Talk:Pogrom/Archive 6

Tykocin

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

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

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 81.183.57.204 (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)

WP:Neutrality

Article lacks WP:Neutrality. Specifically points raised by Peter Kenez, a specialist on the Civil War in Ukraine in 1918-21, in his book (P. Kenez (1977), Civil War in South Russia, 1919-1920. Berkeley: University of California Press. p: 166.) are not reflected in the section entitled 'Russian Civil War period'. E.g. involvement of Russian white forces (e.g., Denikin forces), Russian Black Hundreds and Russian Bolsheviks is hardly mentioned in that section. Kenez' point is not reflected in that section (even though they were the ones responsible for the largest number of victims):

before the advent of Hitler, the greatest modern mass murder of Jews occurred in Ukraine, during the Civil War. All the participants in the conflict were guilty of murdering Jews, even the Bolsheviks. However, the Volunteer Army [the Whites or anti-Bolshevik Russians] had the largest number of victims. Its pogroms differed from mass killings carried out by its competitors; they were the most thorough, they had the most elaborate superstructure, or to put it differently, they were the most modern ... Other pogroms were the work of peasants. The pogroms of the Volunteer Army, on the other hand, had three different participants: the peasant, the Cossack and the Russian officer ... The particularly bloody nature of these massacres can be explained by the fact that these three types of murderers reinforced one another--Piznajko (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And you are very welcome to include this sourced info on the page. No one objects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary quote

Hello Galassi. Quotes are permitted in general, but this quote from a diary is unnecessary here. It describes some particular incident of a pogrom. It would be fine in a long book describing in detail different cases, but not in an encyclopedia article. The general statement is already given with different words in the prior paragraph. So this quote does not provide any new encyclopedic information. --Off-shell (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The quote is by a major writer, and a Nobel prize laureate.--Galassi (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? There are many books describing pogroms written by famous authors (see e.g. Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire#Cultural_references). What information does this quote provide for this overview article? I could imagine such a quote in an article describing this specific pogrom, but not here. For this article, one could create a similar section "Cultural references". --Off-shell (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Kielce pogrom

Please read and don't revert my mild edit.Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the value of unsourced Selected pogroms? Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Tykocin pogrom includes two parts - the robbery by Poles and the murder by Germans. SImilarly any big German murder of Jews may be named a pogrom, but the majority of them isn't. Xx236 (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The list is a disaster. Croats are victims, why not any Serbs?Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want a list of pogroms, please move the table there. Any statement needs sources and the table is generally unsourceed. You bypass academic knowledge collecting plenty of different quality pages. Have you verified, that all listed pages are sourced? Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do you list the 1956 Ceylonese riots as a pogrom? Xx236 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

As far two editors have reverted my edit and refused to discuss the subject.

There exist a category Category:Pogroms. What brings your table more than the Category does?

If you want to have a list of pogroms, please create such list. The WP:OR table makes this page unreliable.

Croats murdered Jews but no such pogrom is mentioned here. The Croats murdered Serbs, Category:Massacres in the Independent State of Croatia. nothing here. But Serbs murdedred Croats, so we have a pogrom. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Mława pogrom is in reality Mława riot and the only dead victim is non-Roma. Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The Kielce pogrom doesn't confirm resposibility of the Main Directorate.Xx236 (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a partial list of events for which one of the commonly accepted names includes the word "pogrom". - see partial, it means part here, but the list is also biased.Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

An encyclopedia describes facts rather than words. The facts are mass crimes, not their popular names. I'm not sure if a Selected list of events named pogroms belongs here. You take thousands of different crimes and you select the ones named as pogroms by some people.

selected? Please explain the rules of the selection among the selected crimes.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The characteristics of a pogrom vary widely - exectly. So the table lists apples and oranges (if not elephants).Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Xx236, what changes to the article are you proposing? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Now the article contains two separate parts - the text and the table. I'm criticizing the table, beacause it contains a random selection of facts. If any serious source contains a list of pogroms, we may accept the list, but a random selection based mostly on names of facts isn't encyclopedic. There exists already Category:Pogroms at least partially similar to the table. If it's incomplete, we may add some subcategories or articles.

My counterexample is the Croat-Serbian conflict. Now one Serbian pogrom of Croats is listed in the table but no Croat pogrom of Serbs. Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the table is a useless mess; far too long, and filled with arbitrary inclusions and original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky Uprising

Hi, יניב_הורון, I had checked this links: [6] and [7] and didn't find the support for "The first atrocities against Jewish civilians, on a genocidal scale of destruction" and "20 percent of the Jews of the entire region were killed". So, I deleted this unsourced information. If you see such statements there, please point me to them.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the text to reflect what source says.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, besides one number, which is obviously overestimated (further in the article are several references to studies on this issue), why did you not make any changes "to reflect what source says"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what the Jewish Encyclopedia says ("three hundred thousand"), but I removed the number in light of modern estimates explained in the next sentence (which is significantly lower).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You have deleted the overstatement - this is good. But what about the rest of my editing?--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You changed the place of the 'Antisemitism' template without explanation. As far as Polish casualties during the Khmelnytsky uprising, they are unrelated to this article (just like Polish victims of the Holocaust for example, which are not mentioned here because this article is about Jews).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

this article is about Jews - Nope. This article is about pogroms. If you want to mention Khmelnytsky Uprising, you need to mention Poles, as did the author of referenced book "Borderland: A Journey Through the History of Ukraine". The place for the such a template is at the top of the article. You need strong arguments to put it down. I've seen through the fist three usages of this template from this list [8], and all they have it at the top: Timeline_of_antisemitism, Antisemitic boycotts, Antisemitism in the Olympic Games.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about pogroms... which is directed against Jews, not Poles. The reason why template is not at the top is because there isn't enough space in lede, because of the first image and short text.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

