Talk:Limerick boycott

Boaz Moda'i's opinion

Attempts have recently been made to add the opinion of Boaz Moda'i to this article.[1][2] Since the source in question simply quotes Moda'i's opinion on this matter, it's clear that this is a WP:PRIMARY source. In addition, the opinion is published in a small-circulation weekly newspaper (not a historical journal or history book), and Moda'i is a non-expert: a politician, not a historian. As such, we are clearly facing WP:RS issues. Finally, the material itself is not actually about the events themselves, but rather simply an opinion about its name - therefore, a WP:UNDUE issue. I can't see any policy-based argument for including this material. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

These arguments have no substance. By your logic any quote in any article is wk:primary.The Limerick Leader is the biggest newspaper in Limerick with a circulation close to 50% of the city's population. Moda'i made his statement in an official capacity as the Israeli ambassador to Ireland.

This is just an embarrassing whitewash. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look as if either statement by politicians presented in the article is particularly relevant. They are not historians, as Jayjg stated above, and their statements are contentious to boot. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They are both well known politicians in the Irish Jewish community. This article is about an event which occurred in the Irish Jewish community. They are not detrimental to the article, and aid readers in contextualising the events in a modern context. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being "well known politicians in the Irish Jewish community" has no bearing on the policy issues raised here, which include the use of WP:PRIMARY, non-expert sources, published in in a small-circulation (14,232 in 2012) weekly newspaper. Please respect policy and WP:BRD. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The main source for this article, Keogh 1998, is a PhD full professor at a university, and he wrote a book, published by a university press and which won the 1999 James S. Donnelly Sr. Prize for Irish scholarship, on the subject. Keogh explicitly supports pogrom. What's been proposed to be added is a large quote from a commerce guy from Israel saying it wasn't, in tiny circulation newspaper, with no evidence of any lasting effect or notice. This appears to be a pretty clear case of WP:UNDUE. As a side note, I don't understand the characterization of the policy-based objections to adding this big WP:UNDUE quote as "whitewash". Zad68 03:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source for the debate. I will shortly write a paragraph summarizing this. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a monthly magazine is not of the same WP:RS quality as a PhD full professor of history at a university, who wrote a book on the subject, published by a university press and which won the 1999 James S. Donnelly Sr. Prize for Irish scholarship. Keep in mind, as well, that any material sourced to the personal opinions of politicians such as Boaz Moda'i or Robert Briscoe will fail WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, and will therefore not be acceptable in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like that magazine, Magill, has gone out of business and their website has been hacked so no further information is available about the authors or editorial staff. Sean Gannon is a freelance writer. Seems safe to say this is not going to be a source of anywhere near the authority of Keogh and would be WP:UNDUE to include it. Zad68 02:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Before i take this for broader debate at WP:RSN, could either of you please explain where the articles from the Limerick Leader and Magill contradict the prestigious Keogh? To my reading, these two articles are complementary and additive and nothing they say conflicts with Keogh. In fact, the Magill article is a well written, balanced and thoroughly researched article. All sources can like happily side by side, unless any suggestion of public debate around the name is unacceptable to you. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If something fails WP:RS, then it doesn't matter how brilliantly written it is, or how much one agrees with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

With all the praise that's been heaped on Professor Keogh in this discussion, now that a cast iron source has been provided which shows he prefers "boycott" over "pogrom", I presume this debate is over. Perhaps we can start building out the rest of the article now. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Keogh is definitely a good source. I've fixed your use of him. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It was disappointing to see the previous edit only represent the source partially, and which part. Zad68 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with your additions. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added some information from the 1911 census and 1926 census that shows in quite clear terms that the Limerick Boycott did not result in a Jewish exodus from Limerick. The conclusion Keogh draws in his book 'The Limerick Boycott 1904' does not refer to this census (which is lamentable).Huxley10 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In terms of consensus, Ireland's most eminent historian, Diarmaid Ferriter may be added to the list of those who agree with Keogh that the term Boycott is more accurate. In a published review of Keogh's work he states that the decision to not use the word Pogrom is a wise one based on the evidence available. Huxley10 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Historiography

I have added further detail and sources to a historiography section. As to the question of whether these are WP:RS:

• Note that this article, containing details on the event, sources 1904 editions of the Limerick Leader as its main source for the events - see p40, which shows that the author used various editions of the paper from 1904.
• As for Magill, here are a couple of other links providing information - even a competitor (the Irish Independent) called it a "prestige title" [3] [4]. Also, the Magill article is held on the server of the Limerick City Council website, which suggests some support.

