Talk:Pogrom

List of "Pogroms against other ethnic targets"

I've removed a number of items from the section title "Pogroms against other ethnic targets", because there's no indication that reliable sources commonly refer to these incidents as "pogroms". Some of them aren't even specific "incidents" per se, but rather a series of actions. Many of the sources or links used didn't even mention the term "pogrom", and even if some did, the fact that one source or another (e.g. a newspaper headline) might describe an action as a "pogrom", or a having a "pogrom" as part of it, is not reason enough to consider the action to be a pogrom. This aricle is not List of incidents described by at least one source as a pogrom - if it is going to list items at all, then they should be commonly referred to as pogroms. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't have a problem with your concept, just with its execution. If you're going to have a "commonly used" requirement in here, We need to agree exactly how to measure it first. Then it can be applied consistently, rather than at your whim. So, if you really want to delete these, please propose a way to measure "commonly" for events mentioned as pogroms in this article, ideally based on existing policy or guidelines.

Separately, please explain your deletion of race riots and retention of hep-hep riots in the see alsos.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, if you feel you must put an item in this list, then you need to justify its inclusion. If it's not called a "pogrom", then why is it here? Separately, please explain why you think Hep hep riots should be deleted as a See Also, which Race riots should be retained. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to behave consistently. Many of the existing events you didn't delete are more tenuous than the ones you did. We should either delete all, none, or have a rule to measure. The events you deleted have been in this article for a very long time, so we retain the WP:STATUSQUO unless you want to put in the effort to do a proper job here.

The see alsos is obvious, let's not waste time. Hep hep should be deleted because it's already mentioned on the page - we can't have every event listed also under see also. And race riots are very closely related to pogroms - we have sources which state this.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is a consistent definition of "Pogrom" anywhere, so it is not clear when an event of ethnical violence can be classified as a pogrom. It is therefore not possible to make a definite list of pogroms. The article should provide the list of the earliest events that in practice came to define the term, and mention that other ethnical violence events has been classified as pogroms with the list of most important such events. -- Heptor _talk 01:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sad to see we're back to the same ol' same ol' again here too. It's better if the article doesn't have a big list of "things at one time or another called a pogrom" in it, per WP:USEPROSE. Would prefer not to see a list at all, and just like we discussed last time, my thoughts on this haven't changed since my comments in the The most significant historical pogroms subsection, still visible here toward the top of this Talk page. Zad68 03:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Great. I agree with Heptor and Zad. All I care about here is consistency. Can someone please implement this, because too many of my edits have been reverted without any thought. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, I don't understand your comment. It looks like Jayjg was implementing this, and you were basically reverting him without thought. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Jayjg's version was neither all or nothing, but a "selected" version based on what appears to be WP:OR. Either we leave the list open (like other list articles, and as my revert was suggesting), or we have no list (as Heptor and Zad are suggesting, which applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish events), or we have Jayjg's "selection" idea but with a consensus-agreed rule for what stays on the list. Any of these options are ok with me. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, based on his comments and edit summaries, I didn't get the impression Jayjg wants a list at all. I actually think we're all on the same page here that we need to let the best-quality reliable sources lead us to which events will or will not be included, and that it'd be better if there were no list, but rather prose discussion. I thought Jayjg's edits, starting with this removal of poorly-supported or entirely unsourced items was an improvement along these lines, and a step in the right direction. The revert of those edits interrupted what I saw as progress. I'm hoping that as we're having a meeting of the minds here on this Talk page, and are more or less in agreement with how things should progress (at least in theory), we can give Jayjg a chance to continue. Zad68 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, I agree with Zad68. I've read Jayjg's comments, and he obviously wasn't writing what you suggest. His first comment in this section says "if it is going to list items at all" - not that it has to list items. What's more, everyone here and at the AfD say that any incidents mentioned here should be specific ones following reasonable criteria - read Heptor's comment above for an example. Looking at the current and older comments on this Talk page, it looks like you are stating that Jayjg is trying to do something against some consensus, and you're just trying to follow consensus, but I see the exact opposite: Jayjg is trying to implement consensus, and you are impeding that. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I will wait and watch for a while. You can see why I might be skeptical, having waited more than half a year with no progress, despite all this having been discussed before and me suggesting that it would be best if others implement.

Anyway, if Jayjg is going to remove the lists properly, let him remove the lists. If he is going to remove only selected items from the lists, let him tell us what the criteria is, so we can get consensus on it.