1) Well, Khmelnytsky rebels killed the Jews along with the Poles. The quoted source speaks of this quite definitely. And we also should do the same, regardless of personal taste preferences, which victims are worthy of mention, and which are second-rate. 2) Please, show me the example where this template is put in the middle of the article. Now it is looked rather strange and contrary to the consensual design of articles. 3) You still need a citation for "The first atrocities against Jewish civilians, on a genocidal scale of destruction". P.S. And one moment. I studied the history of your edits and blocks and strongly recommend that you change your belligerent behavior, otherwise your topic-ban can be expanded.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Be careful with your language. Your threats don't scare me. I'm topic banned from ARBPIA, not Jewish-related topics (or even Israel topics unrelated to the conflict).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So, you've failed to justify the revert.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: As this is an article explicitly about pogroms, and as it's pretty evident that this incident, while it also included atrocities against other groups such as Roman Catholic clergy included a pogrom, referring to the pogrom as such here is probably fine. I would thus support references to the event as a pogrom on this page - though I would not support (for instance) renaming the main article on this uprising, as that article addresses a broader historical event which included the pogrom. The only argument I could consider that you might want to consider from a wikipedia policy perspective is WP:COMMONNAME simply put - if you talk about this event as a pogrom would a general audience be expected to understand what event you were talking about? I suspect the answer to that question is yes, they would. And I would definitely caution other editors against using an unrelated topic ban to try and force an editor to back down. Last I checked, a pogrom in Ukraine that predates the creation of the modern state of Israel would not be a broadly construed part of the Israel Palestine conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Thank you for your interest in this discussion. I have four questions:

1. Have you ever encountered the term "Khmelnytsky Pogrom" (with the capital "P", I mean) in the scientific literature? I've searched through Google Books [9] and Scholar [10] and did not find Reliable Sources for it before 2011, when the redirect was created. I'm afraid this is an Original Research.
2. What about the mention of other ethnic and confessional groups that have become victims of the same event? Contrary to the statement of the opponent, the word "pogrom" does not mean at all "directed against the Jews." See the Cambridge Dictionary: "Pogrom - an act of organized cruel behaviour or killing that is done to a large group of people because of their race or religion" [11]
3. The phrase "The first atrocities against Jewish civilians, on a genocidal scale of destruction" is unsourced. I've find the similar statement in the book The Medieval Roots of Antisemitism But the Khmelnytsky Uprising in this book is not considered at all. In addition, the book was published in 2018, and the phrase was added in 2016: [12]. I am afraid this is another example of the distribution of the Original Research.
4. And what about the place for template 'Antisemitism'? --Nicoljaus (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Replying to your questions:

1. I've made my opinion on the use of the word pogrom perfectly clear in this context.
2. This is a page about pogroms. A pogrom occurred. Whether other atrocities were committed in the course of this conflict is neither here nor there. And I find "according to the dictionary" arguments deeply tedious. Per WP:COMMONNAME - which I already brought up once, a common understanding of the word "pogrom" involves antisemitic violence. So arguing that the page about a phenomenon which is broadly understood to be explicitly action against Jews should focus on other atrocities instead is disturbing to say the least. Especially this week.
3. I am satisfied with the use of the Jewish Encyclopedia for "the first atrocities..." etc.
4. I have no strong opinion about the placement of the antisemitism infobox template - which is why I did not mention it in my response to the 3O request I would very weakly prefer its placement at the top of the page as it's relevant to the whole topic rather than this specific incident, but I generally don't like infoboxes at all anyway so I don't really care where it goes.

To be honest I am not seeing any evidence of WP:OR. I'm sorry if your 3O response isn't what you were hoping for, but it seems like attempts to insert information about other atrocities against other ethnic groups into the page about pogroms is a pretty severe breach of WP:DUE and would suggest you would be best detailing other atrocities at Khmelnytsky Uprising. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Well, this will be a long way, let's start with a little. I am satisfied with the use of the Jewish Encyclopedia for "the first atrocities..." etc. Sorry, but this statement is absent in this Encyclopedia (or I do not see it).--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm done here. You asked for a 3O and were given one. Please don't bother pinging me again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

But I've asked for the Third Opinion, not for the complete and blind support for a one of them. And not from a user, who gets satisfaction by the fake refs.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If you care to review the edit history between יניב_הורון and I, you'll note we rarely agree on anything. In addition, I have in fact cautioned them when they did appear to be bumping up against the edge of their I/P tban. My support of their position is categorically not blind support, but rather an adjudication of the case here and I'd suggest it's time for you to put down the WP:STICK. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say any word about your support for Yaniv, only about your support for his opinion. I know nothing about your complex relations, and I have no idea why you decided to support his opinion instead of to form your own. Well, maybe this is a noble peaceful gesture from your side, some kind of olive branch, I don't know (and I don't care). But I see that you support his opinion and do not support mine in any point, even if you have to approve the use of false refs. I looked at WP:STICK. Want to say I should peacefully retire? But why not you and Yaniv? His arguments are over. You did not have them. Your opinion is valuable, but not more valuable than the results of queries in Google and the Cambridge Dictionary. I am fully confident that the current version of the article contains incorrect, non-neutral and offensive statements. And this is not a horse carcass for me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The source is very clear that the pogrom was an attempt at genocide. Furthermore, the source, which is a pretty complete compendium, mentions no previous genocides. Therefore it's the first. This isn't WP:SYNTH it's supported by the source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't use the term "genocide" at all. Furthermore, the source is just the copy of the hopelessly outdated Encyclopedia of 1901-1906. Seriously, leave the dead horse alone.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have to use the exact word when it references something that meets the definition of genocide - which it does - omg. Stop. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

So, and what exactly phrase is interpreted by you as "genocide"? And, by the way, have you read all 12 volumes of Jewish Encyclopedia, to make the statement that in "mentions no previous genocides"? This case the further, the more interesting.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Decision to rid the Ukraine of the Jews" fits. After all, a genocide is the act of forced removal of a people from a place, whether by forced expulsion or massacre. Add to that, "most ruthlessly massacred about three hundred thousand Jews with such cruelties as the world had seldom witnessed," and it paints quite a genocidal picture. Are we done here? Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Decision to rid the Ukraine of the Jews" fits. Are you serious? Edict of Expulsion all Jews from the Kingdom of England was in 1290 and Expulsion of Jews from Spain was in 1492. No need for original research.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This is getting really tendentious. The Edict of Expulsion impacted around 2000 people; a far cry from the 300,000 in the pogrom we're discussing. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The truly tendentious deed is to repeat this number. It is four to five times larger than the entire Jewish population of Ukraine at that time. You should study the main article on the issue in which you decided to express your opinion and refs there. And for good-faith users this would be reason enough not to use such a source to support such statements.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You asked for a third opinion. One was provided. It's a pretty significant breach of WP:AGF to assume that a solicited third opinion was not made in good faith just because that person disagrees with your interpretation of the sources and their reliability. That's it. I'm done here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not just disagreement. You have ignored both the text of the used source and other easily accessible sources, as well as the main article on this topic. And at the same time you accuse me of tendentious behavior. This is a discouraging experience for my first appeal for 3O. --Nicoljaus (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot Genocide

