Talk:Pogrom/Archive 1

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

The Word

For those who are interested in what the word actually means: the word's root "Grom" literally means a Thunder, prefix - "po" gets used whenever you want to perform a certain action for a short period of time. In this case Pogrom means "to do what thunder does", and has nothing to do with no Jews or any other nationality, culture, political view or a certain minority group. Porgom is usually some loud procedure, where someone who does the "grom" has to quickly rearrange objects, causing a loud sound or some kind of disturbance.

For example, you can also commit "pogrom" upon your own property in your own house, while looking for things(keys, a tv remote etc...) or preparing a meal. A minority group CAN also perform "Pogrom", but they would usually fail. So, the numbers don't really matter, but they obviously do help with performing a successful "Pogrom". It is actually desirable, to perform "Pogrom" of this Wikipedia page, to stop people from misusing it in their racially/politically charged contexts, because the action of Pogrom can be used to do both bad, good, or, to make some things clear(to wreak jewish property to show them they are not welcome, to edit this wikipedia page to make sure people don't missuse the word, to remove a single, seemingly insignificant, card from the base of House of Cards to bring havoc to the entire structure and make things clear).

I really hope I've provided enough examples and explained the word, as well as, pogromed enough of my time to change some of your views on what the word actually means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusvas (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  • That may be the word's origin in Russia, but what matters here is its meaning as an English word. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pogrom

How do you even know that this is a word of Russian orgin? As it has exacly the same meaning in Polish for example it seems, and has it roots in pagan gods (quite a lot time ago that means). Other thing that concerns me is that the page is mostly concentrating on Russian pogroms against jews. As far i am concerned there are a lot more to write on western part of europe. Right now the first impression one gets is like it would be Russians that first invented pogroms against jews and were mostly the only ones who executed it.

Other thing to note is that, Jedwabne IS a consequence (like many other things, like German inhabbitants thrown out of their homes after WW2) of German occupation and by so cannot be threated as "polish" as Poland did not exist at this point. What i mean about the second statement is that it is leading people (inteligencia) of the country that usually (depending on the way sociaty is build, some forms like despotism can restrict the inteligencia's influence over society) forms the society's (nations) laws and moral rules aswell religion, in this case as Poland did not exist, not Polish rules and laws were there but Nazi German.

Sorry i am writing this here, but i have no damn idea how to post a new discussion post... Anyone?

KTTdestroyer (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Old talk

I don't think pogrom in Russian means only violence against Jews. There are now pogroms of other nationalities, for example 'Aziks'. And it's meaning is absolutely clear: 'pogrom' = 'to, chto gromjat'. Perhaps at some period, 100 years or more ago, pogroms were primarily or almost exclusively against Jews, and they were of special violence. And by Ochrana you mean Ochranka --Ilya 21:04, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The following piece cut from the article.

  • 19-22 Aug 1991 in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York. The pogrom began on August 19 when a Hasidic Jewish motorist accidentally struck and killed Gavin Cato, a seven-year-old African American boy. In revenge, an angry mob of black youths began assaulting Jews in the neighborhood, the population of which was about evenly divided between blacks and mostly Hasidic Jews; in one such attack, Yankel Rosenbaum, a 29-year-old rabbinical student visiting from Australia, was stabbed to death, and an undetermined number of Jews were seriously injured as the assaults continued for four consecutive nights (a non-Jewish motorist who had apparently gotten lost in the neighborhood, Anthony Graziosi, was also fatally attacked, presumably because he had a full beard and was wearing dark clothing and was thus mistaken for a Hasidic Jew).

This piece belongs to race riot article. Pogrom is violence by majority against minority, not simply one nationals against other nationals.

By the way, the topic of relations between African Americans and Jews can fill a whole new article. You might want to start one. Mikkalai 18:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, and here's why: It's only a "race riot" if both sides are equally the aggressors; in this situation that was definitely NOT the case because the Hasidic Jews didn't go marauding through the neighborhood beating up any blacks they encountered. The whole thing was totally one-sided - blacks attacking Jews merely because they were Jews. Therefore what happened in Crown Heights was indeed a pogrom - it was widely reported as such in the New York City newspapers, and during his successful, second campaign for mayor in 1993 Rudolph Giuliani made constant references to "the Crown Heights pogrom." TOttenville8 03:33, 15 Feb 2004 (EST)

I wasn't there, you may be right. Nevertheless such a big piece does not belong here IMO. I'd suggest to start an article Anti-Semitism in the USA (see Anti-Semitism) for examples of such articles, put the paragraph there as a section and refer it from here. OK, I'll do it myself. Mikkalai 11:00, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens reworded my poor text:

There is another, less known consequence of pogroms. During their two-thousand-year history of wandering the only defence of Jews was to fly. The second Kishinev pogrom have seen an organization of Jewish self-defence, which effectively stopped the pogromists in certain areas.

into

The organization of Jewish self-defence have stopped the pogromists in certain areas during the second Kishinev pogrom.

...with a caustic remak that Jews cannot fly :-) Sorry, my bad. I intended to write "defence of Jews was flight", but it was late night... The edit lost an idea that it was the FIRST notable resistance of Jews in modern times. And some even speculate that this self-defence is the roots of the initial strentgh of Israel. I'd like to ask to restore this somehow, with better English. If it was ot the first resistance, it would be good to mention the earlier ones. Mikkalai 08:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Не журись Mikkalai :), it was intended to be humorous, not caustic. Hope you haven't found that offensive. I also frequently do my edits at night and I appreciate when someone improves them. Here is why I removed the phrase:

I've added 1664 Lvov to History of anti-Semitism, thanks. Humus sapiens 02:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Use of the words "denotes" and "denote" in consecutive sentences denotes someone in need of a thesaurus.

It should be interesting to note that the pogroms of 1903-1906 claimed more non-jewish than they did jewish lives, so they were, at least in the larger settlements, much more akin to riots (actually, battles, in which both sides could attack and either side could win) than to earlier pogroms of the 1880s, where Jewish property was targeted, but only 2 Jews lost their lives, among with 19 peasants that were shot by GOVERNMENT TROOPS TRYING TO DEFEND THE JEWS. There was a loophole in the Imperial legal system that, until 1882, there was no punishment for such violent attacks on property and people, and, until 1882, participants in such acts could only be fined or imprisoned shortly - it fell under the "drunken breaching of peace". In 1882 the loophole was closed. While there certainly were anti-semites in the Imperial government, and while some policies of it were anti-semitic (like the univercity quotas ), there is no concrete evidence that the Imperial government was interested in those attacks, while there is much evidence that the Imperial government tried to stop and prevent such tragedies from occuring. Unfortunately, due to centuries of information warfare against Russia, by default Russia usually gets a negative stereotype; that distorts facts and makes understanding the historical realities extremely hard, if not impossible. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Black Death mentions some pogroms. Should we mention them here ? (even though they occurred long before the term "pogrom" was imported into English).

The article is about the term and its history of usage, not about violence against Jews. So, you don't need to list all cases throughout the history, starting from Pharaoh times. IMO the existing link History of anti-Semitism pretty much covers it. Mikkalai 02:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


I think it would improve the article's quality if you mentioned more pogroms that weren't against Jews. You spend a whole section on Jews but I think it would improve the article's depth if you expand on some other groups or go more in depth on some specific pogroms. There is no other examples of older pogroms, just modern ones and Jews.

Why Kishinev and Odessa pogroms were not pogroms.

A pogrom (from Russian: "??????" (meaning "wreaking of havoc") is a massive violent attack on a MINORITY people.