As an aside, the only thing impeding progress is all these other voices trying to talk for Jayjg. Perhaps if Galassi and others hadn't supported Jayjg's attempt to subvert WP:BRD, Jayjg and I could have finished the D in BRD and we would have been able to work this out for ourselves. Or perhaps you are both wrong about Jayjg's intentions. It all remains to be seen. I am on the edge of my seat. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've completed some of the cleanup, turning various lists into prose, and trying to stick to events that are generally or at least commonly called "pogroms". If there are any other events that people feel should be added (or removed), please feel free to suggest them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How are you defining "commonly called", when considering which events should be included and which should not? Please be specific. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"If you feel you must put an item in this list, then you need to justify its inclusion. If it's not called a 'pogrom', then why is it here?" Jayjg, perhaps you didn't realize you'd done it, but you wiped the entries about Ehud Olmert referring to those two separate incidents in the West Bank in 2008. Both were properly cited using reliable sources (the BBC and Sydney Morning Herald). Both incidents were called "pogroms", and the fact that they were called so is a significant point in both articles. Thus, not only do these incidents meet the criteria you're asking for, but they seem to me to be uniquely valuable to the article and therefore doubly warrant inclusion. In addition, we went through this very same issue back in September 2011, about these exact edits, and you raised no objection at that time to their inclusion. They stayed on the page until the first edit you made on 3 November 2013. I'm going to put them back into the article, under the "pogroms against non-Jews" heading. If you do have a valid complaint about this entry, please raise it here on the talk page so that we can work out any issues. This is about the fourth or fifth time that these properly and reliably sourced, relevant edits I made -- originally back in 2008 -- have been removed without adequate explanation. The edit follows: Direct action (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has used the term "pogrom" twice in recent history to describe attacks against Palestinian Arab civilians perpetrated by Israeli settlers. The first usage was in reference to a group of West Bank settlers from Yitzhar who attacked a Palestinian village in September 2008. The second usage described an incident which occurred in December 2008, wherein Hebron settlers lashed out at Palestinians in that city in response to the eviction of a settler group from a disputed building by Israeli security. Olmert opined, "As a Jew, I was ashamed at the scenes of Jews opening fire at innocent Arabs in Hebron. There is no other definition than the term 'pogrom' to describe what I have seen".

I note that Jayjg has been away from editing wiki-wide for about 3 weeks now. I am looking forward to his answer to your and my questions on his return. After so many years we need to stop wasting time on unnecessary arguments and reach agreement on criteria for inclusion of the events listed on this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Olmert paragraph that Jayjg removed was particularly well-written, but I do think it is reasonable that the Olmert incident should be mentioned in this article, of course in using a strictly objective formulation. An Israeli prime minister saying for the first time that certain Jews had conducted a pogrom is a notable item in a Pogrom encyclopedia page. Zargulon (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the exact reason I put the two incidents in the article in the first place, and restored them each time they've been removed. It's a unique and definitely notable occurrence and I think it's perfect for this article given the context both of the statements and of the wiki article. While my feelings are somewhat hurt that my writing was criticized (just kidding -- I wrote it quite blandly and matter-of-factly because I wanted to avoid editorializing about the incidents on which Olmert was commenting, and on Olmert's comments themselves) if you identify any grammatical or structural issues in the segment, please feel free to improve upon those issues. Direct action (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This article desperately needs a reasoned and exhaustive conversation between all the editors particularly concerned with the article, so that we can work towards a consensus about the entry criteria, which will allow us to move past the constant reverts and rewrites, and into collaborating to make this a more informative and better-quality article. Direct action (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See List of events named pogrom. It follows the article List of events named massacres, which has had meaningful editor discussion around criteria in the past. Hopefully this will act as a good structured central list of pogroms described on wikipedia. It should also allow this article to become more focused. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing

Oncenawhile, please stop your obvious wp:tendentious editing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what on earth you are talking about. In detail, please. I view this as a personal attack. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because somebody flippantly calls something a pogrom doesn't make it a pogrom. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) That goes for a number of other events in this article, see e.g. Limerick or Tredegar; (2) Noone is saying it does, either in the article or on the talk page - the discussion above suggests the relevance is the overall interest to the reader that an Israeli leader would use the word pogrom in that way given its deep connections with Jewish History; (3) please explain why you think this editing is tendentious. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot/Galassi - I think the Israeli incidents should go in, and I don't understand your argument against them. There is no suggestion of saying that they are or are not pogroms, only of noting Olmert's statement, which is an important illustration of the point which the paragraph is making, namely how the idea of pogrom has been extended in the real world during modern times. Zargulon (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If they're going to revert they need to come up with a better reason than there being "no consensus", as per WP:DRNC. As for WP:WEIGHT, that's an issue that needs to be worked out on the talk page, not via an edit war. Galassi and Plot Spoiler, if you have serious problems with this edit you need to bring them here. Direct action (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. "No consensus" is not a legitimate reason to delete sourced information without providing evidence/policy based objections to the sourced content. Plot spoiler is topic banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and his deletion of material relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict is in contravention of that ban. Dlv999 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Medieval pogroms