Can the genocide of Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus also be defined as a pogrom? Nargothronde (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If there any reliable sources defining it as a pogrom, yes. If not, no. --T*U (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused, because the table includes several events that are not directly referred to as pogroms i.e. the 2013 Myanmar anti-Muslim "riots". If you're suggesting that the word "pogrom" be specifically used to define the subjects of these articles in their sources for them to be included, if we take that particular example, note that it is not referred to as a "pogrom" in the Wikipedia article or any of its sources... except maybe by the word pogrom's definition being applied to it? as the deliberate persecution and/or organised massacre of a particular religious or ethnic group? And so I went by this logic when I made this suggestion. Nargothronde (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

To provide my thinking process about including the Turkish Cypriot Genocide, for your reference, I thought: "by that very same logic, and definition of the word "pogrom", the Turkish Cypriot Genocide could also be included. See: | | | | | | I think this justifies: 1) applying the definition of pogrom to the Turkish Cypriot Genocide, and 2) by that effect including the Turkish Cypriot Genocide into this article." Nargothronde (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

... also note that the Turkish Cypriot Genocide was sanctioned by the ruling political party or government against the state-oppressed Turkish Cypriots, with the goal to exterminate or expel them from the country. That is the exact textbook definition of what a pogrom is. Nargothronde (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

References

There should be no reason to be confused if you have studied WP:RS. Use of reliable sources is the very foundation of Wikipedia. If there currently are entries in the article that are not supported by reliable sources, they should be sourced or removed or at least be marked with a "citation needed" tag. But the existence of unsourced material can never be an argument for adding more unsourced material.

Without reliable sources, any attempt to "prove" that it was a pogrom by 1) applying the definition of pogrom to the Turkish Cypriot Genocide, and 2) by that effect including the Turkish Cypriot Genocide into this article will be the exact textbook definition of original research, se WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks for the advice. And are you suggesting I mark those entries with a "citation needed" tag? Nargothronde (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Nargothronde:

I indented your posting. Please read WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD about how to use indentation to make talk page discussions easier to follow.

Re "citation needed"-tagging: The best way to handle such entries will depend on several factors, like how many such entries there are (1, 2, 5, 10, ...?) and how much time and energy you want to spend on it. I have not gone deep into this, but have sampled some 10+ links, and they all seem "bona fide", so it may not be too big a problem. On the other hand, this is a very sensitive theme, so attempts at reducing the "importance" of a given entry in the list will most likely be met with fierce opposition. In my opinion, the best approach may be to use the talk page to gain consensus for complete removal of entries that can not be given proper sourcing. If you choose to use "cn"-tags, you should in any case present your rationale in the talk page (and be prepared to defend it). With some of your earlier talk page entries in mind, I also suggest you spend some time on making it as short and clear as possible (per WP:TLDR). --T*U (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as always for the suggestions T*U. Nargothronde (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:INDENT ;-) --T*U (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Pogroms?

>>The Russian-language term was adopted in the English language in order to describe the /mass violence of 1881 and 1882 that was directed against Jews within the Pale of Settlement/ which was first created by Catherine the Great .

Who else thinks this is based + redpilled & Hitler did nothing wrong, or Catherine ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.57.244 (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

It's really disgusting that some Wikipedia moderators are using their power for their own political agenda. Wikipedia is moving to a fascist administration of suppressing others and writing just their own version of the events. Compared to other incidents in this article, 1963 Bloody Christmas is clearly can be called a pogrom. Can you please show how this is different than other incidents listed in the article? Do you want a reliable source? You can check the newspapers of those days. Everything is well reported by Greek side of Cyprus, Turkish and British. After this massacre, this pogrom, UN peacekeeping force UNFICYP was established. For other incidents listed as a pogrom, for some of them there's are references! How are those for reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.219.177.160 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Which reliable sources refer to this incident as a "pogrom"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you please show each item in that list with a WP:RS? For Bloody Christmas of 1963, even Wikipedia page have necessary information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.219.177.142 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you are asking, but if you want to add material to the article, then you need to back it up with reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of the others in the list have only link to their specific Wikipedia page. No other referenecs. So I did the same for Bloody Christmas 1963, linking it to it's Wikipedia page, and "somehow" a moderator reverted back that change and blocked editing.185.219.177.142 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Well if the page it links to is called "xxxxx pogrom", then that would be a pretty good indication that it's a pogrom. It doesn't seem that's the case with Bloody Christmas (1963). Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of them that's named pogrom in that list and given link to the wikipedia page with the original name (alternative name column). "Kristallnacht" page title do not have pogrom in it, so shall we not call it a pogrom?185.219.177.142 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also called "the November Pogrom", and there are plenty of reliable sources available if we need them; see this and this and this. Anyway, what did you want to add, and what reliable sources did you have to back it up? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I hava a better source to back it up, Wikipedia itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Christmas_(1963)#References And if you check the list, some pogroms have "name disputed" beside their names. So that means, Bloody Christmas 1963 can be added similar to them. 185.219.177.186 (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source; please review WP:UGC point #10. Now, which specific reliable sources describe it as a "pogrom". Name them. Quote them. Also, please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. You've been asked to do these things in the past, now please actually do them. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I gave the references of the Wikipedia page. That's not the same as the Wikipedia article itself. I can copy-paste the whole references part if you wish. Surely, those books, reports, etc. are reliable sources, right? By the way, how is Britannica is more reliable source than Wikipedia? And if we take holocaust.org.uk, encyclodedia.ushmm.org as reliable sources, then we can take this page as a reliable source too; [13] . Dictionary definition of pogrom includes, an organized massacre or persecution - check, often officially encouraged -check, against minority - check . So asking for a reference of wording of pogrom, just for this event, is another hypocrisy. 185.219.177.210 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And I'm going to point it out once more, there are several incidents in the list that do not have reliable sources. Unless those are treated the same, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.219.177.210 (talk • contribs)