Odessa: According to 1897 census (http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_rel_97.php?reg=73)

total population of Odessa - 403815 Russian Orthodox - 225869 (56%) Jews - 138935 (34%) Roman Catholics - 24219 (6%) Lutherans - 8777 (2%)

Members of the Russian Orhodox Church are divided in several ethnical groups (Greeks, Bessarabians, Ukrainians and other), so they are not a majority. Thus, Jews were the largest ethnic group in Odessa. A pogrom is attack against a minority people. So Odessa "Pogroms" were not Pogroms

Kishinev Total population of cities in Bessarabian Guberniya - 293332 Russian Orhodox - 162177 (55%) Jews - 109655 (37%) Roman Catholics - 7244 (5%) mel gibson (1) 0% :0)*

Members of the Russian Orhodox Church are divided in several ethnic groups. Again "Kishinev pogrom" doesn't fit into the definition of pogrom.


I am removing passages about Odessa and Kishinev Pogroms --DonaldDuck 02:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(The "mel gibson" reference above, inserted from IP address "82.40.139.168", is not necessarily the same person as "DonaldDuck". --Davidrei 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC))

And I am restoring it on the grounds that the Jews constituted a minority in the Russian Empire. You arbitrary decision to pick a town - why not a street or a block? - is baffling (and I assume good faith). These two are classic examples of pogroms. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pogrom is a local, city-scale event, rioters don't move from one town to another, so decision to pick a town is correct. We have two options - 1) removing passages about Kishinev and Odessa pogroms.

2) changing definition of pogrom --DonaldDuck 02:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Donaldduck, that is a pretty crazy assertion, leaving aside the debunking that Humus gave you above. The Kishinev Pogrom was called a pogrom by everyone from Tolstoy to the New York Times in 1903. It is the example of a pogrom, it, and the attacks of the 1880s, defined the term. Only later was it used to generally mean an attack on minorities, the term originally referred to violent riots against the Jews in Eastern Europe. You are getting your casuality wrong. Why on earth would you want to remove these examples? Cite sources that support you. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sources - 1897 census. It shows that jews were not a minority but a largest ethnic group. (http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_rel_97.php?reg=73). So we must either remove passages about Kishinev and Odessa "pogroms" or change definition of pogrom from "attack on the minority" to something like "race riots" or "ethnical conflicts".--DonaldDuck

DonaldDuck, this doesn't say anything about the Kishinev Pogrom not being called a pogrom, it is merely a population listing, the same one you gave before. Even assuming that you are right, and that Jews represented a plurality (they were never a majority) among the ethnic groups, this does not change anything about the Kishinev Pogrom being a pogrom. Your argument is spurious:

  • If you want to split hairs (which I guess you do) the Jews were a minority, they did not represent 50%+
  • Your casuality is confused, the word "pogrom" was coined as a result of the pogroms in Odessa, Kishinev, and elsewhere - from there the definition spread
  • The article says "minority people," the Jews were definitely the minority people in Imperial Russia, arguing otherwise is like saying that because the rioters entered a Jewish neighborhood, it wasn't a pogrom. The term minority, when applied to population, is correct in this case -- see minority. You are just wrong here.
  • EVERYONE calls Kishinev a pogrom, you have no evidence of the contrary. Provide this or stop doing original research.
  • Outside of everything else, your edit was to eliminate almost all of the information about pogroms in Russia, all of it sourced and well-researched -- including pogroms like Bialystock and Siedlce. That is not a constructive way to operate, especially if your concern is the accuracy of the word "minority" in the description.

--Goodoldpolonius2 03:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kishinev Pogrom is being called a pogrom, but it does not fit into the definition of pogrom. My proposition is to change the definition of pogrom. (a) and (c) I showed that there were no majority, and Jews represented a plurality, so they are clearly not "minority people" (b) Yes, the word was coined as a result of the pogroms in Odessa, Kishinev, but i have shown statistical data proving that there is widespread misconception of Odessa and Kishinev Pogroms as "violent attacks against the minority". So we should change either definition of pogroms or remove passages about Odessa and Kishinev
"... edit was to eliminate almost all of the information about pogroms in Russia, all of it sourced and well-researched -- including pogroms like Bialystock and Siedlce. That is not a constructive way to operate, especially if your concern is the accuracy of the word "minority" in the description." Bialystock and Siedlce are not in Russia but in Poland. The subsection of the article is called Pogroms in Russia
Kishinev Pogrom is being called a pogrom, but it does not fit into the definition of pogrom. My proposition is to change the definition of pogrom. (a) and (c) I showed that there were no majority, and Jews represented a plurality, so they are clearly not "minority people" (b) Yes, the word was coined as a result of the pogroms in Odessa, Kishinev, but i have shown statistical data proving that there is widespread misconception of Odessa and Kishinev Pogroms as "violent attacks against the minority". So we should change either definition of pogroms or remove passages about Odessa and Kishinev (unsigned by DonaldDuck)
Your proposal may have been to change the definition, but your action was to delete most of the article, so I am not particularly impressed by your approach to this manufactured problem. Jews were a minority in the Russian Empire, which is how minorities are usually defined (again, see minority) -- its like arguing that African Americans aren't a minority because they make up a majority in parts of Harlem. Besides, the first sentence says "A pogrom (from Russian: "погром" (meaning "wreaking of havoc") is a massive violent attack on a minority people with simultaneous destruction of their environment (homes, businesses, religious centers). The term has historically been used to denote massive acts of violence, either spontaneous or premeditated, against Jews, but has been applied to similar incidents against other minority groups." This is clear about the historical use with regards to Jews and mentions "minority people", as opposed to your bizarre "minority in the city and/or neighborhood." Besides, you have yet to provide a single source showing support for your views, beyond your own original research. Bialystock and Siedlce were part of Russia during the pogroms. I think this discussion is over unless you can somehow explain the hundreds of links to the Kishinev Pogrom, etc. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"your action was to delete most of the article" - yes, I have deleted small part of the article. Until the definition of porgom is not corrected, this part is misleading people. "its like arguing that African Americans aren't a minority because they make up a majority in parts of Harlem." Well, African Americans constitute a majority in certain parts of Harlem, aren't they? "Bialystock and Siedlce were part of Russia during the pogroms." - it will be correct to write "Polish parts of Russian Empire" or "Polish-populated parts of Russian Empire". "bizarre "minority in the city and/or neighborhood."" Pogroms were local, city-scale events, data for city population is just OK. Besides this I did not write about "neighborhood". Don't misreport my arguments.--DonaldDuck 04:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DonaldDuck, you did not delete a small part of the article, you deleted almost the entire section about Russia, talking about every pogrom from 1881 on and quoting multiple sources including the New York Times by claiming it was misleading because Jews may not have been a minority in Odessa or Kishinev. This action alone, plus your continual series of new objections to everything in the article about Russia, lead me to believe that you are not working in good faith. Obviously pogroms were not simply local events, the fact that there were 166 pogroms in Russia from 1881-1883, and hundreds more in the 1900s, all against the Jewish minority in Russia and many with tacit or overt support from the Russian government, should be more than enough evidence. Either provide sources supporting your view explicitly -- saying Kishinev or Odessa were not pogroms -- or stop with your original research. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


BTW, there were plenty of cases when rioters moved from one town to another, or state police joining them. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You must support this by citing orders given to police. Police never does anything without orders. (unsigned by DonaldDuck)

Your arguments were rebuffed above. Good bye. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minority

