Jump to content

Talk:Pogrom/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Let's discuss

Since my additions have been twice reverted with a jovial 'let's discuss'

  • Let's discuss these proposed insertions one at a time, per WP:BRD. (TW)) (undo) (Plotspoiler)
  • (let's stick with Britannica for now, and discuss the rest of these proposed (Jayjg)

and I have discussed my views and heard nothing apropos from either, I've created this section in order to allow the two, and any others, to 'discuss these insertions'. Please gentleman, follow on from your promise to discuss the insertions.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If no credible arguments are brought by those who have reverted, your good faith and well sourced edits should remain. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The lead should state what the term currently means before delving into past incidents of its usage.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
No one has 'delved into past incidents of its usage,' (a phrase that is, by the way, meaningless, since it is totally obscure what an 'incident of usage' is supposed to mean. You have not given an argument.
The lead does not follow the source, Enc Brit, which has 'either approved or condoned by authorities', a key element in many definitions. No one allows me to fix this. Why? I'm still waiting for intelligible arguments from the other reverters, as promised.Nishidani (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You are conflating aspects of its traditional usage with its contemporary application, and these must be clearly delineated.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, to which specific proposed insertion are you referring? Your comment is non-specific. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well actually, the reverts, being blanket reverts, failed to be specific. A reverter should explain what is wrong, and justify the ejection of material he has reverted off the article, I should think, especially when the sources are (a) perfectly RS and (b)on topic. I'll just leave it to other editors to see if the material I added here and here is useful, and judge whether it warrants inclusion or not, since I am not prepossessed by the argument, and have little time.
To sum up. The definition used ignores the 'organised' which still is in the Enc Brit. source. If you use that source (and the OED) properly, a problem arises. I can see why that has been elided: i.e. the classic pogroms studied by Weinberg and Klier et al., turn out not to be 'organised' by authorities. I added the 'usually' in the lead because the RS say this aspect, contained in many RS definitions, is now discredited as a 'myth'. My intervention here was to reformulate per RS the definition in order to be comprehensive, nuanced, and not allow any contradiction between the definition as given in a source you all accept, and what modern scholarship now argues.
By suppressing 'organised' in the EB source, one deftly sidesteps the problem, but only at the expense of refusing to properly transcribe the full definition given in that source. I don't think this is the way one should go about editing. When a problem like this occurs, one should search for definitions which are more sophisticated and up-to-date. Tutto qua.
I would suggest in any case that editors who look often at this page, examine the long essay what was a pogrom? in John Klier's recent Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882, Cambridge University Press, 2011 pp.58-90, and harvest it. I would have done this, but since my judgement is so often greeted with suspicion, I'd probably have to spend too much time on the talk page trying to 'justify' the source, my selection of material, where it is placed etc.etc. rather than simply including what his admirably synthetic essay notes. So the best I can do to help out is refer editors to what I added earlier, and to an excellent RS they can cull as they see fit to construct a better page.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "suppressing 'organised' in the EB source etc." implies willful misdirection/misrepresentation. If you wish to propose specific insertions in a way that does not violate WP:NPA, WP:TPYES, and WP:AGF then I'm all ears. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It was preceded by 'I can see why that has been elided. 'I can see' in English means 'appreciate' in the sense of understand. 'wilful misrepresentation' is not therefore the point, though I can see how my words can be construed to read that way. By 'deftly sidestep' I meant, an awkward problem is there which is avoided nimbly by dropping two words, so that the real contradiction in sources is avoided. That is a matter of creating a sense of conceptual comfort, rather than an issue of 'suppressing' some awkward truth. I happen to think (yes an Personal judgement on an RS source) that Oncenawhile's RS is wrong, since 'pogroms' are not always 'genocidal massacres': many failed to exact a toll of victims when Jewish resistance forces fought back and armed themselves. Klier has some extraordinary (to me) cites remarking on how rioting peoples in Eastern Europe, beating up Jews, in what were pogrom like activities, only turned murderous when in fact or rumour, Jews did what any decent person would do, i.e. took up arms and shot or hit back.

‘Every pogrom where there was serious loss of life was marked either by the use of firearms by Jews or by the rumour that they were shooting into crowds.'John Klier,Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882, Cambridge University Press, 2011 (ch.2:‘What was a pogrom?’) pp.58-90 p.67

They expected their carnivelesque brutality to be unopposed, and in so far as Jews just took it on the chin, wouldn't normally murder them (this is the sort of weird mentality that explains why anthropologists now read, and it is distasteful personally to me, to have to take it this way, many incidents of pogrom as Easter ritual carnivals of what Gide called 'gratuitous acts' of violence, whose intensity tipped into murderousness if the 'Jew' didn't 'control himself' and behave as the ritual required, i.e., as a victim). (René Girard's scapegoat theories are appropriate).
It would help the article, as with antisemitism, if one realized that every definition, and piece of material, in complex historical matters, represents a scholarly interpretation, that the scholarly community is often divided on definitions themselves and should be edited in this light. The range of definitions of 'pogrom' range from those that insist they are organised, to those that insist they were not, but rather spontaneous. I fail to see why editors find this problematical. If you have key definitions that differ substantially in their terms, because scholarship is divided over an issue, you provide a range of definitions covering all bases. To stick with one definition, arbitrary, against this evidence, lends itself to the impression that WP:NPOV is being ignored. To lose sight of this, and allow personal sensitivities or antipathies to dominate exchanges, does an injustice to the page. The arguments, in their variety, are far more interesting than our personal differences.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, 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." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.. To be specific, your comment included an attempt to discredit Nishidani by providing an arbitrary interpretation of his intended implications which is not supported by the wider tone of his post. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, 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.". To be specific, your comment includes nonsensical turnspeak that makes claims about my comments that are entirely invented, while ignoring the clear statements Nishidani has made. Please make more accurate Talk: page comments. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As above. I haven't time to edit here, but could you all read Klier, who can be harvested amply for many things on pogroms missing in this article, on matters that should not evoke controversy or personal disputes between editors? Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Paragraphs removed

I have moved two paragraphs from the article as pasted below:

There were pogroms too in the nineteenth century in the Arab and Islamic worlds. There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828.[1] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867.[1] In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. This is known as the Allahdad incident. It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted.[2]
The Damascus affair occurred in 1840, when an Italian monk and his servant disappeared in Damascus. Immediately following, a charge of ritual murder was brought against a large number of Jews in the city. All were found guilty. The consuls of England, France and Austria as well as Ottoman authorities, Christians, Muslims and Jews all played a great role in this affair.[3] Following the Damascus affair, pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa. As well as Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), pogroms of varying degrees of intensity occurred in: Aleppo (1850, 1875), 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).[4]

I have not been able to find any WP:RS which define these events as pogroms (The Ariel Center for Policy Research is definitely not an RS!).

If any editors feel strongly that these events are commonly known as pogroms, please could you provide sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the material for now, in part because there's no evidence that the Ariel Center for Policy Research is not a RS. I'm going to replicated a statement I made a week ago on another article talk page:

In the past few days a series of edits have been made which give the appearance of attempting to find sources that narrowly define a "pogrom" as something which must be antisemitic and genocidal, and which cannot occur during a war, and as a term that is sometimes "misused in an inflammatory way" (e.g. [1]). The intent appears to be to very narrowly define the term, and thus justify the removal of the description "pogrom" from various anti-Jewish attacks made by Muslims or Arabs, or in Arab territories. (see, for example, the following edits: [2][3][4][5][6][7]). Since this is no doubt unintentional or a simple misunderstanding or error, perhaps the individual making these edits can explain the actual reason for them. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue has become even marked in the past week - further sources are being sought and added specifically because they refer to pogroms as "antisemitic" (e.g. [8][9]), and now various anti-Jewish attacks made by Muslims or Arabs, or in Arab territories, have been removed from this article. Going forward, we're going to have to try to stick to representing what the majority of reliable sources say in common regarding pogroms, rather than simply searching for sources that describe them as "antisemitic" and selectively attempting to remove any attacks on Jews committed by Arabs or Muslims. Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The Ariel Center for Policy Research, a far right politically alligned policy institute, doesn't have to be proven to be unreliable as a WP:RS for a technical issue like the history of pogroms and what are pogroms. Anyone foolhardy enough to suggest that it is, what at first sight and close review it is certainly not, i.e. an objective source for historical information, should try to convince the appropriate RS forum to get consensus. The burden of proof lies with those who suggest there is nothing problematical with that kind of propagandistic factoid mill. I suggest Oncenawhile take this there. I'll bet my bottom dollar it won't pass muster.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, please confirm you believe that the Ariel Center is RS. If so, I will take it to the RS forum as suggested. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Ariel Center is not the only source that describes these events as pogroms. For example, The End of Faith states:

These and other indignities have been regularly punctuated by organized massacres and pogroms: in Morocco (1728, 1790, 1875, 1884, 1980, 1903, 1912, 1848, 1952, and 1953), in Algeria (1805 and 1934), in Tunisia (1864, 1869, 1932, and 1967), in Persia (1839, 1867, and 1910), in Iraq (1828, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1946, 1948, 1967, and 1969), in Libya (1785, 1860, 1897, 1945, 1948, and 1967), in Egypt (1882, 1919, 1921, 1924, 1938-39, 1945, 1948, 1956, and 1967), in Palestine (1929 and 1936), in Syria (1840, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1967), in Yemen (1947), etc.