I have brought the prose list describing medieval pogroms to the talk page (below):

Massive violent attacks against Jews date back at least to the Crusades such as the Pogroms of 1096 in France and Germany (the first "Christian" pogroms to be officially recorded), as well as the massacres of Jews at London and York in 1189–1190. During the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, beginning in the 9th century, Islamic Spain was more tolerant towards Jews. In the 11th century, however, there were several Muslim pogroms against Jews; notably those that occurred in Córdoba in 1011 and in Granada in 1066. In the 1066 Granada massacre, the first large pogrom on European soil, a Muslim mob crucified the Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred about 4,000 Jews In 1033 about 6,000 Jews were killed in Fez, Morocco, by Muslim mobs. Mobs in Fez murdered thousands of Jews in 1276, and again, leaving only 11 alive, in 1465. In Europe in 1348, because of the hysteria surrounding the Black Plague, Jews were massacred by Christians in Chillon, Basle, Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, Dresden, and Mainz. By 1351, 60 major and 150 smaller Jewish communities had been destroyed. A large number of the surviving Jews fled to Poland, which was very welcoming to Jews at the time and remained a haven for displaced Jews until the Nazi conquest and purge. In 1506, after an episode of famine and bad harvests, a pogrom happened in Lisbon, Portugal, in which more than 500 "New Christian" (forcibly converted Jews) people were slaughtered and/or burnt by an angry Christian mob, in the first night of what became known as the "Lisbon Massacre". The killing occurred from 19 to 21 April, almost eliminating the entire Jewish or Jewish-descendant community residing in that city. Even the Portuguese military and the king himself had difficulty stopping it. The event is today remembered with a monument in S. Domingos' church. In what is present-day Israel, the 1517 Safed pogrom had mass-murder, theft, and beatings against Jews. Tens of thousands of Jews were massacred by Cossacks in Ukraine during the Khmelnytsky Uprising of 1648–1657, and thousands more during the Koliyivshchyna in 1768–1769. In Morocco there was a pogrom in 1790 in Tetouan, started by sultan Yazid. The Jewish quarter was pillaged and many women raped.

These events are not appropriately sourced - many either do not have sources, or have sources which do not use the word pogrom. Please could anyone who wishes to add this back please improve the sourcing. Otherwise it seems to be a list of events in which there were Jewish victims, rather than actual pogroms. This article should not be a duplicate of History of antisemitism - we need to apply some criteria here, so let's start with getting the sourcing correct. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Olmert quote verbatim

Ok Direct, state your case. Zargulon (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, Zargulon, I was out of the country for a time and completely forgot about my edits to this article and our discussion. At the moment I don't feel particularly inclined to continue struggling with you over the inclusion of any part of Olmert's quotes. Therefore, despite the fact that I still feel I was in the right and your position wasn't/isn't, I find your "compromise" of keeping the quotes in the footnotes to be adequate. Nevertheless, I will come back to this thread and "state [my] case" when I find the time, simply as a matter of record. Direct action (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok great - I promise I'll hear you out. Zargulon (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitions of pogrom

All, please see a new article at Definitions of pogrom. This has a much narrower scope than the previous incarnation. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

All, please see

• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Definitions_of_pogrom_(2nd_nomination)
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/List of events named pogrom

Together we can defeat POVFORKs. Thanks. Zargulon (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Once's reverts of policy tags

Once, rather than edit warring, would you please try to express which specific tags you object to, and why? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I object to all of them, because they are unexplained. A tag is to highlight a concern - the onus is on you to explain why you have put each tag there.