I removed the word. It creped here relatively recently. The word "minority" is accidental and irrelevant to the definition. For example, pogroms of Caucasians in Moscow are pogroms of people "on a business trip", so to say. It would strange to classify them as minority. Also, about vporgoms of chinese merchants in Siberia it is difficult to describe chinese as "minority": they are global majority. mikka (t) 04:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we may be having some translation issues. Minority group in common usage means an ethnic group that is not the majority in a nation or state, not world majority or city majority (Chinese are also not a global majority, with about 1/6 of the world population). It is not limited to simple mathematical minorities, the definition by Schaefer (1993) from Dayton Law School states, in part, that a minority group is:
  • A subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or power over their lives than members of a dominant or majority group
  • Not limited to mathematical minority: example women, Blacks in South Africa, Blacks in Mississippi and South Carolina in the 1920's
  • Interchangeable with subordinate group
As far as I know, no pogrom has ever been targeted against the majority ethnic group in a country, but we can leave that out if it is causing so much confusion, despite it being correct- and I appreciate your reasonable approach, mikkalai. The important part is that it is not an attack on any group of people, but people of a particular ethnic group -- historically Jews, but recently Chinese, Caucasians, etc. That is why pogroms are not the same things as riots. I did some minor fixes to the definition in line with this. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Again: that they are minority is coincidental. While I admit that I added the chinese for fun only, the example with caucasians does demonstrate my point: they were targeted not because they are a kind of hated "minority"; they are targeted as merchants perceived as unjustly profiteering on Russians. As for pogroms against majority, then, if you think hard, you will definitely find a couple in Africa (if you want to stick to the formal definition of "minority" in a country). mikka (t) 05:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. The contradiction is basically resolved.--DonaldDuck 04:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note Pogroms at the markets in Moscow have been directed not against temporary merchans but mostly against the ethnically Caucassian Moscow residents who live in Moscow for years (Please see russian language link at Racism in Russia)
Sure, against Mikael Tariverdiev, Nona Gaprindashvili, Grigory Chkhartishvili and many others. This is bullshit. Russians always respected respectable people and did not feel any indiscriminate dark envy towards them. They loved Georgian music, appreciated georgian musical skills, georgian film, elaborate Georgian toast speeches. Even georgians perceived rich was a matter of respect. Russian jokes about Georgians are not of hateful nature.
Why don't Caucasian elders put some blame onto their sons? Unfortunately, according to the russian proverb, "shit always floats on the surface", and not the best of immigrants are in the Russian eye now. In my times, Armenian unofficial construction brigades (shabashniki) were highly welcome in Russian/Belarussian countryside, for their fast and quality work. I don't think other smart Armenians, who sell "burnt" "Armenian coignac" must expect respect. mikka (t) 19:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First pogrom

I'm no expert on the subject, but can anyone tell me why 1821 is given as the date of the first pogrom? They've been going on for centuries, the York pogrom of 1190 for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/north_yorkshire/article_1.shtml

Good point. Actually, much earlier pogroms may be found in Bible, you know. I think the issue here is the term and its usage. mikka (t) 17:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the intro to make it a bit clearer. Pogrom was a new coinage in the 19th century to refer to the violent riots aimed specifically at Jews in Tsarist Russia, it is now used to refer to all such attacks. When we refer to the "First Pogrom" we mean the first of the series of violent attacks aimed at Jews in Russia, that reached epidemic proportions in 1881-1883, 1903-1905, and 1917-1919. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-Germans

That is just blatant relativization, as their complicity is still a matter of discussion, hence the more appealing neutral wording. Ksenon 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Iasi pogroms, Lviv pogroms, and Kovno pogroms, the deadliest of the war, were clearly done by non-Germans. Occupying Nazi forces encouraged pogroms before their arrival (see the Jager report) but used much more direct methods against Jewish populations themselves. As for Jedwabne, both Gross and IPN found little evidence of German involvement, there may have been German police officers there, but there is no evidence that they assisted in the pogrom. I don't object to playing with the wording around Jedwabne, but your insertion of "German occupied territory" wasn't right, since neither Iasi nor Kovno were occupied. Similarly, what is the justification for removing the Sikh pogroms? They are referred to that way by many sources: See, for example, Globalizations and Social Movements by John A Guidry, Michael D Kennedy, Mayer N Zald, University of Michigan Press. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


So why the heavy emphasis with weasel words (perhaps most well-known, etc.)? Did my edit not neutralize a heavily POVish sentence? There is a lot of room for discussion here, so how about a more neutral version of the intro? And why 2 external links specifically directed to Jedwabne when it is already covered in the article? Ksenon 09:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My edits

Removed the "Outside Russia" subchapter name that was disputed by Ben-Velvel but readded some useful information. Corrected factual errors. Added many wikilinks and soem fact tags in relation to the numbers and exact dsescriptions of the Holocaust pogroms as such numbers are quite frequently inflated or deflated purposefully or anyhow changed and that might go unnoticed so the sources are always good (I remember seeing quite different numbers elsewhere ias for some of the pogroms listed here). Changed the number of the Jews killed in Iasi massacre to the one available in the Wikipedia article of that massacre. By the way, not every attack, massacre and such is necessarily a pogrom. Burann 23:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed offensive (and POV) remarks

I have deleted the sentence "Pogroms against the Jews are something that should be highly commended". I hope it's not necessary to justify this deletion. RolandR 12:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor point, by deleting the whole sentence rather than checking what the previous version of the title was, you actually lost a section heading "Pogroms against the Jews". As it happened I did a revert to the previous good version of the article at virtually the same time which had the effect of both removing the offensive text, and restoring the section heading. David Underdown 12:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I was so angry at the comment that I didn't pause to consider the knock-on effect of deleting the whole sentence. Is there any way to go through the history and see who added the comment, and when? RolandR 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If you click on the history link at the top of the article page, you can select versions of the article to compare, and that will show the differences (known as a diff) between the two. To revert to a previous version, click on it in the history list, and then click edit. Then save without making any changes and that earlier version will be restored as the current article version. See WP:REVERT for a fuller explanation. David Underdown 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. But in a long article, it could mean looking through scores of links to find the relevant one. As it happens, in this case I caught the change within fifteen minutes; the culprit was an anonymous user at the IP 86.131.158.117, who at the same time posted gratuitous comments on the articles on America and Israel. RolandR 15:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That's more or less how I caught it too, I have the Israel article on my Watchlist, checked the change to that article, reverted it, chekced the user's contributions and straightened out the other ones. Actually on the contribution list, if the revision made by that user is the current one, it will have (top) next to it, so you can be sure you don't need to go any further back. Also once you've gone into a diff , you can click on the arrows at the top to move back one revision at a time. Anonymous IPs are often the ones to be most wary about, so you can always compare the last version by a named editor with the current one, and see if there are any other "good" changes along the way. Bear in mind there are several people (and a few bots) who check the recent changes and revert obvious vandlism. Something like this article with its Jewish associations is a fairly obvious target for mindless vandalism, and so is likely to be checked. Most vandlaism on Wikipedia gets reverted within 5 mins I beleive. David Underdown 10:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jedwabne

"The deadliest pogroms during the Holocaust occurred at the hands of non-Germans, for example the Jedwabne pogrom of 1941"

Why the Jedwabne pogrom is an example? Why not Kaunas, Lwów, Iasi (and many, many other Romanian ones)? If it isn't a bias - what is it? Xx236 06:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The original version was "Particularly well-known and relatively well-documented was the Jedwabne pogrom of 1941", which is true - the Jedwabne pogrom has been studied before many others. But the situation has changed since 2002.

Xx236 06:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"nationalists allegedly organized two large pogroms in June-July, 1941 in which around 6,000 [1] Jews were murdered, in apparent retribution for the collaboration of many Jews with the previous Soviet regime." So we don't know who (who organized Petlyura days?), but we know that the pogrom was allegedly fully justified. Where are the lists of Soviet collaborators? Xx236 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "the pogrom was fully justified" is grossly offensive and racist. No pogrom ever, under any circumstances, is "fully justified". Please desist from such remarks. RolandR 10:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is "apparent retribution for the collaboration" (article) much different than "fully justified" (my wording)? Xx236 11:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is. The phrase "apparent retribution" speculates about the motives of the perpetrators of this crime. The phrase "fully justified" condones the crime.RolandR 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"apparent" isn't any speculation. But I have inserted "alleged" to make my point more clear. Xx236 13:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

The editor comes in and slaps a POV on my section, but leaves no explanation. The purpose of my section was to provide context for the events leading to the pogroms. The way the article is written makes it appear (intentionally) that Russian peasants just decided one day to up and kill jews. It is suggested to read the book Esau's Tear by Albert Lindemann.