The Limerick Leader and Magill articles are obviously RS.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the conclusive points above that the Limerick Leader and Magill sources are not reliable in this context, on what do you base your statements here? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing how a comedian's comment on a purchased property as 'prestige' has any weight as an academic evaluation, or how either of those references bolster the relatively poor qualifications of those sources as compared to the others we have. Zad68 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me know what your issue is specifically please - we can discuss was RSN. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This new section Historiography was very large. In his 1998 book chapter, the most authoritative source we have, Keogh, doesn't give anywhere near this amount of emphasis to the discussion over "pogrom" vs. "boycott" relative to the amount of material that covers the actual events. So to try to address this WP:UNDUE problem, I've cut all the large quotes and instead summarized the material succinctly, as is preferred on Wikipedia, trying to keep the emphasis on this content in proportion to what's found in the sources. Zad68 21:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Zad, this is the worst edit I have ever seen you make. The WP:RSN discussion hasn't even finished. "Undue" is wholly subjective, and is being used to support a whitewash. Your edit is also highly antagonistic given the discussion so far. The sources have been discussed on WP:RSN, so just deleting them unilaterally is unacceptable. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a good-faith attempt to bring the article in line with policy. Most of the sources were still there, just used far more succinctly. Article now has the WP:UNDUE problem it had before, open to suggestions to try to bring it in line with policy. Zad68 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And as I mentioned at WP:RSN, this isn't a RS issue, at least it wasn't for the way the sources were proposed to be used. Zad68 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, i just saw your immediate self revert - that was really very impressive. FWIW I thought your first sentence was a good improvement.

As to undue, perhaps we could work together to build out the rest of the article? There are some excellent articles on the Limerick City Council website [5]

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I just saw Ynhockey's edit. Why do these things always have to turn into a fight? WP:UNDUE is too subjective to reach an agreement - both sides can make the argument either way ad nauseum. Can't we work together without fighting over such things? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it is and it isn't. We can do things like evaluate how much space an authoritative source gives an aspect of coverage of a topic. That's what I thought I was doing, I noticed that Keogh gave very little space covering pogrom vs. boycott. We can ask at WP:NPOVN, because WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV. We can try to work out a compromise here. I do not think we can ignore the issue for right now as it seems there's a consensus that we're interested in working on it. Zad68 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Whilst your comment in made in good faith, I would note that "Undue" often acts as the default argument to remove information when no policy-based arguments remain. I am not talking about the part of undue relating to conflicting viewpoints (that is usually easier to prove), but rather the debate around "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". What does "appropriate to its significance" mean? It can be interpreted in many ways.

In this example, the Magill article claims that the terminology is "at the heart of the matter". Our friend Keogh says that "a final vexatious question persists". We all agree that the topic is therefore "significant", but exactly how significant is a grey area which we can debate forever.

For a "name" or "etymology" or "terminology" section, very common in wikipedia, if we were to review every other article in wikipedia you would find that that is often the one area which is hardest to summarise without losing meaningful content and context.

And most importantly, if we did think that a section was disproportionately large in a small article, we could also debate forever whether we should expand the rest of the article or cut back the section.

Having said that, your comment was made in good faith, so i'll have a go at a compromise.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC

RFC question

Should the following section:

Terminology

Since 1983, several commentators have questioned the traditional narrative of the event, and especially whether the event's description as a pogrom is appropriate. Historian Dermot Keogh wrote that "it is variously described in the literature of Limerick history as an economic boycott and a pogrom". Keogh sympathized with the use of the term by the Jews who experienced the event, writing "based on their experiences in Lithuania, the word pogrom came immediately to the lips of Limerick's Jews", but preferred the term "Limerick Boycott". Other commentators who have disagreed with the application of the word pogrom include Father Michael Baily, writing in the Irish Times in 1984, who described term as "emotive" and as a "misnomer for minor disturbances". and the Israeli ambassador to Ireland in 2010.

References

(Just the ref titles are listed here, see article for full ref info)

be replaced with:

Since 1983, several commentators have questioned the traditional narrative of the event, and especially whether the event's description as a pogrom is appropriate. Historian Dermot Keogh sympathized with the use of the term by the Jews who experienced the event, and respected its use by subsequent writers, but preferred the term "boycott".

(same refs)

and appended to the section above?

