From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This Article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • Arthur Hu (2010-10-25). "Philadelphia Settles Anti-Asian Pogram in Schools". AsianWeek. Retrieved 2013-01-20. Wikipedia describes the Russian word “pogrom” as a form of “violent riot, a mob attack, either approved or condoned by government or military authorities, directed against a particular group, whether ethnic, religious, or other”.  (details)

Once's reverts of policy tags[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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).
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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[edit]

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. I've now embedded it in the paragraph following that in which Anonymous had originally put it, as it seems most relevant there. Direct action (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Olmert's usage is an example of mainstream or extended usage of the term as described in the section "Usage". People abuse loaded words all the time. If we start citing all utterances of all politicians on all occasions, this will be end of encyclopedia. Examples must be undisputable illustrations of the described concept. In controversial cases "undisputable" means "supplied with solid references which cite this example as proper or imporper usage". Anything less than that is original research no matter which section you put it. -No.Altenmann >t 05:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Later and earlier pogroms[edit]

This appears to be just a random list of events which have been called pogroms (and some which have not), and has no overriding narrative based on any WP:RS.

I propose that this should be merged into the better structures table listing known pogroms later in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


The SS murdered in Tykocin, which doesn't make it a pogrom. There were pogroms in several places like Wąsosz and Radziłów, but Tykocin was different.Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Tulsa race riot[edit]

Galassi, what is the reason for this revert? I provided a reference showing that the event has been referred to as a pogrom. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. Also see the inclusion criteria above.--Galassi (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I think I see the issue. Here are five sources that refer to it as the "Tulsa Pogrom": [1][2][3][4][5]. As for weight, it's a perfect example of a use of the word "pogrom" to describe a similar attack on non-Jews, which is why the image was included next to a discussion of that usage. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

List very selective[edit]

Based on the criteria "includes the word pogrom"? That sounds quite arbitrary. Take e.g. the May 1998 riots of Indonesia, which not included in the list: definitely a conflict based on ethnic character of the perpetrators and victims, a violent one with deaths and rapes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and hence defers to how sources describe events. For editors to decide for themselves that a violent episode was a pogrom is original research, which is not allowed. Sticking to sources helps Wikipedia remain objective in coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)