I'm going to insist that you read WP:NOR and WP:V before we go any further. You can't just decide for yourself that something is a pogrom based on its characteristics. You must provide references that you yourself have read, and they must be explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the point I'm trying to express. Some moderators here are trying to decide what's pogrom and what's not. The dictionary definition is quite clear. You just assume that I haven't read the references. Compared to references you have given to Holocaust, I think the article I've given the link for is quite good. And I'm going to ask this once more, do you check the references of other items? Most of those in the list do not have any references to them. So, if I remove those, are you going to revert back the changes by adding reliable references? I insist you to read WP:NPOV185.219.177.224 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Which reference refers to the item you are trying to add as a "pogrom"? Please cite the reference and quote it. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary meaning alone is more than enough for this. That was an organised massacre of a particular ethnic group. Right? Any objection over this one? I don't think you'll go all the way saying dictionary is not a reliable source, will you? And I don't think you get it about references. At some point a reference will be the first to use the term. What makes a reference to be reliable and what if it takes an unreliable source? Does that info become de facto reliable? For the others in the list, can you point out the first reference, ground zero, that defines them as pogroms? And I want to point out that there are quite a lot in the list that are not defined pogroms. As long as they stay there, or you won't allow this to be added to the list, I see this act of yours politically related and plain hypocrisy. 185.219.177.199 (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately "dictionary meaning alone" is not nearly enough; please review WP:V and WP:NOR. Which references refer to the item you are trying to add as a "pogrom"? Please cite the references and quote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Hey IP. "You can check the newspapers of those days." You can check the newspapers of those days, IP. We're not interested in doing research so you get your way. You have to present the sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Necessary sources are already on Wikipedia page of Bloody Christmas 1963. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Christmas_(1963)#References . That's hypocrisy moderators are using WS:RS as an excuse for their bias, while there are dozens other incidents in this list which do not have any sources? So shall make the reader research for those events too? What these moderators are doing is, writing their own version of the history, while adding whatever they want to this list and deleting any other entries, suppressing others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.219.177.142 (talk • contribs)

If you're unwilling to provide explicit sources to back your claims, then it seems unreasonable to ask others to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking why some of the others in the list do not have any source? I've already linked Bloody Christmas 1963 to specific Wikipedia page, same as most of others in the list were. But "somehow" a moderator reverted back the changes and locked the article from editing.185.219.177.142 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If there's bad content in an article, or content that doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies, that's not a justification for adding more of the same. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that "Two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy. If you want to add material, please make sure it's properly sourced, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If a moderator is persistently deleting specific edit, while others retain, this is plain hypocrisy. This is already properly sourced on it's own page, which I've linked to.185.219.177.142 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If a "moderator" is persistently deleting the most recent edit, insisting that the addition be properly cited, then it's simply normal editing. Also, citations for this article only matter in this article. Now, if you have citations, please feel free to bring them. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If that moderator does not do anything to fix other wrongs in the article, that's plain hypocrisy.185.219.177.210 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That "moderator" also removed several other unsourced items from the article, but no-one is under any obligation to fix everything. Recent edits show up on recent edit lists, and that's what's usually responded to. Anyway, if you have an issue with an editor's behavior, please take it to WP:AN/I. If you want to add material to this article, please make sure it is properly sourced, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

True, no-one is under any obligation to fix anything. But if that person is doing this in a biased view, removing edits and using their authority to prevent others that goes as far as fascism.185.219.177.224 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Not clear what "in a biased view" means. Anyway, if you have an issue with an editor's behavior, please take it to WP:AN/I. If you want to add material to this article, please make sure it is properly sourced, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Sure I will. I'm going to point this out once more, as long as all of the items in the list are not treated equally, I'll take biased view as the reason behind this and define it as hypocrisy.185.219.177.199 (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please also review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I also think that Bloody Christmas should be included since in Turkish page of Bloody Christmas it says "Pogrom that made by Cypriots in Cyprus against Turks". Here is the link by the way https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanl%C4%B1_Noel

Delhi section

In 2020, a series of riots in North East Delhi in which Hindu nationalist mobs attacked Muslims and vandalized Muslim properties and mosques was widely described as a pogrom.[76][77][78][79] During the riots, 53 people were killed and more than 350 were injured.[80][79]

A fact is being intentionally avoided that out of those 53, 15 were Hindus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Delhi_riots

Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire.[14][15][16] The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted.[15]

15 Hindus died- https://thewire.in/communalism/delhi-riots-amit-shah-muslims-delhi-police

This is being done to intentionally by Wikipedia editors, to make the readers believe that, all 53 were Muslim victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HitmanBart (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ethymology

The sentence "The noun "pogrom", which has a relatively short history, is used in English and many other languages as a loanword, possibly borrowed from Yiddish (where the word takes the form פאָגראָם)" is completely false. This word in Polish is a natural word derived from "total and quick victory like by a thunder strike - uderzony gromem (stroke with thunder)". The word was used for long to describe military action results and afterwards was used to depict the Russian acts against Jews in XVIII - XIX centuries. Then adopted worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.167.5 (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. i.e. Słownik Języka Polskiego (Polish Language Dictionary) by Polska Akademia Nauk (Polisch Science Academy), Editor in Chief Witold Doroszewski, Vol. VI, p 801. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.63.183 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

What about the sources already in the article, e.g. https://www.etymonline.com/word/pogrom , which say it comes from Russian? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The reference appears to be this scan in SJP. The author of the entry lists several examples of usage in literature. My knowledge of Polish literature is too weak to date most of these. However, a few include:

• "Sienk Quo III" is very likely Quo vadis? by Henryk Sienkiewicz, so that dates Polish usage back to 1895–96;
• Ci zaś, co z pogromu uszli, sami sobie z rozpaczy śmierć zadali lub na przeprawach wodnych potonęli. NARUSZ. His. IV, 145 looks like part IV of Historia narodu polskiego (History of the Polish nation) by Adam Naruszewicz; Historia narodu polskiego says that volumes II to VII were published during 1780-1786; the ,,u" in ,,pogromu" is a standard Polish grammar#Declension from the base ,,pogrom" - so the word does appear to have been used in Polish around 1780-1786; the quote says that the survivors of a "pogrom" died from exhaustion or drowned, which is a close enough meaning to be credible as having evolved into the modern meaning.