RFC discussion

• Support as an improvement per WP:UNDUE. Sources discuss the actual events of 1884 onward in detail, and give relatively little weight to the recent discussion of the applicabilty of the term pogrom. For example, Keogh's history book gives just one paragraph to a discussion of the applicability of the term pogrom out of 27 pages of detail about the event. It is undue to have a large Terminology section that is as large as the Events section itself, as it would give the reader an incorrect impression about how important this topic is (not very) relative to the subject as a whole. It is also not preferred to use numerous large quotes from sources, it's better to summarize and paraphrase, as the suggested edit does. Zad68 04:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Refuse to participate until edit war ends I am the opposing editor here, as set out above, i already made a compromise with Zad on this. I cannot participate in your RfC whilst the coordinated edit war I mentioned below continues. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, there is no requirement that an RFC must receive input from any particular editor for it to progress, or for a consensus to develop from those editors who do choose to participate in the RFC. Zad68 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Zad68. — Jon C.^ॐ 11:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support for readability reasons. WP:UNDUE is part of it, but the second version makes sense from a stylistic point of view as well. We don't need to go into unnecessary detail when the same thing can be summed up in one sentence. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Ynhockey. The second version is readable where the first is clunky, and gives due weight to the terminology question where the first gives it undue weight. Scolaire (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Ynhockey. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support as an obvious improvement. If anything, it should just be the final sentence. The only reliable source on the whether or not this was a "pogrom" or not is Keogh; certainly not church leaders, reporters, or foreign politicians. Sure, they're reliable for their own opinions, but this article isn't Opinions about the name of the Limerick Pogrom, this is an article about the actual pogrom - as such, only qualified academics (such as Keogh) matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - clearer, cleaner, and more solidly sourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose First version gives a balanced and informative account without requiring the reader to chase up the references, mentions key ( priest and ambassador) commentators, and does not go on too long about it.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per others. United States Man (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC conclusion

In my assessment, the RFC comments show clear support for the proposed change, which has been applied to the article. Any disagreement with that assessment? If not, we can close this out. Zad68 14:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, as this RFC was carried out incorrectly:

• Your RFC said "(Just the ref titles are listed here, see article for full ref info)", but the parallel edit war of the involved editors below meant these had been removed from the article before the RFC got going. The missing info provided important color, and if you had simply included the text in your RFC then readers would have had more balanced information.
• You did not make clear in the description of the rfc that you also intended to demote the paragraph into the "aftermath" section, rather than it's own section called "terminology". Whilst you included the bold word "terminology" in the first section, this was done subtlely and not explained.
• You "supported" your own RFC, which is effectively a double vote and IMHO was presented misleadingly

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That aside, your preferred version in the RFC said "(same refs)", i.e. the same references as in the previous version. Will you be adding that detail back into the references? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

POV tag - coordinated actions to subvert WP:3RR

I have added a POV tag to the article due to coordinated actions of editors in the diffs below:

• diff #1
• diff #2
• diff #3
• diff #4

These editors seem unwilling to enter into proper discussion, so the issue at hand cannot be resolved.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oceanwhile, there is a discussion right atop of this page regarding this very issue, where there is clear consensus against your position. Please participate in that discussion if you have new information and assume good faith. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

I found the Limerick Leader story cited in the article here. I was disappointed to discover that the two sentences beginning "In 1904 by a young Catholic priest, Father John Creagh, of the Redemptorist order, delivered a fiery sermon castigating Jews..." are taken verbatim from that story and are therefore copyvio. Can somebody with the requisite knowledge re-word this ASAP, please? Scolaire (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody was bothered even to paraphrase it, I have cut it right down to the essentials. Scolaire (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Scolaire for fixing it!! Zad68 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article name

Jayjg wrote "The only reliable source on the whether or not this was a "pogrom" or not is Keogh". As we know, Keogh believes the term "boycott" is more appropriate.

Jayjg, since you are so adept at making u-turns on your arguments, i thought you'd like the opportunity to make another one.

I leave the floor open to you to explain why, despite Keogh being the only expert here, you still think Limerick Pogrom is the correct title for this article.

Thanks in advance.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed, after five months of silence. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limerick boycott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502174702/http://www.arts-sport-tourism.gov.ie/publications/release.asp?ID=558 to http://www.arts-sport-tourism.gov.ie/publications/release.asp?ID=558

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"A small number of Lithuanian Jewish tradespeople, fleeing persecution in their homeland," Reference please? This article is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.231.230 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Categorisation as a pogrom

While someone may have called it a pogrom at one point, it clearly was not one, this being defined by Wikipedia as a violent riot. To aid with sensible research in future, I suggest to User:Jon C. and all that this categorisation is removed. Jontel (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)