I also object to you removing the criteria without consensus.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

They are hardly unexplained, unless you wilfully ignore all the discussion we have had on this talk page and on the multiple AFDs for your WP:POVFORKs. Please review WP:IDHT. Also please review WP:BURDEN so that you understand where the "onus" is. What do you mean by "removing the criteria without consensus"? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is where you deleted the "list criteria" without consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Once, could you please clarify whether you think the criterion for entry into this list should be 'This is a list of events for which one of the commonly accepted names includes the word "pogrom"', or something contained in the comment which I deleted? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My view is that there should be a criteria. I don't care what it is - the community can decide. But having no criteria is unacceptable. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you agree that the current criteria for the list is not well defined, can you please explain why you are disruptively reverting my list-cleanup tag? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with that. I think the criteria is just fine. But if you want to change it (note "change" not "delete") I won't stand in the way - you just need to get consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this inclusion criteria drafted by Oncenawhile. This pointy POV pushing, tendentious editing, and wikilawyering needs to stop. It seems quite clear that Oncenawhile doesn't enter discussion to address the merits, but to just then wholly reject the other person's concerns. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Once, you say you 'think the criterion is just fine'. Please clarify which criterion you are referring to, the one in the article which I quoted, or the one in the comment which you objected to me deleting. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The one i objected to you deleting. Please now explain you position on this. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, can you try to explain why your preferred criterion in use should be in a comment, while the criterion which readers see on the page should be a different criterion, which is not your preferred one? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The reader sees a summarised version of what the editor sees. We don't need to burden the reader with the detailed criteria. The two versions don't contradict, so there is no problem.

Now please answer my question - what is your objection to the criteria you deleted, and what do you propose replacing it with?

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You pointed me to IDHT. It says "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive."

Surely your tags are a classic case of this? Perpetuating an unnecessary argument in which there is a very wide variety of community views, but one from which we should really just move on... Oncenawhile (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Once, please stop referring to fantasy consensus and deal with the points that other editors have raised. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense to me. Can you explain? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To explain - you have been asked, above, to deal with the points that other editors have raised about your content. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Which other editors? In the Afd? There was a wide range of opinions, and very little consensus. Please clarify exactly what points you would like to be focused on. And please explain each of your tags in detail. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See above. Zargulon (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning to everybody involved in edit warring on this page

I've added this page to my watchlist. I'm dismayed to see the slugfest that was the AfD continue here. I'm not going to take sides, but I do have a responsibility to see that things don't get out of hand. I understand that several of the editors who are working on this page have strongly differing opinions. I urge you to try and find some common ground, or go work on other articles for a while. If edit warring and uncivil behavior continues, I'm not going to try and figure out who's right and who's wrong, I'm just going to block all the participants. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine. But first please can you put the article back the way it was this morning immediately following the merge (ie before the edit warring), so we are all on a level playing field and incentivized to discuss. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. I'm not going to replace one wrong version with a different wrong version. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It was your version, not some arbitrary middle-of-an-edit-war version. The normal "wrong version" guidelines don't apply when it was the neutral admin who began the situation for neutral reasons.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively can you please mediate? I respect that you don't want to be involved, but we are desperately in need of a neutral editor to help us through this. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I would make a very good mediator here. I do, however, suggest that all parties involved here take a look at WP:Dispute resolution for some ideas on how to work this out. My take on this is that posting to WP:3 might be an excellent way to get some unbiased input. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of list inclusion criteria

Regarding the recent deletion of the criteria for inclusion in the merged list in this diff (content which had silent consensus since inception at the mergedfrom article), please could anyone supporting this deletion please explain their concerns with the material? I would note that it based on a long-standing criteria in use at List of events named massacre. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Pogrom list inclusion criteria

Below is the selection criteria (see WP:LSC) for the list of pogroms in this article. This criteria is originally from the article List of events named pogrom which has now been merged here.

Article summary: This is a list of events for which one of the commonly accepted names includes the word "pogrom". Edit box summary (does not show in article): Inclusion criteria (equivalent to that at the article List of events named massacres). Inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word "pogrom" is one of the accepted names for that event. A reliable source that merely describes the event as being a pogrom does not qualify the event for inclusion in this list. The word Pogrom must appear in the source as part of a name for the event. Where there is dispute over this, discussion should be centralized. If it is discussed on the talk page of the article concerned, a link should be posted on the talk page of this list; if the discussion is on the talk page of this list, a link should be posted at the article's talk page. Notes Any name for the event which is established by use of reliable sources as being one of the accepted terms would usually also be included in the article on that event. Inclusion in this list does not of itself justify inclusion in the article, and nor does use of the name in an article justify inclusion in this list, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Both uses must be based directly on explicit references to the sources, which should be cited in footnotes. However, it is hard to envisage any situation where a name including "pogrom" could be included in this list but not mentioned in an article on the event (or vice versa); if that situation should arise, both the uses should be carefully examined.