So the claim of Polish origin is credible. That doesn't exclude the from-Russian-via-Yiddish etymology, but without the etymology being dated properly, etymologists' work is probably still incomplete. Boud (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Boud, I did a quick google (books+scholar) search for discussions in Polish about this. [14] (1927) for the Polish word grom (thunder) associates pogrom with it. Literary pogrom can mean 'afterthunder' (so does pl wiki pl:Pogrom; pl wikisource does not have an etymology section, but notes that the term has several - wider - meanings in Polish language, i.e. it means murder/defeat and can be used in contexts of non-Jewish events too). This book Piotr Sommer (2005). Po stykach. Słowo/obraz terytoria. ISBN 978-83-89405-24-1. to which I have only snippet access states "Pogrom ” , w znaczeniu „ mordów na ludności żydowskiej ” , zawitał do polszczyzny zaledwie na przełomie XIX i XX wieku i od" which translates as "Pogrom, in the meaning of the "murder of the Jewish people", entered the Polish language only at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries". Overall, unless we find a study that does a proper etymology of this term - assuming one has been written so far - we really don't know much about the origin, although I find the Slavic origin fromt the word 'grom' thunder convincing - that said, maybe there is some Yiddish-language or Hebrew-language discussion of פאָגראָם ? Can anyone check if any relevant etymological research has been published in those languages? Let's stick with what reliable sources say... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Holocaust Encyclopedia got it right [15]. This is Russian word. As more in depth sources say [16], that was related to the Pale of Settlement and other anti-Jewish policies by the state. If I am not mistaken, first pogroms in Poland started when it was a part of the Russian Empire. My very best wishes (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, Plausible. As in, the usage of the word for the murder of Jews might have been done in Russian before it happened in Polish. On the other hand, which language developed the world 'pogrom' first? Or 'grom'? [17] suggests connections to Russian, Greek and German. If we can't locate current research, we may be have to wait more years(?) until all Polish and Russian literature is properly digitized and searchable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have no idea how word "grom" (the thunder) in Slavic languages originated. But it does not really matter. We are talking about more specific word "pogrom" with a very specific meaning, at least in Russian (there is another word, "razgrom" which means something different, and based on your description it corresponds to word "pogrom" in Polish). Sources say this specific word, pogrom came from Russian. If there are other sources that say something different, let's use them too. My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Tykocin

What is this alleged "Tykocin pogrom" carried out by Einsatzgruppen doing in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb11:12:c900:216b:89a3:8cc6:d837 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Other pogroms in Nazi Germany

Text reads "The first pogrom in Nazi Germany was the Kristallnacht." What further pogroms were there in Nazi Germany itself (rather than beyond its borders)? I can't see any info on this anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.81.77 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Serbs in the NDH

Peacemaker67 I was going to post on your talk page. These sources (1 2 3) describe the events in Glina, as well as the broader massacres of Serbs in the territory of the NDH, as a pogrom. Why did you remove it? Meanwhile you left the entry on the Krnjeuša massacre. That one is doubtful. Bergholz and Matkovich both cite Josip Jurčević Jurjević's book for the term pogrom but neither of them call it that. Jurčević is a revisionist and pseudo-historian 4. Matkovich likewise is obsessed with Yugoslav Communist crimes while denying others, i.e. she is a proponent of the Jasenovac labor camp theory. 5 I don't think the Sarajevo Times is a RS either. --Griboski (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

How about we concentrate on using specialist sources on these matters, not sources that don't go into detail? None of those sources would I call specialist on this topic. For example, the word pogrom appears only once in both Tomasevich or Ramet, and neither uses it in relation to the genocide of the Serbs. Same goes for the sources used for the inclusion of the Krnjeuša massacre. On that basis I wouldn't object if it was removed from this list. The mass killings of Serbs in WWII is well documented on en WP without encroaching into areas where the academic consensus doesn't extend. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Based on that reasoning, I wouldn't include either. --Griboski (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Looking into the Krnjeuša massacre sources further, they seem sparse. Even weaker than the Glina ones. Also Griboski’s point about Jurčević and Matkovic which I was not aware of and will keep an eye out if it is being used on Wikipedia and remove it. OyMosby (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a note. I mixed up two different people with similar names. It is Josip Jurjević not Jurčević, which is why I had struck those parts out. Cheers. --Griboski (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Kosovo

Why is the only Pogrom mentioned during the Kosovo war show Serbs as victims? Also no mention of Sbrenica. Is there a slant here towards a Serb nationalist sympathy on Wikipedia. I am not a Kosovo just thought this odd. MikeceeALL (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting information

This article states:

Following the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 by Narodnaya Volya – blamed on the Jews by the Russian government, anti-Jewish events turned into a wave of over 200 pogroms by their modern definition, which lasted for several years.

The Russian government did not blame Jews for the assassination. The main article on pogroms in Russia discusses the rumor that Jews were behind the assassination at length, but does not attribute the origin of the rumor to government officials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire#1881%E2%80%931884

Moreover, the citations for the above excerpt [26] and [27], explicitly say that the consensus among historians is that the Russian Government did not instigate the programs. This is the exact opposite of the claim in the article that these citations are supposed to support!!! 96.237.143.207 (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Nie pełna nazwa tematu

Tutaj są opisane tylko pogromy żydów ,Sama nazwa pogrom dotyczy przegoniena lub unicestwienia kogoś kogo uznaje się za wrógów . Pogromy były , Zydów , na czarnoskórych np. ( https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masakra_w_Tulsie ) .Cześto tęz pogromm nazwwa się rzeżią, masakrąą lub eksterminacją . eksterminacja Bałtyjskiego ludu Prusów .http://prusowie.pl/historia/zniewolenie.php , Masakra indian , https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masakra_nad_Wounded_Knee . Pogrom Romów https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom_m%C5%82awski , Był też pogrommy katolików innych społeczności . Zwykle towarzyszyła im kradzież oraz gwałty . 5.173.129.67 (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pogram" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pogram and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24 § Pogram until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Closed as delete. Zero^talk 02:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Didn't pogroms also exist under communism?