The section I marked as POV for the following reasons:

1) Its cheap horror-show stuff that adds little real knowledge (dead kids, yawn.) 2) "Some historians believe" used to insert an assertion (that the Tsar promoted the pogroms) that is not taken seriously by most Russian historians. 3) A sensationalistic newpaper account from 1903 is a horrible source. "...are worse than the censor will permit to publish" :rolleyes:

  • Among other reasons, I inserted the POV tag because Occidental Quarterly, from which you're quoting, is a self-described Christian supremacist publication. --M@rēino 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have any objection to the facts in the quote?
      • Well, first off, it totally doesn't support the claim that "The root cause of the pogroms was the economic exploitation of the Russian peasantry by Jews." All that the quote says is that the Jews were bureaucrats for the nobility and bartenders. Who ever heard people complain that bureaucrats and bartenders were powerful? --M@rēino 18:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Do you have any idea what the life of a peasant was like? There was one local bar you went to, because you didn't travel anywhere, and in the Russian empire that bar was almost always run by a jew, who charged whatever he wanted. Same thing with the local mill, etc. After emancipation jews would often lease land from nobles and charge exhorbitant rates for to peasants for farming it, putting them permantly in debt, similar to the situation faced by black sharecroppers in the US south. Basically, jews acted as agents for nobles, and this resulted in them becoming the "face" of oppresion, the people who overcharged them for bad beer. This is the root cause of anti-semitism in Eastern Europe of that period.
      • Accusations of ethnic criminality require, and don't constitute, support as an explanation for historical events. The source for these disconnected quotes was a book review by Kevin MacDonald (Google "A Revisionist view of Anti-Semitism"), not the Lindemann book itself. The sense of the quotes from the review seems to be that the government and landowners were blameless, the peasants were "spontaneous", and the subjects of the pogroms culpable. This concept of arbitrary and diffuse responsibility is ungrounded in logic, let alone fact. Furthermore, the phrase "root cause" implies that the overcharging which Mr. MacDonald asserts was itself uncaused. These are strong and unsupported claims. I added a sentence identifying the quotes as an illustration of "scapegoating" (without pre-judging the correctness of the citation, the quotes, the book "Esau's Tears", the Russian monarchy's assertions, their inner beliefs, or the true state of ethnic relations) because they would have educational value for a reader unfamiliar with anti-Semitism, but should not be taken as consensus.--Davidrei 18:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This delicate problem requires careful and methodic approach. Cerainly, to fully understand why such tragedies occured one cannot dismiss the economic factors as well. For example, it is a fact that in the Russian census of 1897 it says that out of 618926 people employed in trade 450427 were Jewish, while the total Jewish population in Russia made up just over 4 percent of the imperial population. Similar disproportions in representations existed in other situations, involving other nations on both sides, and they often led to violent confrontations. The underlying economic problem was of course, enforced and aided by anti-semitism or other kinds of national discrimination. The undeniable existance of the economic factor does not in any way condone murders of children and adults, rapes and other violence, nor does it suggest that such acts against the Jews (and other groups) were justified. Also, there is some inbalance in this article as the section about the Russian Empire's pogroms is much larger than the section about the Middle Ages, and while this argument could be rebuffed since the term "pogrom" orginitaed in the 19th century, according to the Russian-language Jewish Encyclopedia from the beginning of medieval pogroms in Western Europe to 1500 about 380 000 Jews lost their lives to such violence (out of about a 1 000 000). Thus this form of presentation creates a rather unfaivorable image of Russia, while the scale of violence there is in thousands (not hundreds of thousands). Also, the view that Black Hundred was agressive anti-semitic organization is contested, and quite convincingly, by some modern Russian historians (for example, Vadim Kozhinov). Overall, I think this article needs much improvment, and as soon as I have free time I will be happy to fill in some blanks. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Kielce pogrom was a major factor in the flight of Jews from Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War.

The statement is biased, there were many factors - pogroms in Slovakia and Hungary, state robbery ("nationalization"), unification (not allowing Jewish cooperatives or plants), atheization, Sionism, tolerated emigration (non-Jews weren't allowed to emigrate). Xx236 13:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just small remarks

Aren't some figures of victims inflated? If there were 12000 Jews killed in Mainz alone, how many non-Jewish inhabitants were there in Mainz? London had (maybe) 35000 inhabitans in 14th century, and Mainz...? Is 1600 victims Jedwabne sure? Maybe it is better to write 380-1600, to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia? 84.10.114.122 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC), a casual visitor.

Concerns addressed. `'mikkanarxi 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that something should be done to address the "Limerick Pogrom." First, there is no attribution. Second, if the lack of attribution were not enough of a problem, the graf goes on to state that the "Limerick Pogrom" was more of an economic boycott than a pogrom. To conflate pogroms with economic boycotts stretches the meaning of pogrom beyond recognition. Goateeki (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Something called "the Limerick Pogrom" did actually occur. But I don't think I'm parsing things too finely when I say the substance of what occurred may not meet any meaningful definition of the word pogrom. When compared to events in Russia -- and these are the events that give meaning to the common usage of the word "pogrom" -- the term "Limerick Pogrom" seems a bit conclusory. Happy to hear what others have to say in this regard. If it's to stay, however, I think there should be attribution. Goateeki (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I'm able to gather, the Limerick Pogrom consisted of an economic boycott of Jewish businesses in the two year period following 1904 and injury to person and property of one Jewish woman and two Jewish families over a period of eight years, between 1884 and 1892. Compare this to the scale and focused nature of the violence in the most notorious Russian pogroms. Am I being too lawyerly in saying that the term "Limerick Pogrom" is a bit too conclusory and may even be misleading? Goateeki (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Ralph Schoenmann a credible source?

I was wondering if there might be a less controversial figure to attribute "Pogroms being encouraged Zionists" as fact than Ralph Schoenmann? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.124.34.151 (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Whether or not Schoenmann is a credible source is irrelevant here, since he does not actually claim that the Zionists encouraged pogroms. His assertion -- for which there are many more sources -- is that the Zionist movement failed to oppose the Nazi atrocities, and in some cases actively sabotaged resistance. I have deleted the unsubstantiated claim. RolandR 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted piece

I removed the growing collection of riots around the globe, which becomes pointless. Every race riot is called "pogrom" now; the therm became blurred and its usage became indiscriminative, just like the words "holocaust", "genocide", etc. You cannot force people to stop calling each skirmish "pogrom", and the list threatens to bloat the article without aditin encyclopedic value to the term. `'mikka 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A modern example of a race riot qualified by some as a pogrom is the August 1991 events in Crown Heights, Brooklyn (Crown Heights Riot). The 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi are generally considered to be a pogrom against the Sikh community in Delhi.

Modern examples of pogroms against other nationals may be seen among the manisfestations of the anti-national sentiment in Russia:

Examples of other events that happened in modern history and are sometimes called pogroms:

  • Military coup in Indonesia, 1965: Pro-communist president Ahmed Sukarno is overthrown. Nationalist groups commit mass-murder against members and supporters of the communist part and against the ethnic Chinese minority. Death tolls range in the hundreds of thousands.
  • Anti-Tamil government-sponsored pogrom in July 1977 in Sri Lanka, in the wake of the United National Party election victory in the general election .
  • Anti-Tamil government-sponsored pogrom in July 1983 in Sri Lanka, in the wake of the killing in ambush of 13 soldiers by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam - so-called 'Black July'.
  • Pogrom against Turks in Fergana (Uzbekistan) in June 1989, hundreds of Turks were killed.
  • Pogrom against Uzbeks in Osh (Kirghizstan) in June 1990, 300 Uzbeks were killed.
  • Jakarta Riots of May 1998: riots against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia.
  • Episodes of the Rwandan Genocide have been described as pogroms.
  • Pogroms and genocide against Muslims in Gujurat, India 2002 by Hindu extremists - thousands killed, hundreds of women raped and over 250 mosques destroyed
  • Anti-Oromo riot in Mekele, the capital city of Ethiopia's Tigray Regional State in 2006. Armed mobs from Tigre ethnic group stormed Mekele University campus and several Oromo students were wounded in this riot. The Oromo students allege that the security forces from Tigre ethnic group backed the rioters.
I think that this cleanup only improves the article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Inflation of casualties and other matters of the 1881-1884 pogroms