It's a far more extensive list - would you prefer that one be used? Jayjg (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, please confirm you believe that the End of Faith is RS. If so, I will take it to the RS forum. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, The End of Faith, which spent 33 weeks on The New York Times bestseller list, and was winner of the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction, is a WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_End_of_Faith. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Neither the Ariel nonsense nor Sam Black's book has any status as RS for an historical issue or a linguistic issue like that of pogroms. It simply won't do to cite extra-specialist works on key terms when there is a huge academic literature on the subject.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

structure of definitions section

My adding of subsections is an attempt to help guide readers (and us as editors) through a complex subject. Jayjg amended the structure yesterday, which i thought was helpful. My further addition was intended to build on that to be constructive. I do not understand the objection - of course there is room for improvement, so build on it! Oncenawhile (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The sub-sections artificially divided material that was not distinct - for example, your "Origin" subsection included phrases like "usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries", and then your "Victims of pogroms" subsection included similar phrases such as "[t]he word... is usually encountered in the experiences of violent anti-Semitic outbursts in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia". Artificial distinctions that don't actually distinguish aren't helpful for the reader. Our audience is better able to read the four paragraphs in the existing version without the headers. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This topic is complex. It is clearly helpful to have a better structure. Three thoughtful subsections are better than none. They help us to structure our edits, and they help readers to navigate. We can make the text more distinct if you like - it seems that will deal with your objection. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, the material in the section was not complex until the "structure" added unhelpful and misleading complexity. The sub-headings are decidedly worse than none at all. They do not help to "structure" anything, as is pointed out above. There is no need to make the text "more distinct", whatever that means, since the material itself is fine, and requires no further "distinction". Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
We disagree then. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The previous arbitrary structure was poorly thought through and material over-lapped within the paragraphs. Please deal with editors' concerns such as the artificial indistinct divisions as opposed to stating a classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT response with a terse, "We disagree then."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph

The first paragraph does not appear to follow any particular source:

A pogrom (Russian: погро́м) is a form of violent riot, a mob attack directed against a minority group, and characterized by killings and destruction of their homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers. It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century attacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire

It takes bits from Britannica, leaves other bits out, and then adds further colour.

We could make it conform to britannica fully, but that would be a copyvio unless we said "Britannica says", which is never a good way to start a wiki article.

Views? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a summary of the article, per WP:LEDE. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please point to the sourced sentences in the article to which you are stating that it summarizes. In my opinion, it does not reflect the article, either now or before the recent additions. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The second sentence paraphrases Britannica; do you have a specific issue with it? Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is not an accurate Paraphrase - see discussion above. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
In what way is it inaccurate? Jayjg (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
See my explanation above in the section "Antisemitic". Oncenawhile (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What does the word pogrom imply? (RFC)

A number of articles on wikipedia have been amended in recent years to include the word pogrom in their title. In most cases, these are articles about highly politicized events. It would be helpful to have opinions from the community with respect to what this word implies about the event that is being described, and therefore when the word is appropriate, and when it is not. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The term "pogrom" can be applied to events that are referred to as pogroms in reliable sources, if they are not referred to as such, they should not be referred to as such on wikipedia. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Good question. The problem relates to a number of articles which do not have an obvious commonname. These politicized incidents have many secondary sources commenting on them. Some sources use the word pogrom, and others don't. Sometimes it's obvious if pogrom is applied by most sources, other times it's obvious they don't, but the majority of the time it's very difficult to agree what the majority of sources say. The question is whether and what the word implies - reaching agreement on this point will help us work out when the word is being used in a neutral sense vs when it is implying something about the event which may not have been established in the sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem (for me at least)arose when I noted some months back that Chesdovi created three articles, and built up another by Greyshark‎, retrojecting the specifically modern term pogrom back into the past, to give thumbnail accounts of incidents where Jewish communities suffered from violence: 1517 Safed pogrom,1517 Hebron pogrom 1834 Safed pogrom and 1838 Safed pogrom
The objections are obvious(a) few, if any sources, use the word 'pogrom' for these 4 events (b) if the principle used here (pogrom= any assault on a Jewish community by an ethnic majority) were just, then all examples of Jewish communities suffering persecution, plundering and violence over the millenia can bear the title pogrom (c) this principle goes against RS usage as the guideline and defies the generally accepted usage of the term. Our article here writes-

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries".[7] The term is also used in reference to attacks on non-Jewish ethnic minorities; reviewing its uses in scholarly literature, Werner Bergmann proposes that pogroms be "defined as a unilateral, nongovernmental form of collective violence initiated by the majority population against a largely defenseless ethnic group, and occurring when the majority expect the state to provide them with no assistance in overcoming a (perceived) threat from the minority."[8] The 1919 Morgenthau Report argued that the term pogrom was inapplicable to the conditions existing in a war zone, and required the situation to be antisemitic in nature, rather than political.[9] Philip Herbst states that the term has sometimes "been used loosely, and according to some, misused in an inflammatory way", particularly in reference to attacks that are not "organized or officially sanctioned".[10]

Wiki is not definitive, but the overall drift here suggests Chesdovi's stubs (and the incidents are so underreported those pages cannot but remain stubs) are both WP:OR, and instrumental in their use of the word pogrom to describe several premodern instances of razzias where Jews suffered. I think all of those articles, even if retained, should be retitled. Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
To add one other point on the articles which Nishidani refers to - the sources on these events generally do not suggest that the attacks were carries out on the ethnic minority because of their ethnicity, which this article suggests is a prerequisite for the correct use of the term pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what the word "implies". All that matters is WP:COMMONNAME, or how the event is typically described by WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I gather then that, since in the four articles I cited, the WP:COMMONNAME is not 'pogrom', that we are all agreed here that the four article headings must be altered to conform to policy on this. Thanks. Unless there are objections, then anyone with the technical knowhow to change article names should go ahead and alter them. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It does if the implication is disputed or fringe. The word is loaded with subtext that a word like riot or massacre is not (just look at all the different scholars quoted in this article who try to explain it in different ways), so its helpful if we have an agreed position on what the implications are. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It only matters what reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies say. It doesn't matter if a Wikipedia editor "disputes" what a pogrom is, and we can't invent our own criteria based on different definitions. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, repeating doesn't make your statement any more insightful. You're missing the point - i've bolded it above. Now back to the issue at hand. A specific question has been asked here - if you don't like the question, you don't need to participate. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Plot Spoiler's points are completely accurate and worth repeating: All that matters is WP:COMMONNAME, or how the event is typically described by WP:RS.. I've bolded it here because that is, in fact, the only bolded material here that is relevant to policy. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jayjg, do you not agree with my suggestion that if you don't like the question, you don't need to participate? It would be better for wikipedia if you hold back and let uninvolved editors comment on the question being asked. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm just going to ignore your irrelevant questions and speculations about how various editors might feel, per WP:NPA. It would be better for Wikipedia if you hold back from these kinds of policy violations in the future. Jayjg (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
For some reason my name is mentioned as one who created / developed "pogrom" articles, but i was merely developing articles on violent events in Ottoman Syria, without using the word "pogrom". The Great Safed Plunder was for example just recently renamed into 1834 Safed pogrom and i'm not in favor of using the term "pogrom" for this event. I also don't prefer "pogrom" for 1517 riots/massacres in Safed/Hebron. Pogrom sounds as retrospective implementation of originally Russian term for much earlier events in a different location. The same way Alexandrian riots were nicknamed pogroms by some user, but i'm not sure it is a correct term per WP:COMMONNAME, even though those indeed were genocidal massacres of the 1st century CE.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Greyshark. I thopught Chesdovi was responsible for this 'retrojection' of the term into articles where most sources don't use it. Before saying that, I checked the edit history and found, as you now note, that you had created one of them. I should have checked the name you gave Great Safed Plunder had been changed to one that used 'pogrom'. My sincere apologies then. I concur with your reasoning. This is a complex issue, and the use of 'pogrom' (even in the instance of the Egyptian riot mentioned by Pliny in this article, is contested by many scholars. One must proceed, case by case, with the terminology used by the sources employed to construct articles. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Terrific. Two of three quotations in the definition, the most authoritative ones, show that pogrom has strong overtones of antisemitism. Chesdovi is caught out using the word, in WP:OR style, of premodern events. How do you resolve the problem? Get rid of antisemitism in the lead, and have several support that. Farcical. None of the serious objections have been addressed.Nishidani (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely correct - sadly, certain editors seem to prefer not to address the question. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, please review WP:COMMONNAME - that's the only "serious objection" that hasn't been addressed here. Oncenawhile, 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." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg. I posted detailed comments on this page before editing in an impeccable source to the article, whose definitions were patently inadequate. Instead of reverting while not responding to my reasons on this talk page, while advising me in the edit summary to talk about my reasons for edits on the talk page, please respond to what I wrote above. Thank you. Your idea of 'serious objections' is not an adequate answer. WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with the issues raised in this section. Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This section is about how to name articles. The relevant guideline is WP:COMMONNAME. I have no idea why you think your latest comment is relevant; I certainly don't see it. Jayjg (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion appears to have resulted in some WP:Wikifogging. Views from other uninvolved editors here on the basic question would be very helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your admitting to WP:Wikifogging; please do not engage in it in the future. Regarding your insertion:

Paul Mojzes wrote that the word pogrom is more nuanced than "riot" and that a more accurate meaning is genocidal massacre[5]

Mojzes doesn't write that "genocidal massacre" is a "more accurate meaning" - he gives a more lengthy and nuanced discussion of the term. Please cite sources accurately. Jayjg (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


  • I think, especially for the titling of articles, the definition should be very very narrow. Yes to 19th- and (early) 20th-century organized group attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire. All others must display multiple reliable sources that the title used on the article is the accepted scholarly name, or if none available, at least the only common name, for the event the article covers. It's not a term that should be lightly used in an article title, any more than "Lynching" in an article title. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


It won't be going in the lede, because the lede summarizes the article, it doesn't introduce new material. Rather than causing pointless edit-warring over WP:LEDE violations you introduce, why don't you discuss if first here? Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The second half of your post was a comment about contributors, not content. I am not even sure what it means - I have discussed it here first! As per your suggestion I will add to the main article. Then let's discuss he lead in the section below. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The second half of my post was not a comment about contributors, and I did not suggest you "add to the main article". Please make more accurate Talk: page statements. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of including exact quotations in footnotes, to assist in the verification process. That is however, only relevant when the material is not quoted in the article body itself. In the case of this article, material from a book was quoted verbatim in the article itself, in relevant sections, so it doesn't make sense to also quote the exact same material in a footnote, and I'm concerned about what position this puts us in regarding copyright issues. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be right in theory (although I doubt it given how clearly it's sourced, and that it has a clear fair use rationale) but when you restructured the section you deleted sentences out of both quotes without stating in your comment that you did so. Of course, i assumed good faith. So rather than challenge the bits you deleted, I figured it might be easier just to leave the full quotes in there as frankly it's helpful for readers to see them in context. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Which specific sentences were "deleted", and what do you think they add in terms of verification? Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You deleted them, please provide an explanation for your actions. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Please review the first comment in this section, which does exactly that. Jayjg (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Please provide an explanation for the deletion of the two sentences you removed altogether. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Which ones were those? Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop this. You deleted them - please look at your diff. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I've explained why I removed the quotes from the citations, above. If you think something important has been left out, please state exactly what it is and why. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. You have only explained part of your edit - you have still to explain why you deleted part of both quotes in this edit. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That edit is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is the removal of quotations from two footnotes. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of text from two quotes

Jayjg, please could you explain why you deleted part of both quotes in this edit. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

To which specific text are you referring? I can't see what has been deleted. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It was in this edit which you made. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I still can't see what's been removed, sorry. Can you quote it/them? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
You should be more careful when you make edits then. I assume from this you are happy for me to add back the sentence you removed in to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No, if any were removed, then there was likely a good reason. Since you seem intimately aware of (and concerned with) specific quotations which you insist were both removed and should be restored, it seems remarkably tendentious to talk about them in roundabout ways for over a week now while refusing to actually quote them. This kind of time-wasting is the kind of thing that eventually ends up attracting administrative attention. Rather than wasting even more time in expressing non-specific concerns about material which concerns you, please just quote the material you think was removed, and explain why you think it should be returned. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
..."there was likely a good reason"? The WP:ONUS is on you here. Please explain your deletion. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Here, let me be clear about this. I can't see what material to which you are referring, but I know that I always make my edits thoughtfully and for good reason. You clearly know the specific material that you think has been removed, yet you have (for over a week) refused to quote it. I'm not sure what point you think are making here, but if your next response is more time-wasting, rather than simply specifically quoting the material you'd like to add, then I'll take this for administrative action. Is that clear enough? Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Engel material

I've moved some inserted material from a book by Aaron Hughes here for discussion:

Aaron Hughes wrote that majority of the incidents habitually tagged as pogroms display shared characteristics, such that they "took place in divided societies in which ethnicity or religion (or both) served as significant definers of both social boundaries and social rank, ... involved collective violent applications of force by members of what perpetrators believed to be a higher-ranking ethnic or religious group against members of what they considered a lower-ranking or subaltern group, ... appliers of the decisive force tended to interpret the behaviour of victims according to stereotypes commonly applied to the groups to which they belonged, ... perpetrators expressed some complaint about the victims' group, ...[and] 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."<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AUYQ8JQ-iM0C&pg=PA19 The Invention of Jewish Identity: Bible, Philosophy, and the Art of Translation, By Aaron W. Hughes]</ref>