I was sure Stalin (for instance) was known for such abhorrent ethnical cleansings, please enlighten me. 2001:14BA:9CEE:1100:A963:8B4A:C6A:C4C1 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Abinavmishra takes issue with the addition of the Huwara pogroms

@Abinavmishra, you have repeatedly removed an entry regarding the Huwara pogroms, although they are reliably sourced (Reuters, Haaretz, and The Jerusalem Post). Most recently, you gave your reason as: "POV-pushing, not common name".

Would you explain what you meant by this? Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I can also show you sources calling the Arab riots of 2021 as 'pogroms' (or the 2020 race riots in America for that matter), which doesn't mean it should be included in this list. The riot in Hawara is titled 'rampage' and not "pogrom" for a reason, the latter was a hyperbolic term used as a political weapon designed to shock, not a careful analysis of the event. "Pogrom" is not a WP:COMMONNAME of this event. Every riot is not a pogrom.Abinavmishra (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

None if this negates the point that numerous reliable sources have labeled it a pogrom in factual reporting. Your opinion about the motives of these sources is not relevant to this discussion. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What constitutes a difference between a legitimate pogrom and "a hyperbolic term used as a political weapon designed to shock"? Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference between a pogrom and a regular riot? See WP:COMMONNAME.Abinavmishra (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You will have to be much more specific. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Pogrom" is not WP:COMMONNAME for what happened in Huwara, despite being used by some commentators for political reasons. It's not even close to a pogrom, which is designed to massacre a population. It doesn't belong in this article. WP:GETTHEPOINT.Abinavmishra (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not see that in WP:COMMONNAME. Maybe you meant to send me to a different article? I also did not see that in WP:GETTHEPOINT. In fact, the latter states: "Sometimes, editors perpetuate 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."

You are in the minority here. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Abinavmishra@Harry Sibelius@VibrantThumpcake Note that although you can discuss this on the article talk page, you are not allowed to add or remove material dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now that you have all been made aware of this on your talk pages you can be site blocked or partially blocked so you can't edit this article. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Note this was originally added by another new editor. So the latest revert by someone who has enough edits to remove it was correct. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

selected list

which calender counting is used? starting with 38 it must be a christian date, so is it AD 38 ? 85.149.83.125 (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Christian/Hindu pogroms in Pakistan and anti-Muslim pogroms in India

There are a lot of collective attacks against people and goods, resulting in murders and looting, of a majority group against a minority group in villages or neighbourhoods in Pakistan and India, typically based on rumors of desecration of a 'sacred book' or 'conversion by marriage' etc. These collective attacks, murders and looting always happen while the local police and other authorities conveniently look in another direction, nobody is condemned afterwards. I am quite surprised none is mentioned in the article, as they litterally fit into the definition of a pogrom. See e.g. 1950 East Pakistan riots ("hundreds of thousands of Hindus being killed in pogroms"), 1964 East Pakistan riots ("The salient feature of the pogroms was its urban nature and selective targeting of Bengali Hindu owned industries and merchant establishments in the capital city of Dhaka."), Thematic Chronology of Mass Violence in Pakistan, 1947-2007, Pakistan: Blasphemy and reactionary pogroms etc. And e.g. Violence against Muslims in independent India and Violence against Christians in India
Minorities observer (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 - Operation Al-Aqsa Flood

The Operation Al-Aqsa Flood has been added to the selected list by @Ghostlystatic and @DVDsilber. I suggest removing it since it is not a pogrom (violent riot) but a terror attack realised by the Hamas militia. Woodybz (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It is highly inflamatory to consider a terrorist attack by a subjegated people as a pogrom, especially if we're not listing all of the pogroms that Israelis commit against Palestinians. MfVicendese (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Then, in addition to remove the terror attack of the 7th October, I suggest to add the pogrom perpetrated by Israeli extremist settlers in Huwara on the 26th of February. Fichs, the head of the IDF Central Command, define the settlers action as a pogrom. [18]https://www.timesofisrael.com/settler-extremists-sowing-terror-huwara-riot-was-a-pogrom-top-general-says/ Woodybz (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You are hilariously biased. You are also not a Jew. Pogroms happen to Jews. I am a Jew. I know what a pogrom is. If you remove it, I will restore it, and I will call you an antisemite if you do. Ghostlystatic (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that was a pogrom. It meets the definition of a pogrom. If you remove it, I will restore it. :-) I view removing it as an act of antisemitism by you. Ghostlystatic (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The only reason that this is being brought up by you is to annoy Jewish people. That's it. You're not here to build an encyclopedia. Ghostlystatic (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologise if I wrote something that might hurt you. The discussion on Pogrom is mainly from an encyclopedia point of view.

A pogrom is a violent riot. A riot is a form of civil disorder.

I don't see how the terror attack of an "organised" militia can be considered a civil disorder.

It would be more helpful if you could argue the discussion.

Moreover, you reported 1300+ Jews killed in the attack. The source did not mentioned the religion of the deaths. It would be more appropriate to replace "Jews" with "Israelies" since Arabs Israeli citizien were killed as well. [19]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/world/middleeast/arab-israeli-hamas-attacks.html Woodybz (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

They are Israelis, not "Israelies". Can't even spell it right.

I know quite well what an encyclopedia is. This was clearly a pogrom. If you can not understand that, that's not my problem. I will not step down from this. Ghostlystatic (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Please, I am not here to escalate the discussion. I would appreciate it if you show some respect.

Do you mind explaining why the Hamas attack should be considered a pogrom?