Basically, those series of pogroms were aimed at Jewish property, not at killing Jews - according to Y.I.Gessen (Ю.И.Гессен), there were over 150 incidents of wrong doing against the Jews in the noted time period; "in most cases the disorder was limited to the destruction of taverns", less frequently "jewish property was plundered, and in rare instances there were beatings". ("в большинстве случаев беспорядки ограничились разгромом шинков" "имущество евреев подвергалось разграблению, а в единичных случаях произошло и избиение"). The "hundreds dead" comes from extrapolating the 1903-1906 Pogroms unto the past, which is by no means accurate. Also, such facts as the involvment of the military in the suppression of the anti-Jewish rioting (19 rioters killed) and the addition of a new law to punish those participating in pogroms (prior to 1882 people participating in pogroms could only be punished for "roudiness in public areas" - for more detail see Kozhinov http://www.hrono.ru/libris/kogin4.html) show that the idea of Russian imperial gov-t being behind the pogroms is rather far fetched. Thus I think that this article has a strong anti-Russian bias. Also, reasons for pogroms in Russia are not properly explained - even though contemporary Jewish authors viewed economic factors as important. I'm sure that some people would find including economic factors offensive, as they may create a view that the pogroms were justified - so it has to be written in a balanced matter, as to show that even though some of the jews were in fact opessing (i use this term broadly) the peasants, the outcome was tragic at any rate. I don't see a reason to idealize the jews or vilify the Russian Empire - we should merely present facts and un-biased analysis. With respect, Ko Soi IX 09:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gessen was only able to prove that 2 (two) Jews were killed in the 1881-1884 pogroms. That is definately "relatively few", yet I do not see the reason for removal of this number. In my opinion, if such concrete numbers are available, there is no need to replace them with a vague "few". If better evidence is available, I shall withdraw this claim. With respect, Ko Soi IX 03:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pogrom vs riot

What is the difference between riots:

and pogroms

I believe that the word riot doesn't brand white Americans the way pogrom brands Eastern Europeans.Xx236 11:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A pogrom is a organized massacre. [1] --Vonones 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel the etymology and the history of the appearance and use of the term should be much earlier in the article. Also what are the parameters of a pogrom? Can a riot where 14 people are killed be classified a pogrom. Can ethnic riots of the past be classified as pogroms and can anti-Jewish ethnic riots and actions in other countries other than Russia be properly classified as pogroms? Thanks Bandurist 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A pogrom is generally a riot that is encouraged by authorities or at which authorities do nothing to stop the violence, police stand about idly or assist the rioters. That is why Kishinev and Krystallnacht are classic pogroms. In other cases it is less clear. Here is a reasonable definition: http://isurvived.org/2Postings/Pogrom-defined.html The word comes to English from Yiddish and probably should be confined to organized riots against Jews. [[Mewnews (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)]]

October 2000 events in northern Israel were not exactly an antisemitic pogrom

Regarding this sentence:

The October 2000 events are another example of a modern-day antisemitic pogrom, in Israel, with the perpetrators being Israeli Arabs (although Jews are known to have been among the rioters as well).

I think it's a bit iffy to call this set of events an antisemitic progrom, since, unlike the Crown Heights riots, there were three different active participants in the mob violence: Arab civilians, Jewish civilians, and the Israeli police. Also, it doesn't fit the usual structure of a pogrom, where a local ethnic ethnic majority brings overwhelming violence to bear against members of an ethnic minority. The body count as cited in the Wikipedia article was 12 Arab civilians (mostly killed by police), and 1 Jewish civilian. This does not indicate overwhelming violence against Jews. It seems to me that a politically motivated general strike degenerated into a series of riots featuring inter-ethnic violence, with a sort of tit-for-tat pattern of reprisal. In other words, an unfortunate and regrettable situation, but not a pogrom. skoosh (háblame) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The statement also contradicts the Wikipedia entry on the "October 2000 events", which indicates that most of the deaths and destruction happened within non-Jewish communities. I am going to be bold, and remove it. Meowy 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Pristina 1999 - real tragedy, but not pogrom - source completely unreliable

Events in Pristina and other Kosovo towns were a real tragedy, but it could not be described as pogrom. Most of the population were forced to leave by dozens of seemingly unrelated crimes against remaining non-Albanian civilians. It is quite possible that there was an organized plan to force them to leave their homes, but it was not a pogrom, because there was not a single day fulfilled with violence. If was more a "silent pogrom" if such term exists. Source (a single interview from "Glas Javnosti" newspaper) is unreliable. That newspaper should not be quoted in a serious article. 89.110.193.137 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of weasel-words like "tragedy" will not be sufficient to justify the removal of events that fit the criteria of a pogrom. Meowy 20:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gush Katif

Is the expulsion of the Jews from Gush Katif a pogrom? Objectively, regardless of the political situation, Only Jews and not Arabs were removed from their homes and livelihood under the threat of force without any real compensation. If not Gush Katif, than what about the expulsion from Amona shortly afterwards where the police used violence to remove the Jews? Adam10312 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • considering that noone got killed and there was no massacre, I don't see why it should be considered a pogrom. Even if someone by chance did get killed, considering that great care was taken to try to NOT kill anybody (in some communities the police deliberately entered without weapons) it should certainly not be considered a pogrom. GZee (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther mention

In the section regarding pogroms prior to the 19th century, it mentions that Martin Luther advocated harsh actions against Jews. Though this is an obvious example of antisemitism, this is not an example of a pogrom, only an advocation. I don't think it needs to be here.129.120.93.114 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The recent deletions of Polish oppression

Could Jacurek (talk · contribs) please make his/her case here instead of simply reverting?--Stor stark7 Talk 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


I already explained that to you, There is NO WAY you can take lines out of context and post them on Wiki. All you are doing is creating confusion among readers. People can understand that in many different ways. If I was a reader, without much knowledge of post war Polish reality, how the hell I would understand the line like "Surviving Jews returning to Poland from the Soviet Union were killed simply because they asked for their property back" Who killed them ? How? Communists ? Poles? Other Jews? Russians ? Were they stubbed by Ghosts or what the hell? And there was 37 people killed in Kielce and NOT "around 40" etc, etc.ere  ?--Jacurek (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Also Stor stark7...are you on the mission to promote Jan T.Gross and his book Fear? All you are posting is 10 links (as a references) of one guy (Jan T.Gross) and his one book "Fear". Don't you think that there is some better sources as a reference, like Yad Vashem for example? Jan T.Gross does not have %100 credibility, because his work, especially his interpretations of the events in post war Poland, is often disputed by many historians and even in part by some famous Polish Jews like Marek Edelman.--Jacurek (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacurek, while your remarks are reasonable, your actions are inadmissible in wikipedia. When someone disagrees with your deletion you have to explain your position in the talk page. Please also keep in mind that after more than 3 reverts of a page in 24 hours you may be blocked from editing, see WP:3RR. `'Míkka>t 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, to your deletion. I agree that the sentence about returning Jews were killed is an inadmissble arbitrary taking a piece of an original sentence, which merely listed various cases and did not mean that all these Jews were killed when they started to claim their property. But the second sentence (about the decrease of Jewish population) is perfectly valid, although it was also cut to inadmissibly sensationalist form. I restored/expanded the first sentence. `'Míkka>t 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


"decrease of Jewish population" is of course valid but also must be explained and not just by "other prosecution" which could mean many things. I was more concerned with Stor stark7 obsession with Jan Gross and clear anti Polish sentiment (at least to me) that anything else. P.S. I "can live" with the latest changes because they actually make sense.--Jacurek (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Pogroms/ riots in South Africa

Why were these events removed when they have been described by several leading commentators as well as the leaders of the Jewish community in SA as a "pogrom"? Surely this is a legitimate citation of the modern use of the word "pogrom" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.16.3 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Still slanted?