Comments are requested with thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Wieno:, Zargulon and Clarityfiend I recently read the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom and I am concerned about some of the comments that suggested that List of pogroms would be a better name than List of events named pogrom, particularly from those who complain that "List of events named pogrom" encourage OR. The experience with List of massacres (version from 2007) was far from reducing OR it encouraged it because editors would add events that they considered to be a massacre and if they bothered to include a source then it turns out that in English prose many synonyms are used to describe such events (eg slaughter, butchery, annihilation, extermination, decimation) and often it seems that the choice of word selected by uthors are for reasons such as alliteration rather than definition. So an exclusive list based usage in the text is arbitrary (including sources that use massacre but excluding sources that use slaughter). While a "List of events named ..." can still suffer from problems of alliteration, at least the worst excesses of OR are eliminated (including most POV usage (for example the Cromwell's massacre at Drogheda)) and the list now consists of what is on the label.

In the case of "pogrom" if one sticks to English language sources, then I suspect that the problem of synonyms will be less of a problem than with words such as massacre because it has a more specific dictionary meaning and is not used as a verb. Also since World War II and more so since the Bosnian war pogrom usage for current affairs replaced with "Ethnic cleansing", "genocidal massacre" etc. {For more details on the problems with the word massacre see the 2nd AfD}. -- PBS (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The word pogrom refers to extrajudicial action taken against the Jews. The only times Europeans invoke the word otherwise is when they stage a community lynching and pogrom was the only term that came to mind. To include other "unofficial demonstrations" makes use of the word pogrom synonymous with riot or some such.

Plot Spoiler had no business removing the list of criteria based on the claim that there was consensus for it and I'd like to see that criteria restored. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert's usage of the word

The fact that Olmert called something "pogrom" does not mean anything; it just as well may be emotional name calling. If you want some event to be classified as a pogrom, you must provide a scholarly source, which in a non-occasional manner disusses the event as a case of a pogrom, or at least several sources independently calling it "pogrom". Otherwise we may collect thousands of name-calling cases in numerous subjects: "nazi", "apartheid", etc. -No.Altenmann >t 05:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. See also "Pogrom list inclusion criteria" above.-No.Altenmann >t 05:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your objections to the talk page. If you comb through the archives of this Talk, you'll note that this edit has been challenged numerous times, and that the current state of the Olmert quotes are the result of consensus-building among the editors. You'll find that the claim that Olmert called something a "pogrom" doesn't make it a pogrom in fact isn't in dispute by anyone. This is why the language of the content is such as it is. It merely states the facts that Olmert (while serving Prime Minister of Israel) used "pogrom" to describe two separate incidents, while making no value judgment as to whether or not he's right. If you pay special attention to User:Zargulon's comment in Talk:Pogrom#POV_pushing, you'll note that there is a belief that the uniqueness of a sitting Israeli prime minister using a historically-sensitive term in such a way carries encyclopedic value that warrants the inclusion in the article. Direct action (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus may change, as you know. FUI I reported you for WP:3RR. Now, whatever belief you have about Israeli PM, this is wikipedian's original research. If you find an independent source who singled out Olmert for this utterance, then it will become encyclopedic. Zaqrgulon's comment is nothing but an attempt to justify WP:SYNTH in the article: once again, Olmert's utterance contains no encyclopedic information. Any other value of this utterance in context of this article must be justified by an independent source. -No.Altenmann >t 06:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Further, Since you all admit that Olmert's opinion does not make the event pogrom, then this is not an example of "pogrom". If you want it to be an example of the usage of the word for other purposes, please add the corresponding section, with references and all, ant this will be a proper place for Olmert's utterance. -No.Altenmann >t 06:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, the content in question isn't in the article as an attempt to provide evidence that these two incidents were pogroms or "examples of pogroms". As such, WP:SYNTH doesn't apply, since there is no conclusion being reached or implied by the content nor by its placement in the article, other than the "conclusion" of the factual matter of Olmert having used the word to describe those incidents. It's in the article because it's a noteworthy use of the term and is illustrative of the mutable and disputed nature of what constitutes a "pogrom", as is described in the "Usage" section. To this effect, an anonymous IP just now quite astutely anticipated a problem given the section the content had been in (the article has changed many times since the original inclusion of the sourced Olmert content, which has subsequently been moved around a lot, to the detriment of the article's quality -- it should not have been residing under the "After World War II" header, a section which clearly refers only to pogroms targeting Jews in the postwar era), and moved it to the "Usage" header, where it better fits given the circumstances. Direct action (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)