The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades is the military wing of the Hamas organisation. Their actions can not be considered a civil disorder. Thus, the attack should not be considered as a pogrom.

Otherwise, we should change the definition of pogrom. Woodybz (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

From the first sentences of the article:

A pogrom is a violent riot incited with the aim of massacring or expelling an ethnic or religious group, particularly Jews. The term entered the English language from Russian to describe 19th- and 20th-century attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire (mostly within the Pale of Settlement). Similar attacks against Jews which also occurred at other times and places became known retrospectively as pogroms. Sometimes the word is used to describe publicly sanctioned purgative attacks against non-Jewish groups. The characteristics of a pogrom vary widely, depending on the specific incident, at times leading to, or culminating in, massacres.

Read the first sentence over again. 10/07 was a genocidal massacre against Jews. If you don't believe me look at the article for the war. I stand by what I said. Ghostlystatic (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I read it. A pogrom is a violent riot.

A riot is a civil disorder.

Please, could you explain how you can consider the organised terror attack of Hamas as a civil disorder?

I will agree to keep it on the list if you can explain it. Otherwise, it should not be considered a Pogrom.

It is a linear lessical logic. It is not a POV.

Moreover, according to the article you mentioned, the attack was against Israelis. It is not mentioned that it was against only Jews. Woodybz (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That is semantics and pedantry. It was against the Jews, as per the Hamas charter. All of this is pedantry and chicanery. Ghostlystatic (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the definitions are important, especially in an encyclopedia.

I suggest providing a semantic argumentation; otherwise, I don't see any reason to keep the Hamas attack against Israel and its citizens in the list of Pogrom. Woodybz (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else you can describe what they did as anything else than lawless, and thus a riot.

You are not listening to plain language argumentation.

As I said your position represents only pedantry, and I sense an axe to grind against the Jews. Ghostlystatic (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal refers to the attacks as a pogrom: https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-hamas-video-screening-gaza-tsach-saar-31ed88ab Ansgarjohn (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Getting there. I suspect if we give this some time, maybe there will be a critical mass of sources that we should list this attack here. But it seems early and premature. Andre🚐 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Most pogroms such as Odessa pogrom or Kishinev pogrom weren't really so much riots as they were attacks of violent Cossacks who were basically a standing army of the Russian tsar, but roaming armed vigilantes, on, you know, horseback. It's hard to compare. The important question is. Do we have a majority of RS calling this attack a pogrom? So far, attack is the most common term. Andre🚐 01:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed (that 10/07 was a pogrom against Jewish people):
• 10/07 was a pogrom against Jewish people.:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Ghostlystatic (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a start, I'm going to hold off for now. There are a few sources in here that are either opinion pieces, or qualified minimal mentions. Also, I assume 10 people would revert it if I inserted this now. However, in the future, when more authoritative, academic sources says they consider it a pogrom, it'll show up and it'll get (disputed) tacked on there, maybe, who knows? Andre🚐 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay thank you at least for being reasonable, unlike the other guy. I will stop editing about this thing but I would like to keep this on here. I'm not the only one who has this opinion and I'm not the only one who would be offended some of the pedantry of certain editors of this platform. Ghostlystatic (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I promise we'll come back to it, or someone will. Andre🚐 01:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

References

2023 Dagestani Airport Riot

Local Dagestani muslims stormed an airport and looked for jews in a plane that just arrived from Tel Aviv. Should be added 81.33.243.202 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

They looked for Israelis in the context of Israel's bombing of Gaza. How could this be labeled as a "pogrom" as it clearly didn't target a local minority but foreign travellers in transit in an airport ? --Minorities observer (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Misleading article.

This article is in the antisemitism series, says that progroms were particularly against Jews, and then inflates the list with massacres against other ethnicities such as Blacks or with generalized riots where Jews were not the majority of victims or particularly targeted.

This needs clarification. Is this an article about antisemitism or general ethnic persecution?

Also, why is there no mention of the persecutions (massacres, expulsions and bans) against East Asians? They were and still are more persecuted than Jews, including in Israel. Fakecontinent (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

agreed. Pograms are not new, or targeted to one group -- it's a nasty side-to-dominant-culture, human problem for the ages. 2600:100F:B1A0:A0BB:40BD:8361:79CC:1262 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that it would be like if they attacked gypsies, homosexuals, communists, jehovas witnesses and Jews but claiming it was only an attack on Jews? Do you have a source? I’m not calling you a liar, it just sounds a little crazy. Why would a group try to claim a monopoly on such a tragedy? Surely that couldn’t happen. 47.144.16.66 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup

The section Pogrom#Selected list has grown far beyond its inclusion criteria, "This is a partial list of events for which one of the commonly accepted names includes the word "pogrom"".

The section is already marked for needing citations. I have marked some events as citation needed. I will add sources as I find them but some I'm fairly certain will be deleted.

If you are looking for sources, please note here and I will refrain for a reasonable time from deleting until you ref; if you are unable to establish that Pogrom‎ is one of the commonly accepted names for the event please delete.

I will delete individual list items, not groups, so the delete so they can be restored individually if references are found.  // Timothy :: talk  20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for working on this. Besides removing uncited entries, we should also check carefully whether cited sources actually include the term "pogrom" - if not, the corresponding example may well be original research. And for those that do, WP:NPOV may still require to determine whether that view is held widely enough to warrant inclusion in this article, and to attribute it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

it is more just an opinion than "original research". MWQs (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem isn't the list. The problem is the article. This is overwhelmingly an article on anti-Jewish riots. If the WP:SCOPE is supposed to go beyond that, it needs to be entirely rewritten to cull the WP:UNDUE focus on anti-Jewish riots. If the first sentence is correct for the focus of the article, sources shouldn't need to specifically use the word "pogrom"; any fairly spontaneous ground-up anti-anyone riot would count. The history section should then cover most anti-anyone bigotry on the planet.