The "Modern Usage" section of the article describes pogroms over the past 150... why is it still considered "slanted towards recent events"? --77.126.118.147 (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tragic Week (Argentina, 1919)

  • Where do Jews come into this event? References [2] [3] [4] seem to show that the Tragic Week was a wave of violent industrial strikes and protest suppressed by force, and nothing specifically against Jews. Did the rioters attack Jewish property in the process (probably for the usual economic reasons)? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pogroms in Israel

User 193.46.64.83 has added a good deal of original research to the paragraphs about alleged pogroms in Israel.

In Wikipedia all claims must come from reliable sources. Even if something is self-evident, it can't be written into a Wikipedia article without a source. Therefore, claims like that pogroms in Israel are "minor" actions must be supported by a quote from a source that states exactly that.

I will remove all original research from said paragraphs.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the paragraph on Pogroms in Israel is a bit too long and seems to take a defensive tone aimed at justifying these pogroms rather than make an objective description of the events. I agree with Abenyosef about the original research. I tagged several claims with the citation needed in hope that someone will either cite the source or remove them. Kheinstein (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A distinction must be made between a violent riot that does not end in killings and a massacre. The fact that politicians and peace activists call a riot a pogrom when no one has been killed is an attempt to sensationalize and draw attention to the violent outburst. Such sensationalism is actually quite common in Israel as can be seen, for example, from when the Israeli police are called Nazis by fellow Israeli Jews (such as during the disengagement from Gaza). This however does not mean that Israeli police are Nazis no matter the hurtful and vindictive intentions of their accusers. There shouldn't be any room in this entry for trivializations of what a pogrom really is, just like there would be no room in the entry about Nazis for some mention about how the Israeli police have been called Nazis on occasion, or for a mention in the entry about the Holocaust about how Israel is sometimes accused of committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians. I am therefore removing the mention of how riots in Israel have been called pogroms...because they weren't pogroms and this entry is about pogroms and not about vindictive sensationalizations. GZee (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Blanking a whole bunch of sources which mention the subject of our article, including Guardian and BBC, will always raise a red flag. → Э (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure it raises a red flag, but that is precisely why I clarify that we should have the discussion on the talk page. I do think my point is clear. As a recent example, just because Sara Palin called recent events a blood libel does not necessarily mean that we should have that as an an entry for modern usage of the term in the blood libel page even though there are sources that she used the term to refer to something other than for what the term has historically been used. Some could disagree of course, but, again, the place to debate that is on this page. GZee (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Western bias

Is it just my imagination? Or has this article completely ignored the pogroms of most of the world throughout history?

I can understand the problems from the early western hemisphere and africa - the cultures couldn't write. But the pogroms of the East (you know China, Japan, Korea, the SE Asian, steppes, etc.) are well documented.

C'mon people. English is not the only language, the West is not the only culture w history books, and the West is not the only culture nasty enough to do things like that.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Zanzibar grave.jpg

The image File:Zanzibar grave.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

I removed this unsourced claim:

though it doesn't meet the definition since it is not state sponsored & would defined as a riot

but was reverted for 'editorialising' which is somewhat ironic since this poorly worded claim is what is editorialising as it is not supported by any reference nor is it supported by the article which doesn't say pogroms need to be state sponsored. Rather then getting into a revert war, I'm taking it here to discuss. Can someone explain to me why an unreferenced claim which doesn't agree with the rest of the article belongs? This doesn't even appear to be the only example where the incident/s in question wasn't state sponsored so the reason why this particular caset is singled out with an unreferenced claim is unclear to me Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This claim "after the courts determined it has been purchased legally by Israelis, deed for money, in a video taped transaction" is also not supported by the given source Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Natural

I just noticed my removal here [5] was also reverted for the same reason. Again the claim that is naturally lead to a strong embrace of Zionism is unsourced and seems unnecessary in the context. Many people have been victims of horrendous persecutions thorough the ages, including of course Jewish people. This can and has lead to a variety of different outcomes. In somes cases, the desire to form a homeland as in the case of Zionism. But there are also a lot of other outcomes which can and have happened, e.g. a desire to establish and enforce in some way laws and institutions which guarantee protection, a desire to emigrate to other countries, a desire to integrate so that one is no longer seen as an outsider et al. All of these are possible outcomes and to assert that one of these is more 'natural' then the other is just plain silly. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong or unusual with the outcome simply that it is not the only plausible or 'natural' outcome. Finally I see no reason why asserting it was natural, which is arguably a weasel word and in any case is unquestionable not NPOV is even necessary since in the statement is clear enough itself. It lead to an embrace of Zionism. There's nothing unusual, or unexpected, or wrong, or sinister about that. Whether it was 'natural' or not is irrelevant and simply leads to pointless argument about basically nothing. (And this applies to nearly all cases of when something is called natural be it organic food or heterosexuality) Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

How can one tell that the word 'pogrom' is exactly of russian origin, while it sounds exactly the same in e.g. polish (pogrom, derived from verb "gromić" - same meaning as in russian)? Isn't it better to write, that the word is of slavic origin in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Civil War and after

  • In the Red Army participation in pogroms was a subject of punishment. For example, see there [6] concerning Sizth Division. The book also say: "The soviet government, unlike the White leadership, actually wished to stop pogroms and had no intention of using Anti-Semitism as its ideological banner... The mercilessness with wich they eventually treated the pogromists proved effective".

According to some sources, as many as 153 red army soldiers were executed for participation in Pogroms. Garret Beaumain (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

About so-called pogroms against Russians in Kyrgyzstan

I inquired presented sources and found nothing in there related to topic. so please don't present this whole story as some some kind of ethnic cleansing against Russians, while it has nothing to do with Russians. whoever doing this, please don't, write me before editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torebay (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Vanderboegh

Removed from article:

  • On Friday, March 19, 2010, Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Alabama, former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call for modern “Sons of Liberty” to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita, Kansas. Vanderboegh posted the call for action on his blog, “Sipsey Street Irregulars.” Referring to the health care reform bill as “Nancy Pelosi’s Intolerable Act,” he told followers to send a message to Democrats. “We can break their windows,” he said. “Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary.” [1] Under the U.S. Patriot Act, these crimes are classified as "Domestic Terrorism." [2]

Does this really qualify as a pogrom, or should it be moved to another article? The lead says that a pogrom is a riot against an ethnic, racial or religious minority group, whereas the violence described in the above passage has more to do with political party than with ethnicity or religion. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  • When I look at the Oxford English Dictionary, pogrom is defined as "An organized, officially tolerated, attack on any community or group." Does Vanderboegh's call for the breaking of windows meet the "officially tolerated" threshold? It does seem to meet the call for an organized attack on a group threshold. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Counter argument: This example is one of a "particular group" that falls into the "other" catagory.Since a "community or group" can also be a political party, and since there is nothing to suggest a pogrom cannot specifically be waged against a political party, such as the Democratic Party, or waged against a political ideology such as Liberalism or Progressivism, this example should remain in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.3.250 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Stonemason89, Please stop removing this valid example of a political pogrom. To further validate its inclusion, here is another reference to a political (electoral) pogrom:

"In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters ... directed by one Jan Brewer."

http://www.gregpalast.com/ 18:38, 26 April 2010 User:76.91.3.250

Once again Stonemason89, I INSIST you stop removing this VALID example of a political pogrom. I have adequately addressed your concern for leaving it in. On the other hand, you have offered no compelling reason for removing it. 20:34, 15 August 2010 User:76.194.214.216

Muslim pogroms Cordoba in 1011

Muslim pogroms against Jews; those that occurred in Cordoba in 1011

There is no reference to back up this claim. It may be true, but it's the first time I have heard of this 1011 pogrom in Córdoba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.229.202 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Palestine Pogroms

There were a number of Pogroms (or riots) in mandatory Palestine and Turkish Palestine that are not mentioned here. Arab rioters attacked Jews in 1920, 1921, 1929 and sporadically from 1936 to 1939. In 1916, Turkish internment of Jews was followed by looting of houses in . In one case, the mandate police were withdrawn from Jerusalem mysteriously during a riot, which of course spread much faster that way. In another case (Hebron 1929) under the mandate, Arab rioters screamed "the government is with us" - see http://www.professors.org.il/docs/eye.htm

There were also several anti-Jewish riots or pogroms, with or without approval of authorities in 19th century Palestine, such as the one in Safed - http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000349.html

Of course, on April 13, 1948, Arabs attacked a convoy of doctors and nurses going to Hadassah hospital and British authorities evidently cooperated in the massacre, but it can be considered an act of war rather than a pogrom.

