian workers (and criminals).
• 4 references dedicated overall to different topics mention the pogrom itself but don't go into details who participated.
• 0 (zero) sources claim lack of Christian participation in the pogrom.

This sentence in the lead "The violence caused significant damage and death, reports on casualties and circumstances vary" resolves the other issues already. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

First off - the article is at present packed with non-English sources some of which are of a dubious nature (e.g. naszemiasto) - WP:NOENG is policy - and we prefer English - there are many in-depth English sources available for this topic, and they should be preferred and used. A source doesn't have to say "not Christian workers" - if it presents a different narrative - then it is in conflict. In particular the line of argument by Polonsky (and a few other sources that share Polonsky's POV) which frames this as an attack by criminals (illegal pimps) against legal pimps - precludes workers all together. As for the casualties - I think we can state 15 deaths per Ury (who says this is the most reputable) - I haven't seen higher estimates (there is a lower one - at 8). Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• The current sentence in the lede - " three-day riot in Warsaw, started by Jewish Bund labor-party militants, joined subsequently by Warsaw workers, Christian and Jewish,[3][4]and by common criminals." - doesn't fit with Polonsky's and others version of gang violence. Polonsky isn't available online, but see - Blobaum page 88 - he states this was by "ransacking of the public houses by gangs associated with the illegal trade, eliminating most of their legal competitors". In the footnote - he rejects Engelstein's interpretation of Jewish workers. In this version of events - the Bund and Jewish (or Christian workers) aren't involved at all. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note: Dismissal of scholarly references based on ethnic grounds is against Wikipedia policy.[7] ( Quote:Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia). GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Allowed yes, however per NOENG - English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance - in this case we have sufficient high-quality English academic sources which per NOENG should be preferred. Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What "sufficient" mean? :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiktionary: sufficient. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that I wasn't understood. Let me rephrase it then. :) Who determines "sufficient" (sources)? GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE Tag

A tag [8] is being added to the page with limited justification and is clearly UNDUE. We reflect, on Wikipedia, mainstream references, if you have an objection against a particular source(s), please use a proper noticeboard WP:RSN.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ONUS on you for RSN - Nasze Miasto (a freebie newspaper) will be laughed out of there. As for the tag - it was placed as some RSes - e.g. Polonsky and Blobaum - state this was only criminal gangs - and not the Bund or workers. When RSes disagree (in this case the sources openly stating they disagree with other RSes on this) - we attribute and descirbe each different version.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on those who seek to keep it. All academic sources covering the topic in details, match quotes there. Most authors have made similar claims in peer-reviewed settings. In light of all the references presented, your cited source does not support the revision you are trying to perform. [9]. Removal of sourced material and replacing it with WP:OR is unaceptable. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I am good with diff. I followed on with diff - which places all the different possibilities (which were SYNTHed into one combined collection - despite some sources disagreeing (e.g. those who state it was just the illegal pimps) - next to varying accounts. Your thoughts here? Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, would it be correct to say that all sources agree on one thing, namely that 'Jewish workers' were the main group that was involved in this incident? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

When this article was created, I used to think so (working off Ury and a few other sources), but then saw that Polonsky, Blobaum, and I think others subscribe to the notion this was mainly or only illegal pimps (this is a coupled with a claim that only legal brothels were torched - they also disagree on the number of destroyed establishments - from 40 (mainly in the legals) to 100 or over a 100 (per my reading - with illegal apartments)) - other sources disagree on participants and on targets (claiming also illegals were destroyed). I don't think it is correct to say that all sources describe this as Jewish workers or Bund. (sources do, however, at least agree that is was mainly Jewish) Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition of a tag that is widely misused by editors as a tool to push their own POV --John B123 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Alfonse Pogrom

Feel free to comment on the DYK page - I hope both proposed hooks are fine to everyone? And let's try to keep the article stable so it is not discarded from the Main Page due to edit warrings or such, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: ALT1 possibly has factual issues (the The Devil's Chain: Prostitution and Social Control in Partitioned Poland takes the anti-sexual slavery POV) given conflicting sources. In terms of using "and" - if we roll with ALT1, we probably should modify "and" to "and/or". Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible photograph addition

Can this photo be added to the article? [10] (Szpitalna street after the pogrom) What’s the procedure to find that out? GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Almost certainly PD. Your bigger problem is whether that Facebook page is a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)