To begin with, the author is actually David Engel - that's a perennial problem with briefly scanning google snippets looking for keywords as opposed to reading actual books, one often inserts the wrong author name. In this case, it's also the wrong book title; I leave it to the inserter to discover the book's actual title. Regarding the material itself, the chapter from which it comes is quite interesting, but I'm not sure this summary really captures the author's meaning - in part, because the author concludes this section of material with the statement: "Please note: I do not claim that these features, taken together, constitute the essential defining characteristics of a "pogrom"." Yet that is exactly the impression given by the insertion! If we're going to make good use of this author, and we should, then we need to do so with care to ensure we get basic things right, like the author's name and book title, before we even attempt to summarize what author is trying to say. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not continue to stand for these personal attacks ("that's a perennial problem with briefly scanning google snippets looking for keywords as opposed to reading actual books, one often inserts the wrong author name"). You don't know anything about my research style, so I suggest you refrain from making further assumptions.
As to your points:
(a) title and name: thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix. It's good news because David Engel (historian) has excellent credentials.
(b) summarization: to be clear, I had also noted the "please note" statement, and had therefore attempted to summarize the source as closely as possible. hence the carefully worded introduction "wrote that majority of the incidents habitually tagged as pogroms display shared characteristics" which follows closely the way Engel introduced it himself. I cannot suggest any improvement as this was my best effort - if you think still think the impression given is misleading, please suggest an amendment.
Oncenawhile (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If you actually have a copy of the book, and have read it in its entirety, then I'll be happy to admit I was in error. Until then, please note what Engel says: Please note: I do not claim that these features, taken together, constitute the essential defining characteristics of a "pogrom". Why have you attempted to use as a definition something Engel states is not a definition? Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Your question is rhetorical. Please confirm whether you intend to make a suggested amendment. If your comment is not specific, it cannot be addressed, and therefore your comment is not valid. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
My question is not rhetorical, and is quite specific. Please respond. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You question relates to "why I attempted to do something" that you believe I attempted to do. That is focused on me, the contributor, rather than the content. The question is not appropriate.
Please confirm whether you intend to suggest an amendment to the text. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The question about why you did something was to provide you with an opportunity to justify adding an apparent definition when the author himself says he is not defining what a pogrom is. As such, it's quite obviously solely about article content. You are not obliged to avail yourself of that opportunity, but you cannot create a definition out of material the authors disavows as one. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "wrote that majority of the incidents habitually tagged as pogroms display shared characteristics" is accurate to the source. The author wrote that these characteristics are not necessarily the "essential defining characteristics". It is a subtle distinction. Please clarify your intention - do you intend to help reach a resolution here? I have made a proposal in my edit, I need a specific counter proposal from you. Please confirm. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It is difficult to reach a resolution when faced with equivocation in response to specific questions. You inexplicably dismissed a valid query as a rhetorical question before unduly claiming that it formed a personal attack. Finally, you have posited a peculiar specious distinction to this significant question. I shall ask again: Why do you see fit to include statements that the author definitively rejected as constituting a definition?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I have answered that question above. The quote was used with an introduction that was accurate to the source. It did not seek to give any other impression. Please focus on the content rather than "why I saw fit". I can't answer that question directly with any other answer than "I didn't", because my edit was in good faith. We are not going to be able to resolve this without focusing on the actual content. I have all the time in the world if you would like to keep going round in circles. But it would be better for wikipedia if you just make a proposal to amend the proposed text so that you're happy with it. The source is quality scholarly research, so your efforts to find a compromise would be worthwhile. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be better for Wikipedia if you didn't insist this article must use as a definition something the author himself disavows as a definition. Jayjg (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. I do not insist that at all. Please confirm whether you intend to make a proposal to amend the proposed text so that you're happy with it. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How will "amending" the text help with the problem that it is being added to the definition section even though its author says it is not a definition. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK - thank you. If i understand you correctly, you aren't objecting to the way it was written, just its placement in the article. How about a new section called "Characteristics"? There are quite a lot of other sources that talk to that topic - for example the "organised" vs "unorganised" debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"Characteristics" in this context is just another word for "definition". Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The author says that the events he listed "display a suprising number of shared characteristics" but that "that these features, taken together, [do not] constitute the essential defining characteristics". So the author disagrees with you. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
His statement has nothing to do with mine. Furthermore, if he states that that these "shared characteristics... [do not] constitute the essential defining characteristics", then why would we cite them in a "characteristics" section? It's the same as the disavowed "definition"! Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems you are not familiar with essentialism. What the author is saying is that "that majority" of pogroms have these shared characteristics, but that these characteristics are not all "essential", for the reasons he explains in the rest of the essay. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
"It seems you are not familiar with essentialism" is a statement about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, what the author is saying is that "that majority" of pogroms have these shared characteristics, but that these characteristics are not all "essential" (see essentialism), for the reasons he explains in the rest of the essay. Do you agree with this interpretation? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What leads you to believe the author is presenting characteristics that are "shared" but not "essential"? Why would we mention characteristics if they are not essential? Also, since "characteristic" in this context is identical with "definition", why would we cite a non-definition as a definition? Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Because the author writes the events he listed "display a suprising number of shared characteristics" but that "that these features, taken together, [do not] constitute the essential defining characteristics". Engel is a high quality RS on this topic, so his views on the shared characteristics are additive to this article. Your argument is self-defeating. You say "Why would we mention characteristics if they are not essential?" - what you should be asking is "Why would Engel spend a few pages mentioning characteristics if they are not essential?" Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
"Shared characteritics" that the author disavows as not "constitut[ing] the essential defining characteristics", and definitions that the author as disavowed as definitions, appear to at best be confusing, at worst imply an authority and meaning that the himself author denies. "Additive to the article" isn't a rationale for adding material. There's no point in speculating on why Engel did things, but we need to have a rationale for why we do things here, and it must be policy/quideline-based. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The policy is WP:RS. Here, an excellent RS thought it appropriate to devote a number of pages to these shared characteristics. It is appropriate for us to summarise this excellent RS. If you think the summary is imperfect, i implore you to amend it. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:RS is not the relevant policy, since we all agree that the source is, in general, reliable on this topic. However, just because something is reliably sourced, that does not mean it must be added to an article. On the contrary, Wikipedia articles are deliberately kept to a limited size, and must be written in a way that is appropriate for a general purpose for an encyclopedia. If you think this material should be added, despite the fact that the author himself has disavowed it in more than one way, then you must provide a specific rationale. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Specific rationale: Engel's description of the shared characteristics of pogroms is the best I have seen in it's breadth and lucidity. The heart of this article is about describing what a pogrom is, and this author describes it more throughly than those in the article already. I agree that it should be appropriately caveated, and suggestions remain welcome. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The author insists that, despite your view that his description of the shared characteristics of pogroms is the best I have seen in it's breadth and lucidity, his description does not "constitute the essential defining characteristics". Therefore, the objections raised in my comments of 23:59, 24 April 2012, 01:13, 25 April 2012, 22:56, 29 April 2012 etc. still remain unanswered. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
As previously noted, your argument does not hold water because if the author thought that that statement negated the value of the text, then he surely wouldn't have written it. If it is good enough for Engel, it is good enough for us. Do you have a specific issue with the proposed drafting. We could caveat it further if it would help reach consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
As previously noted, an editor cannot contradict an author's explicit statements by doing original research on what the editor thinks the author really meant. Since it's not good enough for Engel, it's not good enough for us. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It is absurd to say "it's not good enough for Engel" when he devotes multiple pages of thoughtful discussion to it.

Anyway, we stalled here because I was hoping to encourage you in collaboration here. All I asked was for a suggested amendment. Engel is clearly an excellent source for this topic.

I'm going to drop my pride and do it myself with a carefully thought through proposal. Feel free to revert me as you wish. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased to note that we appear to have found a method by which we can actually work together constructively. However, it has taken us about three weeks to get to the bottom of one paragraph. I have analysed this method below, and made an alternative suggestion:
  • CURRENT METHOD ("The GBOOAS method"): I make a bold edit, you revert it and point out on talk anything negative you can see. You do not mention anything positive (i.e. "constructive"). I defend it and ask for clarification, you respond with more negatives, acronyms and questions but limit any constructive remarks and do not make a counterproposal. Indirectly you provide some clues as to what you may be able to accept. The cycle of discussion repeats and continues until those clues paint enough of a picture for me to have another go at editing the article.
  • PROPOSED BETTER METHOD ("The counterproposal method"): I make a bold edit, you revert it and provide a counter proposal on talk. I provide another counter proposal, you do the same, we move closer to the middle and reach agreement.
What do you think? We could continue with the GBOOAS method if you like but it seems inefficient. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The current method is better, because it helps ensure that all additions are in line with policy, and are for the purpose of improving the article, rather than proving a point. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

It is not appropriate that Jayjg insists on reducing the Miszabot autoarchiving on this talk page to a one week timescale (see here with an unclear talk comment, here as an undo and here with an inappropriate talk comment on this page, and interestingly also here on a different page). Jayjg, I respectfully request that you gain consensus for such adjustments while active talk page discussions which you are involved in are going on. It would be fine if you were an uninvolved editor, but otherwise it is a potential conflict of interest. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is growing quickly, and active threads will not be archived. Your comment did not voice any specific objections other than "Jayjg did it", and it would be more constructive if you would expand upon this.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I would also recommend you review the contents of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. When an article editor adjusts archive parameters of that article's Talk: page to more sensible settings it is not a "conflict of interest". On the contrary, it's almost always the editors of the article who do so. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to learn best practice from the AE discussion. What would you like to do to resolve this dispute? Open an RfC? Go to mediation? Or perhaps you could just take my objection as proof that you do not have consensus for this change and put it back to the way it was. While we are in heavy active edit mode, it is simply not appropriate for early archiving. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You want to have an RFC or mediation over how frequently this paged is automatically archived? Also, please keep in mind that when a page is "in heavy active edit mode" is exactly the time when one increases the frequency of archiving, and to repeat, active threads are never archived! Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I am suggesting having a broader discussion over whether it is appropriate for anyone to change the timing (a) whilst they are involved in all of the recent talk discussions which may get archived; and (b) in the face of opposition. It feels very wrong to me. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this demonstrates both a misunderstanding of how automated archiving works and a combative attitude over any change, no matter how minor or sensible, that has plagued this article. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Since we disagree, am I not correct that reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO is appropriate? Or is your view more correct that mine? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there a possible compromise position we could agree on here to allow everyone to get back to working on content? Dlv999 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd be very happy to compromise. In the interim, I have asked for views at User talk:Misza13. It would be good to get a proper view on this, as this is not the first time this has happened... Oncenawhile (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
There are currently 11 separate discussions on the Talk page, not all of them active. As has been stated before, active threads will not be archived, and even if this dreaded eventuality does occur, threads can be plucked from the archives and revisited. The archive repository is not a neglected corner in the dusty Wiki loft, crammed with bin bags overflowing with decaying musty discussion.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I have this same issue with Jayjg on Circumcision. I am constantly searching the archives and new editors keep bringing the same topics because of our over active archive bot. This seems like a tactical maneuver to maintain the status quo and limit discussion, something that is contrary to the spirit of the wiki. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(coming in as uninvolved from Misza13's talk) May I ask what would be the goal of keeping the original timing? Are there going to be active editors which will miss these threads?