It is really strange that none of these incidents are even mentioned, but many non-pogroms are discussed in detail. [[Mewnews (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)]]

There is no evidence British authorities had anything to do with Arabs attaching Jews at Hadassah. I don't think an attack on a convoy can be called a porgrom.

What is the definition of a pogrom? The word originally referred to Jews, but properly represents any mass rioting aimed at a community. It does not have to be government sanctioned, indeed usually is not. The riots in Indonesia in 1966 or 68, in which thousands of ethnic Chinese were killed, were certainly pogroms. Attacks on white farmers in Zimbabwe probably meet the definition as well.

Genocide and pogroms are different subjects. I do not think that any pogrom that has yet occured can be called genocide, and there cannot be a partial genocide - that is a contradiction in terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Tragic

Wikipedia's entry on Tragic Week does not link to Argentina's pogrom.

Removed Example: Greek war of ind

Labeling example as a "pogrom" is doubtful according to ref'd source o main artcile page:

Steven Bowman claims that despite the fact that many Jews were killed, they were not targeted specifically: "Such a tragedy seems to be more a side-effect of the butchering of the Turks of Tripolis, the last Ottoman stronghold in the South where the Jews had taken refuge from the fighting, than a specific action against Jews per se."(Bowman, Steven, "History of the Jews in Greece" University of Massachusettes www.umass.edu/judaic/anniversaryvolume/articles/30-F3-Bowman.pdf)

Modern Usage section (where does it belong?)

There's been so much back and forth and debate as to WHAT events should be included in the modern usage section. To me, a list of events is necessarily an addendum to the entry. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper or a history book. The entry should focus on what a pogrom is. At the end of the article it might be appropriate for everyone to write in proposing what they think the modern usage of the term is (though so much of it seems to be driven by people's politics and opinions rather than by some objective analysis of how the term is currently used. I.e., just because you personally think it's a pogrom or have a quote of some journalist or politician calling an event a pogrom does not necessarily entail that it is appropriate for such a mention to be included in this entry on wikipedia). Specifically, this is not a list of every single incident that someone has called a pogrom. Maybe we should create an entry with such a list. But I haven't seen anyone propose a distinct paragraph explaining how it's modern usage is different from it's old usage. It seems that there is consensus as to what the term has meant and been used for up until the last couple of decades. So, I propose moving this section to the end of the article.. and, truth be told, in the future I intend to propose moving this section entirely to a new entry which can be linked to from this entry. As that is somewhat of a drastic move, I"m starting this discussion section to discuss the pros and cons of such a move. GZee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

I just looked through the history of the page. The modern usage section was moved to the front of the article only recently on 14:12, 29 April 2011. No explanation was given for that move back then. GZee (talk)
I've removed it altogether. The whole thing was WP:NOR - various editors deciding that this or that modern event was also a "pogrom", sometimes because some source had used the word in relation to the event, mostly without even that. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
mass removals of sourced info is a bad idea. The section does NOT fall under the rule (the OR rule = facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists) -- all items that were mass-erased were sourced, usually to online materials. If there is a specific source in question please mark it so editors can discuss it. I added some better cites and dropped some minor episodes. Rjensen (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Mass reversion of OR removal is a bad idea. The section obviously falls under the WP:NOR rule, since the material in it is not directly related to the topic of the article, which is "pogrom". It's not enough just to have a "source" - that's the whole point of NOR. If you think any of the material is directly related, then prove it by providing multiple reliable sources that refer to the incidents as "pogrom"s. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Modern" section moved here for discussion

I've moved the following material here for discussion. A "pogrom" is a specific type of an attack, in brief, an attack on Jews in a specific location that typically lasts under a week. Not all attacks on ethnic minorities are "pogroms". As a simple example, the Armenian genocide is typically thought of as a genocide, not a "pogrom". If you have any sources that indicate these attacks are actually pogroms (e.g. they have multiple reliable sources referring to them as such), then please bring them forward. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

editor Jayjg seems to reject the wikipedia definition. I checked each of these sources and it meets the Wikipedia criteria, and each is sourced. Furthermore the RS use the term "pogrom" --Which one does he think does not belong? Let's take his objections one at a time.Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't comment about me again, comment about article content. Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, so we don't care about its "definition" or "criteria". Show me which sources actually describe the incidents as "pogroms". Let's take your proposals one at a time. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I checked each one and added cites all of which use "pogrom". Jayjg has not examined ANY of the examples he errased wholesale--that is a clar sign of vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I, in fact, did check the sources. As a very simple example, the first source, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/trivia/aquillius.html, does not use the word "pogrom". Nor does the second, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/dec/03/jasonburke.theobserver. You need to review WP:VANDAL, make more accurate Talk: page statements, and stop talking about me. The talk page is for discussing article content, nothing else. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
no that is not a goodf example. The question is whether RS use the term, and gthe answer in each case is yes--although not necessarily the cite given. Jayjg erases instead of doing research and his rejected of good faith statements that the word is indeed used verge on vandalism. On this fiorst example 30 seconds on books. google produces Linda-Marie Günther, Griechische Antike (2008) p 399 (and seven other cites) that use "pogrom" for this episode. Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
If the RS is not used in the article, then we have no way of knowing if they use the term, do we? In fact, many of the items had no sources whatsoever. In addition, it's not just enough that a specific source uses a term - as said, you need multiple sources to indicate that it's commonly described that way, rather than just a fringe "one-off" view. For now, we'll just start by getting the relevant quotes from the sources you googled up. Third, nothing you have described in any way meets the description of WP:VANDAL; please review WP:VANDAL, and in the future make more accurate talk page statements. And finally, it's only the two of us here, so stop talking about me, and address only article content, per policy. If you make any further comments that are in any way about me, including comments that address some invisible/non-existent audience, I will simply ignore them in their entirety, as if they hadn't been made - and edit accordingly. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg sets up his own personal critera (the RS must use the word "pogrom") then ignores his rules and erases away madly, If anyone is serious they do the following: go to books,google.com enter the event and the word "pogrom" and examine the results. It takes 30 seconds and in each case confirms the text we have--the text Jayjg erased because he neglected to do the work that editors do to make Wikipedia successful. He has not found any event that is not called a pogrom--.Erasing good material for lack of reason is called vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Rjensen, your comment again started by talking about me to an invisible/non-existent audience, rather than solely discussing article content, and therefore I didn't read further. Please try again, addressing me directly, rather than in the 3rd person - as it is, I will simply assume that you agree with all of my edits. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
let's try this: Jayjg has set up an unacceptable definition of program (he says --above-- that it is "is a specific type of an attack, in brief, an attack on Jews in a specific location that typically lasts under a week. Not all attacks on ethnic minorities are "pogroms"). That is not accepted by the dictionaries, encyclopedias or RS, all of which extend the meaning to OTHER ethnic groups under persecution. The "under a week" bit is also his invention and is rejected by the RS that talk of pogroms lasting months (for example Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History (2004) by John Klier p 238; "lasted for weeks" says Religion, violence, and political mobilisation in South Asia (2005) p 126; "began on the day after Christmas and lasted into the first week of the new year" says Riots, pogroms, jihad: religious violence in Indonesia (2007) P. 182]; "It lasted over a week" says The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century p 206]. He gives no RS for this personal definition. His definition conflicts with this article. He uses his definition to erase lots of material in the article that the RS do call pogroms. That erasure is unacceptable behavior based on his POV with no RS to back him up. Repeated erasure of sourced information based on personal POV verges on vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review my previous comment. Your comment is still meaningless. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As for 21st century usage, look at some recent book titles: Riots, Pogroms, Jihad: Religious Violence in Indonesia (2006); American Pogrom: The East St. Louis Race Riot and Black Politics (2008); The Mechanism of Catastrophe: The Turkish Pogrom Of September 6 - 7, 1955, And The Destruction Of The Greek Community Of Istanbu (2005); Twenty Years of Impunity: The November 1984 Pogroms of Sikhs in India (2006); The Sumgait Tragedy: Pogroms Against Armenians in Soviet Azerbaijan : Eyewitness Accounts (1990). Proof the term is widely used when the victims are not Jews. Rjensen (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does appear that the term is used in some book titles; however, I don't see those sources used in our article. Who are these authors, and to which specific incidents do they refer? Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
anyone can look at the books on Amazon.com and books.google to learn about these books (and many there are others). As for scholarly articles: the Historical Abstracts service (in academic libraries) lists 156 recent scholarly articles with "pogrom" and NOT "Jew". For example: 1) "The White Terror in Hungary, 1919–1921" Austrian History Yearbook, April 2011; 2) "Voices in the hills of Rwanda: African press accountability of the 1994 pogrom" International Communication Gazette, Nov 2010; 3) "In the Hindutva Laboratory: Pogroms and Politics in Gujarat, 2002" in Modern Asian Studies, March 2010; 4) "When is a pogrom not a pogrom?" History Ireland, July/Aug2009: 5) "Ceylon's Kristallnacht: A Reassessment of the Pogrom of 1915 Modern Asian Studies, May 2009, Vol. 43 Issue 3 --etc etc. The term is widely used in the scholarly literature APART from attacks on Jews. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So, are those sources reliable? Do they represent extreme minority views/usage? Are they used in this article? Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
yes indeed they are all available on books.google.com try it first befiore erasing work by editors or asking for "quotations". Rjensen (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's go over some basic editing groundrules.