Seems wrong to me. The solution isn't culling the list by which journalists happen to bring up the word "pogrom". The solution is just making it clear that this is an article on Russian anti-Jewish riots and, by extension, anti-Jewish riots more generally from the WP:LEADSENTENCE and then acknowledging (briefly further down in the lead and in a single section towards the bottom later on) that, by extension, the word does get used by analogy in some other contexts. Those other contexts should be linked to their separate articles, not listed here in any detail at all. — LlywelynII 21:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hamas-initiated attacks, 7 October 2023 section is a fucking joke, it should be removed entirely. 161.97.194.98 (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. Israel’s atrocities and decades long crimes blowing up in their faces for one day in the form of a military attack and historical riots and massacres against Jews because they were kept being used a scapegoat for all and any problem it’s not comparable whatsoever and the inclusion of the military raid in this, like you said, is a complete joke The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep that section but add context. The 7 October attack on the Negev doesn't fit the criteria for the table (the event name doesn't include pogrom). But I think it would be useful to keep the written section with added context, because if we just delete it, it will keep re-appearing with no context. And some of that needed context is missing events that should be included. The Huwara pogrom / Huwara rampage and other West Bank attacks by Israeli settlers. These attacks were actually more widely referred to as Pogroms than 7 October - including in multiple Israeli sources and big USA news outlets - including by the IDF commander in the West Bank. If we try to include those, which we should, the 7 October bit will definitely keep reappearing. MWQs (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria, It's referred to as the "October 7 pogrom" or variants of that in too many sources to just deleting it. We should add opposing views, because that is not a typical way to describe it, and it gets the power dynamic backwards (or upside down). But we need something citable? We could just list a couple of examples of "the ____ on 7 October" but it's not ideal. For a strong counterpoint we need something that actually says "it was not a pogrom because…" or at least something that very directly says "the event on 7 October was a (something else) because _____" and gives reasons for it being or "terrorist attack" or a "millitary operation" or something else? MWQs (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I found one source refuting it directly so far… "Why so many people call the Oct. 7 massacre a ‘pogrom’ — and what they miss when they do so" in the Forward, which says that it does not resemble historical pogroms. MWQs (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware there was a source that directly confronted the statement of October 7 being a ‘pogrom’. My main objection wa because of the highly military nature of the attack (Hamas was only able to reach civilians as a result of wiping out Israel’s border garrison’s). The other reason was that a ‘pogrom’ gives off the thought of violence against largely unarmed Jews as a result of antisemitic regimes making them the scapegoat of an internal problem, while Hamas’s attack was a retaliation to a genuine and prolonged injustice The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria, If you can find something that directly says "it was a military operation" that works? Arabic would be OK as long as the translation is unambiguous (a mainstream Arabic source might even be better than the niche / fringe sources that would have said it in English, e.g. Electronic Intifada, most of which are on the "deprecated sources" list). MWQs (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I really don’t know if this counts, but this times of Israel article describes attacks on military bases. Obviously I am not denying civilian massacres, all I am saying is that the attack was launched on mainly military targets (with major exceptions like Re’im massacre which killed 360 civilians, about half of the civilians death toll on October 7)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/strange-to-be-here-without-them-soldiers-who-survived-oct-7-return-to-nahal-oz-base/amp/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably not? Pogroms don't usually involve military bases, but writing "they attacked military bases and that means it wasn't a pogrom" is a bit too "wp:synth"? MWQs (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the bigger difference is the wall? Parts of the attack superficially resemble a pogrom, but them needing to break out of Gaza first turns it into something completely different? But that's definitely too comples to say without something citable saying almost exactly that. MWQs (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria on second thoughts, maybe the best option is just to summarise the attack as factually as particle, what they damaged any who they attacked, and let the reader decide whether thar describes a pogrom. MWQs (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair, the reason objecting to it stood out to me initially was that most pogroms were a stronger empire or mob killing Jews because of antisemitism, or because the oppressed minority was treated as the blame for things that went wrong (If I recall correctly some mobs even blamed Jews for the Black Death), while October 7 was a besieged and imprisoned population tearing down their prison walls launching a retaliation that did involve civilians massacres. If “military operation” sounds euphemistic then “military attack” can also work, other than that I agree The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, one of them is listed as blaming Jews for the black death. MWQs (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

[20] might be the strangest title I have ever read, "The settler pogrom in Huwara was anti-Zionist"? MWQs (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think "military operation" quite fits, it makes it sound evenly matched? which misses the issue of 37,000 vs 500,000 troops and rockets vs nukes. But "military operation" fits better than "pogrom" and it's a much more widely held view, so it's definitely necessary to include. MWQs (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be better to make the page more comprehensive than narrow the scope. A pogrom is much more specific than just "any bigotry anywhere". It is a violent attack on people and property, belonging to an already marginalised minority, over a short period of time, committed by people who aren't officially part of military or security services, but encouraged or ignored by law enforcement or the military. This type of violence has historically been disproportionately aimed at Jews, so the article focusing on antisemitism is not wp:undue.

There would not be very many that we need to add, If we include only events that fit a narrow definition of a pogrom and are referred to as pogroms in non-fringe sources. I am only aware of two events like that targeting non-Jewish populations in Gujarat and Hawara, both associated with a series violent events. There would be others I am not aware of, but probably fewer than what is here already.

MWQs (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Does פוגרום count? (Hebrew, presumably from Yiddish, for Pogrom)

MWQs (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The size of the table: Too much text makes the table hard to navigate. It should link to the main page for the event or a section above, instead of having a whole paragraph in the last column. For any that have sources, but don't have their own wiki page, maybe most of the text should be moved up to the body of the text? MWQs (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I put all the pogrom name citation neededs in their own column, so it can be sorted by that and we can find them quicker. I also put the long text in footnotes. MWQs (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References

"Asian Pacific"

@Sinclairian, why did you change "Asia Pacific region" to "Asian Pacific" in the section heading? To me - as someone who lives there - "Asian Pacific" sounds very weird; I don't think I've ever heard it called that. "Asia Pacific region" and "Asian Pacific" are both redirects, but the page is called "Asia–Pacific" (with a long dash). Is there a reason you wanted "Asian" instead of "Asia"? MWQs (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

“Asia Pacific region” just sounded awkward. Just call it “Pacific Asia” or “Asian Pacific” Sinclairian (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)