Shortening the time when a page starts getting lengthy is fairly standard practice. Oncenawhile, I'm not seeing how Jayjg could be gaining a vantage in talk page discussions by doing this...is there something that I'm missing? I would recommend that you suggest a compromise if you are worried about editors missing threads (10-14 days?).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming in to discuss this Berean Hunter. It's not just about the timing, but also about the minimum number of threads which has been set at 4. To answer your questions:
What tactical advantages could be gained by aggressive archiving (for the avoidance of doubt, these are not intended to apply to any editor in particular, and any similiarity in editing style should therefore be seen as purely coincidental):
  1. If an editor is in support of the WP:STATUSQUO, they may make "tactically indirect" talk page comments which do not deal with the actual issue, thereby delaying dispute resolution. When this is done repeatedly, discussions can fizzle out to the advantage of the "tactically indirect" editor. But the point remains open. If archiving occurs too quickly, the discussion gets "filed away" before other editors have a chance to turn up to break the deadlock
  2. If a debate turns into a heated dispute, neutral editors will analyse talk page comments to take a view as to how the issue began. Archiving too quickly may mean that the initial talk discussions get filed away, which may skew the perspective of the comments. An example from last week is when in an AE discussion, the admins involved did not notice that two weeks before a number of edits which turned up the heat on an article, objections had been set out on the talk page - it wasn't noticed because that thread had already been archived.
  3. It is sometimes convenient for editors to do a u-turn on their debating positions. Archiving too quickly can allow such u-turns to be brushed under the carpet.
  4. Some comments are open questions, intended to remain open until such time as an editor who has the information arrives. Some editors may prefer those questions were never answered.
  5. A number of our readers habitually read the talk pages, as they can be as interesting as the articles themselves. If a page is "over-archived" it may give the impression that there is consensus for the current version of the article in situations where there are many unresolved issues.
  6. Some editors can only edit "once in a while". Over archiving disadvantages such editors versus those who can edit every day.
To your point about standard practice:
  • WP:TALKCOND says "archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 200 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". So a minimum number of threads of 4 is not standard practice
  • WP:ARCHIVE says "Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on a talk page other than your user talk page." (which was not gained recently at Talk:1929 Palestine riots)
  • WP:BRD suggests standard practice is to discuss after disagreement is shown via a revert and clear edit message. That was not the route taken by the editors here or on the 1929 article.
Hopefully this explains why I feel strongly about this. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Concerning gaining consensus on archiving per WP:ARCHIVE, it sounds good but it has been rare for me to see it come about that way and the vast majority are bold implementations by single editors. I never ask and out of oodles of pages that I have archived, I have only ever had one editor protest...an ownership issue and he was relatively alone on his article's talk page. WP:TALKCOND is a guideline that is rarely followed; I just looked at five article talk pages at random in my watchlist and they ranged from 4 to 6 threads which is practical and less weary than the longer pages. I'll give you those pages if you would like.
Concerning archiving too quickly, those threads won't archive unless no one is actively discussing them. I would recommend the best way forward as seeking a compromise on the archive time and # of threads. Another alternative is letting a neutral third party monitor and adjust the archiving as needed based on discussion activity. If people rarely edit and the pages they chose to edit are highly active that is their loss; they can't expect others to wait on them.
An example of uninvolved admin adjusting archiving on a busy page
What would the editors here like to do?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not a major issue and should not have escalated to this extent. I am amenable to your previous suggested compromise of 10-14 days, although this might need further adjustments if more threads develop.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Ankh, you are not sufficiently "independent" of this debate to propose whether this is a "major issue" or whether it should have been "escalated to this extent". Oncenawhile (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I am bemused at your assertion that my constructive suggestion constitutes a misrepresention of my independence. My previous comments are clearly written above, and I was responding to "what would the editors here like to do" by expressing my agreement to the proposed compromise.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I have no problem with your second sentence starting "I am amenable to your previous suggested compromise". I am simply taking issue with the sentence before that. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Berean Hunter, I understand your point but I think the example you gave was simply not comparable. The Meredith Kercher page is the 37th biggest talk archive in all of wikipedia at 5,600kb (see WP:Database reports/Talk pages by size), versus this one at about 230kb (including the two archives) and 120kb for the 1929 article (including its archive)
Having said that, I don't think this is really about numbers - 7 days vs 10-14 or 4 threads vs 10. It's about hindering or helping the improvement of an article. I'd be grateful for your thoughts as to whether over-archiving can hinder discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It may be possible to manipulate archiving to gain a vantage but I don't see it here. If the compromise of numbers isn't viable for you then I suggest my latter recommendation of having a neutral party come in and make a judgment and adjust the archiving. I would recommend Wwoods if he is willing because he does this all the time (he has been made aware of this thread, already).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The guidelines say 50k, this page was well over 80k, and it's still over 50k. And you're right, all this nonesensical time-wasting about "tactically indirect" comments and archive times, and reflexive reverting or opposing anything I do, is hindering the improvement of an article and Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I looked at the page history. The page isn't huge, and doesn't seem to be growing, so 7 days seems a bit short. As long as a talk page isn't the site of a raging dispute, I lean toward long deadlines -- a month or more. I suggest raising the limit here to 10 days, and see what happens.
On the other hand, remember that discussions aren't being erased; they're in the archive for referral as needed. So there's no need to keep many discussions here long after they've died; 4 sections is the minimum needed to automatically generate a table of contents.
—WWoods (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for coming in Wwoods. I am happy to go with your compromise solution for the sake of getting on with things.
I'd be grateful if you could humour me by answering one question before you go. That is, do you think there is a small possibility that some editors can gain a tactical advantage by early archiving?
I like things to be neat and filed away as much as everyone else. On these two articles in question, none of us will ever know if the editors were actually seeking a tactical advantage - the move is so subtle. But I would have thought that whilst a dispute is heated, we should err on the side of caution to ensure that no editor is advantaged or disadvantaged in any way. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Heated disputes don't have stagnant threads for 10 days.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I am referring to an overall page being heated, resulting in a number of threads being opened by the same group of editors. Some of the threads fall behind, not because they are closed but because we don't have unlimited amounts of time. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that another editor has suggested there may be some "tactical" archiving going on -see Talk:1929_Palestine_riots#Archiving and Talk:Circumcision#Tactical_archiving. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that there is no such thing as "tactical" archiving, a phrase that combines equal parts conspiracism and bad faith. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Are you saying that you believe none of these theoretical situations mentioned above could possibly exist?
  1. If an editor is in support of the WP:STATUSQUO, they may make "tactically indirect" talk page comments which do not deal with the actual issue, thereby delaying dispute resolution. When this is done repeatedly, discussions can fizzle out to the advantage of the "tactically indirect" editor. But the point remains open. If archiving occurs too quickly, the discussion gets "filed away" before other editors have a chance to turn up to break the deadlock
  2. If a debate turns into a heated dispute, neutral editors will analyse talk page comments to take a view as to how the issue began. Archiving too quickly may mean that the initial talk discussions get filed away, which may skew the perspective of the comments. An example from last week is when in an AE discussion, the admins involved did not notice that two weeks before a number of edits which turned up the heat on an article, objections had been set out on the talk page - it wasn't noticed because that thread had already been archived.
  3. It is sometimes convenient for editors to do a u-turn on their debating positions. Archiving too quickly can allow such u-turns to be brushed under the carpet.
  4. Some comments are open questions, intended to remain open until such time as an editor who has the information arrives. Some editors may prefer those questions were never answered.
  5. A number of our readers habitually read the talk pages, as they can be as interesting as the articles themselves. If a page is "over-archived" it may give the impression that there is consensus for the current version of the article in situations where there are many unresolved issues.
  6. Some editors can only edit "once in a while". Over archiving disadvantages such editors versus those who can edit every day.
Anyway. To try to centralise this debate properly, I have formalised an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving_talk_pages. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Please review the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest you review Ignoratio elenchi, but I suspect you are very familiar with it. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitic

I have removed "antisemitic" from the lead because clearly not all pogroms were antisemitic. The lead section itself has examples of pogroms that were unrelated to Jews, such as the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you were too hasty - that's not what the sentence was saying. I'll repaste the sentence below:
It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century antisemitic attacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
Are you saying that you believe that the pogroms in Russia that the english usage of the word originally refers to were not antisemitic? This article might help you: Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire.
Or, to focus on a different part of the sentence, can you please explain you views as to when an "attack on Jews" is not anti-semitic? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
If the two are synonymous, there is no need for the pleonasm in the lead.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
If you are using pleonasm because I introduced it in our conversation on my page, you misunderstand it. Pogrom was originally used predominantly of anti-Jewish riots. Like all words, the restricted meaning was loosened and generalised to denote a generic phenomenon. More importantly 'Pogrom' and 'antisemitic', the former a noun and the latter adjective, being functionally different, cannot be classed as synonyms, and therefore their combination cannot be an example of 'pleonasm'.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
If have seen outrageous cases of wp:own on Wikipedia but you are the first to have the audacity to extend it to individual words. I am baffled as to why the accuracy of its usage is contingent upon "If you are using pleonasm because I introduced it in our conversation on my page".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't own words, I use them, and correct myself and others when they are used solecistically, as you did here to justify a poor edit. That is the crux, not my joke about our exchanges on my talk page, where I frequently had to notify you of your misuse of terms not in common usage. If one backs an edit with remarks that are obscure or inaccurate, the judgement for the edit is skewed. So please try to give comprehensible policy-adequate reasons for what you do round here. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Moreover, the mixing of the definitions of various sources is WP:SYNTH, and the source itself is a 1919 report, which hardly meets the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jayjg, but you are mistaken. The source being in my edit is here Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century, Paul Mojzes.
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.
This is WP:RS, and very clear. Please clarify your objection to this source. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, Ankh and Jayjg, please could you confirm whether your comments above mean that you are both encouraging the removal of the term antisemitic from any article where it may have been used unnecessarily? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Noone has responded to my quote above, nor has anyone explained why the proposed additional word is not appropriate. In the absence of any comment, I will add the word back in, in the context above. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It has already been explained that while one specific source may use "antisemitic", clearly not all events called "pogroms" are antisemitic, and other sources use the more general (and accurate) description of "attacks against Jews". At best this fairly unique definition restricts the overall description in a way that's incompatible with other definitions. See also WP:SYNTH. Please stop adding obviously inappropriate material. Jayjg (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
...that's not what the sentence was saying. I'll repaste the sentence below:
It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century antisemitic attacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
Please comment on the proposed inclusion of the word in THIS sentence. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The source used doesn't describe them as "antisemitic". In fact, very few reliable secondary sources do. Mixing the definitions of two different sources that say different things would be WP:SYNTH. Please also review previous comments in this section. Jayjg (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's do this slowly. We can take as much time as you need.
  • THE SOURCE: 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
  • THE EXISTING TEXT: It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century attacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
  • THE PROPOSED TEXT: It originally and still typically refers to anti-semitic 19th- and 20th-century attacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
Now, please explain, in non-technical terms for simple people like me, without the use of any wikirules, why you believe that the source doesn't justify the addition of the word anti-semitic in the sentence. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not the source. The source is Britannica, which describes it 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." It says nothing about antisemitism. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure? Let's compare:
  • THE EXISTING TEXT: It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century attacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
  • THE SECOND PROPOSED SOURCE: The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
They don't look too similar to me. So, what should we do? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You're quoting the lede, which is a summary of the article, and which summarized Britannica. It doesn't summarize material you've attempted to introduce after it was written. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so in this context, please explain your earlier post which quoted WP:SYNTH. Where is the line between "summarizing an article in the lead" and "mixing the definitions of two different sources"? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH would apply if the article were to use Britannica as a source, paraphrasing it, and then an editor searched Google books for other definitions that used the word "antisemitic" or "antisemitism", with the view of adding the word "antisemitic" from those other definitions to the existing one. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not an accurate paraphrase. The first sentence adds extra facts not in britannica. The second sentence (above) does not have the same meaning - "originally and still typically" is not the same as "usually". Oncenawhile (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The second sentence is the one that paraphrases Britannica. The term pogrom was originally used in English to describe attacks on Jews (well attested from this article), and "typically" is a synonym for "usually. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, what is your source for the first sentence, and what is your source for your statement above that "The term pogrom was originally used in English to describe attacks on Jews"? I have put a few we could use at the bottom of this talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't write the first sentence, but it seems a reasonable summary of the article. Do you object to any part of it? Regarding the sentence "The term pogrom was originally used in English to describe attacks on Jews", it's now cited to Klier, using a footnote that already existed in the article. Problem solved! Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
On the first sentence, I think we should source it - we have so many good sources. On the second, the Klier source doesn't follow the text in the article as well as Mojzes (see above). Your objection to the Mojzes source was WP:SYNTH - but you now appear to have done the same with Klier? Please can you explain? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
John Klier writes "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." The text in the article and lede follows that quite well, and Klier is a vastly more reliable author on the topic of pogroms than Paul Mojzes. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
That Klier quote is out of context without his next sentence "Yet when applied indiscriminately to events in Eastern Europe, the term can be misleading, the more so when it implies that "pogroms" were regular events in the region and that they always shared common features". So, if you are not comfortable with Mojzes, we will need to find another quote to support it. What about a source for the first sentence - do you have one? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The second sentence is not part of the definition, but rather a statement about how some people apply the term to events he doesn't think warrant it. Klier is a good source, so the second sentence is fully supported, and will neither need nor be having endless further discussion on the topic. Regarding the first sentence, it's a summary of the article contents. Is there something you object to in it? Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with your interpretation. You have taken the statement out of context. So the second sentence remains without an appropriate source.

As for the first sentence, most reputable sources qualify such a statement more carefully. The first sentence needs to accurately reflect the complexity of the word. Currently, it is far too simplistic in light of the wealth of sources we have which explain the word much better. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence is fully and adequately sourced, as shown clearly above; further non-factual claims to the contrary are disruptive. I will not responding further on this topic, as it is settled. Regarding the first sentence, is there something specific you object to in it? Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of any rule in wikipedia which suggests that one editor in a discussion can unilaterally declare the discussion settled. Nor am I aware of a rule which suggests that cordial disagreements violate WP:DISRUPT. I suspect these rules do not exist. You are welcome to get a third opinion on this.
In order to be helpful, I will summarise my issues more clearly:
  • You said above "The source used doesn't describe them as "antisemitic". In fact, very few reliable secondary sources do. Mixing the definitions of two different sources that say different things would be WP:SYNTH. Please also review previous comments in this section."
  • It was then proven that (a) many sources refer to the Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire as antisemitic; (b) "mixing the definitions of two different sources" was perfectly acceptable when it refered to your interpretation of Klier.
  • You then unilaterally added the Klier source, and suggested it was the end of the discussion, despite the fact that your entire reason for reverting my original edit was disproven.
  • In light of the huge number of sources provided, on this page and on Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, no valid reason has been provided to exclude the word antisemitic from the sentence as proposed above.
  • The first sentence remains unsourced, and fails to accurately reflect the complexity of the word. My issue is not with what is there, but with what is not there.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
So there's nothing specific you object to in the first sentence? Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Please respond to my points above. I respected your question and spent time and effort answering it thoughtfully. If you want to contribute here, please respect my points by responding to them. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Please respond to my previously raised (and unsanswered) question of 22:58, 29 April 2012 . Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It was answered. See the last bullet of my response 23:02, 29 April 2012. I have been as specific as I possibly can. Please can we move this debate forward. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Your "response 23:02, 29 April 2012" did not list anything specific in the sentence to which you objected, but rather listed general objections to the sentence. Specific items would include words, phrases, etc. in the existing sentence to which you objected, or which you felt should be changed. Please review the meanings of the words "specific" and "general", and respond to my previously raised (and unanswered) question of 22:58, 29 April 2012 . Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
What policy suggests that "general issues" such as "The first sentence remains unsourced, and fails to accurately reflect the complexity of the word" are invalid? I have responded to your question with everything I have. Now please respond to the points I made in my post of 23:02, 29 April 2012, which remain unanswered. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Citations are not mandatory in ledes, unless there is something controversial included in them. Is there anything specific you object to in the first sentence? Any word or phrase you think should be changed? Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I can illustrate it best through the words of a scholar: "Pogrom" implies an entirely different constellation of factors than "race riot.". The first sentence clearly fails to accurately reflect the complexity of the word conveyed by all the scholarly RS. Now please respond to the points I made in my post of 23:02, 29 April 2012. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be improving the first and second sentences along these lines. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you were able to actually "improve" the sentences, then I wouldn't object. However, it was you who insisted that a source that described pogroms as a kind of "race riot" be included; now you insist on including a source that says the opposite. This is manufactured controversy, intended not to enlighten as to the term's meaning, but rather to undermine the entire concept of a pogrom. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The elephant in the room

With this diff, Jayjg has kindly exposed the elephant in the room underpinning this entire debate - that he believes there are ulterior motives to some of the edits being proposed. I think it might help us to move forward here by talking about this head on.

Jayjg, you can believe whatever motive you like, but you have sized me up wrong. Let me try to explain the background to my editing on this article.

I came here because I saw the word pogrom being used on a number of articles where I thought it was inappropriate. I have always understood the word pogrom to be a heavily loaded term, with its usage being frequently disputed given its connotations and the terrible acts it conjures up in one's mind. When applied to attacks on Jews, I have always understood it to imply anti-semitism. When applied to attacked on non-Jews, I interpreted it as a metaphorical usage (for another word used like this, see e.g. Sikh holocaust of 1762).

So when I came here I saw an article which was totally different to what I had always understood, I decided to improve it. I believe I identified a number of excellent sources - perhaps some of the world experts on the subject - in doing so, and I have learnt a lot and nuanced my own understanding. You appear to think I have been making these edits because I am trying to "prove" something, or justify removal of the word from other articles. You have understood me wrong.

At the moment, my mind is on helping this article to match the scholarly position. My previous preconceptions about the word, and my views on whether it is misused in other places in wikipedia, are not relevant to me in this. I do not let them colour my judgement. I just want to improve this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically searching google books to produce sources that use the phrase "antisemitism" produces a cherry picked set of sources that violate WP:UNDUE. Also, focusing on minor differences in definitions in order to undermine the whole concept that there is such a thing as a pogrom violates WP:DICDEF and WP:NOR. For example, in an edit like this, we see that there suddenly aren't any such thing as actual pogroms, but only "events often characterized as pogroms". That edit also has the added "advantage" of hiding the Farhud (committed by Arabs/Muslims) in the middle of a paragraph, rather than at the beginning of one (where – one supposes – it offends the eye by being too easily noticed). Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
To take your points in turn:
(1) That would be the case if that's what an editor did. I did not do that. I have been reading the best sources available. WP:AGF is there for a reason - because when an editor fails to adhere to it, as you are doing, you end up believing things that aren't true and can't be proven or disproven.
(2) There is no attempt to undermine any concept. Engel says it best ("there can be no logically or empirically compelling grounds for declaring that some particular episode does or does not merit the label [pogrom]" because it "is not a pre-existing natural category but an abstraction created by human beings"). It is a fact - the usage of the label pogrom is heavily disputed - see for example the Morgenthau Report or the Girgenti Report after the Crown Heights riot - why do you think these official reports took the time to debate whether the label pogrom was appropriate? All the major scholarly RS confirm this. WP:I just don't like it cannot trump sources, facts and policy.
(3) The paragraphing should follow the article structure. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence

Jayjg, your sole argument across this page appears to rely on your accusation of cherry picking, coloured with a number of gross violations of WP:AGF. I have stated many times that that accusation is false. If you wish to continue making the cherry picking accusation, please provide evidence to substantiate your claim. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

List of events named massacres

The above appears to be a more correct template for this article - so we would have two articles:

  • Pogrom which would include (a) the etymology/history of the word, (b) discussion around its usage, and (c) the influence of pogroms.
  • List of events named Pogrom which would have an agreed list of criteria for inclusion (similar to the massacre page) and to quote Zargulon's suggestion above, would indicate "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"

Grateful for comments on this suggestion. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Further sources (bringing back from archive)

I am putting some additional sources which define a pogrom below. If anyone has any objections to these sources or definitions, please state them now.

This is in addition to the three sources above still being debated:

Grateful for comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bringing these definitions? What do they say? What do they add? Jayjg (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
They show the variety of definitions and the complexity of the term. Absent any objections, I will addin to the article the further colour on the definition of the term that these sources provide. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I object, because I have no idea what they say, or what they might add to the article. This article doesn't need 20 different definitions of "pogrom", unless there's some specific reason for having them. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it doesn't need 20. But a number of these are from more credible sources than those in the article at the moment. I've got an idea that will help us get through this - when I find some time i'll categorise these sources into the different points they make so we can make our explanation more clear. If you have any preferred sources, it would be helpful if you could tell me now. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The Jewish Week, Negro: An Anthology, New York Magazine, The Tribes Triumphant: Return Journey to the Middle East, etc. are "more credible sources than those in the article at the moment"? I don't see how. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your specific analysis of this would be appreciated. Those you mentioned are RS and add different angles to a very complex question - if they were contradicting more scholarly sources then I would agree with you, but there is no contradiction. And what about Ostow and Kessler/Wenborn - these appear to be as high quality as any. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What "complex question"? Are The Jewish Week, Negro: An Anthology, New York Magazine, The Tribes Triumphant: Return Journey to the Middle East, etc. really "more credible sources than those in the article at the moment"? And if they don't "contradict more scholarly sources", then why would we bother adding them, instead of (or even alongside) more scholarly sources? And finally, what do Ostow and Kessler/Wenborn add specifically that this article lacks? We don't simply need more and more definitions. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The complex question is "what is a pogrom". If you read all the sources, you will see that it is far from straightforward.
You appear to have misunderstood my request. I did not say "please could you ask me a bunch more questions", but instead I said "your specific analysis of this would be appreciated" - which means I requested some constructive comments. Of course, you are under no obligation to adhere to my request, I just want to ensure that you didn't misunderstand the fact that your endless questions don't actually move things forward as quickly as if you were to contribute positively to the debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Per the comment below, this is not a "complex question". As all human social constructs, as Engel points out, it "is not a pre-existing natural category but an abstraction created by human beings". That fact, however, does not imply unusual "complexity". Jayjg (talk)
Again, you have refused to collaborate with me. I asked you for your analysis of the sources, and you respond with anything negative you can see. I have suggested ways we might be able to work together constructively and efficiently, but you do not appear remotely interested in doing so. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Do the preponderance of reliable sources indicate that the question of what exactly is a pogrom is a "complex question"? Please collaborate by responding with specifics. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I asked you for your thoughts on the above, not for more questions. I will answer whatever question you like, but you need to respect my questions first. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
My questions of 10:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC) and 00:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC) preceded yours, and remain unanswered. Jayjg (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
If you look carefully you will see that your 24 April questions were answered. My request of 9 May preceded your questions of 11 May. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources added

Two sources have been recently added, apparently because they use the term "antisemitic". I've moved them here, because it's unclear what they actually add to the article, or what context they provide:

  1. The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789 states that pogroms were "were antisemitic distrubances that periodically occurred within the tsarist empire". [6]
  2. Henry Abramson wrote that "in mainstream usage the word has come to imply an act of antisemitism"[7]

It's not clear what the first dictionary definition adds to the understanding of "pogrom" already found in the article. The existing definition, from Encyclopaedia Britannica, is already more specific regarding things such as geography and timespan. In addition, the context and meaning of the snippet quoted from the second quote is unclear. The author is writing specifically about the Ukraine from 1917-1920 - does he mean to expand his definition outside that range? It appears as if the only reason this snippet has been cherry-picked chosen is because it uses the word "antisemitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly you are removing eminently authoritative RS. The reasons given are not policy-based. It is not policy-based to imply that if there is a definition in one of several feasible, and equally authoritative, sources, the first in shall be the benchmark for adjudicating the appropriateness of the others. As for cherry-picking, that goes both ways. The EB definition has been cherrypicked, and then used to challenge the rest. There's no visible logic to this. One must accept that definitions vary over equally valid RS, and therefore several RS are required to clarify a term that has been variously defined. Abramson says 'has come to imply', he did not, were he referring to 1917-20, write 'came to imply'. The present tense refers to the date of writing, not to the date covered by his research.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
"eminently authoritative RS"? What does that even mean? Is the Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary a well-known "authority" on pogroms? Is Abramson? And who says we have "several feasible, and equally authoritative, sources"? The challenge is to the person inserting the material to make the case for it. What does the Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary definition add that wasn't already given by the Britannica explanation? What exactly is Abramson saying, beyond that snippet, and in what context? Have you read the entire source, and can you provide the answers? The policy here is WP:V - we must make sure we use good and relevant sources, in context, and accurately represent what they say. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, your first comment included a personal attack. Neither comment provided any comment on the the underlying debate here:

(1) For this article, is it appropriate for us to have a variety of definitions provided by different RS?
(2) If so, should I understand from your comments above that you believe the definitions you left in the article are somehow more reliable or more correct that the ones you removed? If so, please explain.

I will revert your changes which should stand until a policy based explanation is provided to support your (or anyone else's) objection. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit-war here - respect WP:BRD. The issues raised are entirely policy-based, and the material cannot go in until the issues are addressed. Please address the policy-based issued raised above. For example, what exactly does the Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary definition add that is not already stated more informatively by Britannica? And what is the exact context for the snippet quoted from Abramson? Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If I answer directly your questions, will you then directly answer mine? I need this commitment from you if we are to be able to more forward. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please review my previous comments in this section. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Reviewed as requested. I will answer your question directly if you commit to answering mine directly. Please confirm. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Now please respond to those questions. You are, of course, not obliged to answer them, but then the objections will remain unanswered. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I am happy to respond, but I note that you have so far avoided making any commitment to respond to my questions if I do so. If we are to move forward here, we need this mutual commitment. I cannot go on answering your questions without an understanding that at a certain point you will answer mine. Please confirm your intention. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be treating the WP:BRD process as a marriage proposal and seem fixated on "mutual commitment". The talk page evidences the bilateral discussions in response to your queries and it would be helpful if you would focus on the issue at hand.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Please don't interrupt. I am trying to find a way that Jayjg and I can work together. Let him answer so we can move on. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Certainly. I do not wish to intrude upon this significant romantic moment.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, please could you confirm whether you wish to progress this thread? All i am asking for is reciprocity. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are free to respond to the objections raised at the beginning of the section or not, as you see fit. You are not under any obligation to answer them, of course, but if you don't, they will remain unanswered. I am under no obligation to make "deals" with you before you respond to the objections raised. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
True. But you have highlighted your unwillingness to cooperate. If you ask me a question, I do my best to answer. But when I ask you a question, I often get another question in response, evading my original question. We can't move forward unless we can trust each other to provide an equal amount of questions and answers. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
But you have highlighted your unwillingness to cooperate? I have done nothing of the sort, and per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I have committed to answer your questions in good faith. You appear unwilling to do the same. Perhaps i am naive, but i don't think this is too much to ask. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, can i assume from your silence that you do not wish to discuss this. I will therefore assume:
(1) For this article, it IS appropriate for us to have a variety of definitions provided by different RS; and
(2) All reliable sources should be included so long as they bring something incremental to the readers' understanding of the subject.
I will be editing the article on this basis, and reinstating some of the sources you removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
You still haven't responded to the objections raised at the start of this thread. They therefore still stand, and there is no basis for restoring the material. If you wish to respond to the objections, you are still free to do so. Edit-warring while deliberately refusing to respond directly on Talk: is not viewed positively on Wikipedia, and deliberate refusal to even attempt to reach consensus is unlikely to achieve any consensus for change. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but you have repeatedly refused my requests for cooperation. What is my incentive to provide a thoughtful response without an agreement from you to also respond to my questions. Just look at the way the other threads on this page are going. They prove that my assumption is correct - you are refusing to answer my questions while continually posing new ones of your own in response to my answers. Please confirm whether you intend to cooperate, and we can move forward in this discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't refuse to cooperate; rather, you insisted I had to enter into some sort of committed relationship with you before you would respond to my objections. You don't have to actually answer my objections, but they remain unanswered until you do. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I just ask for reciprocity. I answer your questions, you answer mine. Seems fair to me. Let's try it this way. Here is the full context of the Abramson quote which you requested:

"The etymological roots of the term pogrom are unclear, although it seems to be derived from the Slavic word for "thunder(bolt)" (Russian: grom, Ukrainian: hrim). The first syllable, po-, is a prefix indicating "means" or "target". The word therefore seems to imply a sudden burst of energy (thunderbolt) directed at a specific target. A pogrom is generally thought of as a cross between a popular riot and a military atrocity, where an unarmed civilian, often urban, population is attacked by either an army unit or peasants from surrounding villages, or a combination of the two. Early instances of this phenomenon in the Russian Empire were described using various terms (here in Russian): demonstratsii, gonenie, draky, besporiadki (demonstrations, persecution, fights, riots). Pogrom, however, has been the most effective in entering European languages, perhaps through Yiddish usage. Jews have not been the only group to suffer under this phenomenon, but historically Jews have been frequent victims of such violence. In mainstream usage, the word has come to imply an act of antisemitism.
Comparison of the violence of the revolutionary era to earlier pogroms reveals elements of both continuity and discontinuity. In the context of the former Russian Empire as a whole, the geographic location of the pogroms followed a traditional pattern, that is, the majority of attacks took place in Ukrainian ethnolinguistic territory."

According to the Henry Abramson article, he "is largely known for his scholarship in Ukrainian Jewish history and antisemitic iconography", both directly connected to the topic of pogroms. Please could you confirm whether you have any objections to the inclusion of Abramson's position in this article? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The material is out of context, and therefore inappropriate. Does the term "pogrom" in the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom imply an act of antisemitism? How about the Kirovabad pogrom? Or are you arguing that those articles should be renamed, to conform with Abramson's statement? Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Abramson does not suggest the word cannot be applied to violence against non-Jews (and nor do I). Just that when it is applied to violence against Jews, it has "come to imply an act of antisemitism". Can you please clarify whether you truly question that? If so, can you provide a single RS which questions such an assertion? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, can I assume from your silence that you have no further objections to either of these sources being used in the article? If not. I will add them in shortly. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
No, you can assume from my silence that I was away from Wikipedia. Your insertion was out of context, and implied that the term could not be applied to events involving non-Jews, or outside Russia, or perpetrated for "non-antisemitic" reasons. The attempt to attribute this purely to antisemitism, and therefore exclude events that are related to simply cultural or religious conflict, misrepresents the actual body of literature on the subject (as opposed to the literature cherry-picked from Google books for a specific purpose). Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

Below is the sentence disputed by Jayjg:

Abramson wrote that "in mainstream usage the word has come to imply an act of antisemitism", since whilst "Jews have not been the only group to suffer under this phenomenon, [but] historically Jews have been frequent victims of such violence."[8]

I am at a loss to understand where the accusation that this "implied that the term could not be applied to events involving non-Jews, or outside Russia, or perpetrated for "non-antisemitic" reasons" comes from. The second part of the sentence says exactly the opposite, in plain english. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Google books has been searched to produce sources that use the phrase "antisemitism". This produces a cherry picked set of sources that violate WP:UNDUE. This definition adds nothing that is not already in the article. Material in the article needs to represent the literature as a whole, and material can only be added if it provides a perspective that is not already covered, and that does not violate WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
As above. WP:I just don't like it cannot trump sources, facts and policy. The addition is helpful to the reader and is well sourced. Your objection has no substance. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg appears to be on a wikibreak. Grateful for other views here in his absence. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
My comment did not cite, imply, or in any way use "WP:I just don't like it". Please make more relevant Talk: page comments. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Implicitly it did, because the majority of what you wrote was not content based, and the only two content-based objections you have made are spurious:
  • "implied that the term could not be applied to events involving non-Jews, or outside Russia, or perpetrated for "non-antisemitic" reasons" ==> The second part of the sentence says exactly the opposite, in plain english
  • "material can only be added if it provides a perspective that is not already covered" ==> it doesn't say anywhere in the article that the term pogrom implies antisemitism when applied to an attack on Jews
Please respond to these two challenges to your comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I will add this in shortly given that I have received no response. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I have waited for almost a month - I will now add this in. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Morris10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Patai was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference university3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference instrument was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century, Paul Mojzes]
  6. ^ Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789, By Nicholas Atkin, Michael Biddiss, Frank Tallett
  7. ^ A prayer for the government: Ukrainians and Jews in revolutionary times, 1917-1920, Henry Abramson
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Abramson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pogrom/Archive_2&oldid=1256510198"