  1. WP:BURDEN states quite clearly that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That means you must provide the citations, rather than telling other editors "they are all available on books.google.com".
  2. Edit summaries must be accurate, and certainly not false. That means you can't use the edit summary format or add cites when what you're mostly doing is removing citation requests. Use accurate edit summaries, and don't remove any more requests for quotations.
  3. The reason for all the requests for quotations is because you appear to be using your own personal criteria regarding what is or is not a "pogrom", rather than relying on what reliable sources say is a "pogrom". You have now expressed a preference for Bergmann's definition, but he explicitly excludes, for example, genocides, while you continue to include them.

Please edit according to policy, and respond here. Jayjg (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

please pick one item to discuss first. Otherwise it will appear you are simply being disruptive by erasing or contesting ALL items that do not refer to Jews because of your personal POV. Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I've left almost all of the items in, merely tagged them, so your comment doesn't make sense. Please respond to my points above. Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Original section moved to Talk:

One million Armenians fled Turkey between 1915-1923 to escape pogroms.

Removal of definitions from lede

Rjensen, you keep removing the definitions of pogrom from the lede, including Britannica's definition and Bergmann's definition.[7][8][9] Since you brought Bergmann as a source in the first place, I can't understand why you're doing this. Can you explain? Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of explanation of of how a pogrom differs from other ethnic violence

Rjensen, you've repeatedly removed this explanation of how a pogrom differs from other ethnic violence from the article:

Werner Bergmann proposes that "[b]y the collective attribution of a threat, the pogrom differs from forms of violence, such as lynching, which are directed at individual members of a minority, while the imbalance of power in favor of the rioters distinguishes pogroms from other forms of riot (food riots, race riots, or 'communal riots' between evenly matched groups), and again, the low level of organization separates them from vigilantism, terrorism, massacre and genocide".[34]

Given that you brought the Bergmann source yourself, can you explain why you object to this sentence? Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bergmann's statement is OK. Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible POV-based removal of properly-sourced material on pogroms in Israel

I edited this article back in December of 2008, and revised the edit in May of 2009 after it had been tampered with and subsequently flagged. Looking back at the article now, I notice that all references to incidents in Israel in which mobs targeted Arabs have been removed. The layout of the page has been redone and streamlined, but most of the other incidents from the "Modern Usage and Examples" section in May of 2009 remain in the article today, many of them verbatim. The entries on the pogroms in Israel were all properly cited with references to reputable sources (my addition, for example, was sourced to the BBC, the article for which is still accessible. I don't know who removed these, as there have been hundreds of edits since that time and I haven't gone through them all to look for the discrepancy in question, and I don't really think it matters right now who removed them. It appears to me, however, that these incidents were removed for ideological/POV reasons unfitting of Wikipedia. I'll leave the article as-is for the next few days, but if there's no legitimate objection raised within that time, I'm going to put them back into the article. If you have an issue with that, please use this talk page to voice it and explain why. Thanks. BostonFenian (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As Britannica points out, "the term [pogrom] is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries". The "modern usages" section was mostly irrelevant/unrelated to the topic of the article. Attempts were made to reduce it to something relevant and meaningful, but were resisted by User:Rjensen, leaving the article in its current state, where many items have requests for quotations have gone unanswered for two months now. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, so it seems like the issue is with a lack of quotes (i.e. just describing an incident of ethnic violence and implying it's a pogrom isn't cutting it). I'm wary of wiping that entire section for that reason alone, but I see no reason not to add the two incidents in 2008 where Olmert used the term to describe the activity. BostonFenian (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
BostonFenian, this is the discussion I initiated a while back, but it has since been archived. Before I quote it verbatim below, I have a personal question for you beyond the scope of whether it is appropriate for this article to include the Olmert reference. Are you aware of the pogroms that took place in Hebron in 1929? You know, there's a whole wikipedia entry dedicated to it. I raise that specific incident because to a historian, that is what comes to mind when Olmert calls the incidents that took place in modern day hebron that you allude to as a pogrom. Why are you so concerned to document the one but not the other. Would any objective observer not characterize your cherry picking as ideologically motivated? Regardless, below I quote verbatim my argument to remove the Olmert reference.
A distinction must be made between a violent riot that does not end in killings and a massacre. The fact that politicians and peace activists call a riot a pogrom when no one has been killed is an attempt to sensationalize and draw attention to the violent outburst. Such sensationalism is actually quite common in Israel as can be seen, for example, from when the Israeli police are called Nazis by fellow Israeli Jews (such as during the disengagement from Gaza). This however does not mean that Israeli police are Nazis no matter the hurtful and vindictive intentions of their accusers. There shouldn't be any room in this entry for trivializations of what a pogrom really is, just like there would be no room in the entry about Nazis for some mention about how the Israeli police have been called Nazis on occasion, or for a mention in the entry about the Holocaust about how Israel is sometimes accused of committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians. I am therefore removing the mention of how riots in Israel have been called pogroms...because they weren't pogroms and this entry is about pogroms and not about vindictive sensationalizations GZee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC).
Yes, I'm aware of the events in Hebron, as well as other ethnic riots/pogroms that occurred in the British Mandate Palestine in the lead-up to the declaration of the state of Israel. I'm not sure exactly how to evaluate or even address your claim that, "to a historian", the 1929 Hebron riots come to mind when Olmert uses the term "pogrom", nor would I imagine that any objective observer characterize my "cherry picking" as ideologically motivated. Please don't try to universalize your perceptions of my actions and their apparent motives, which, needless to say, you can't possibly know. I came across Olmert's second usage of the term during normal news-reading, and found it striking, so I looked into it a little more, and found he'd used the term before that as well, so I put it into the article, which, at the time, was far less concise or focused as it is now. Jayjg's standard by which he/she appears to judge additions to this article is actual use of the term, not simply a description of an incident of ethnically-motivated violence by a mob. In a sense, I find that a little strict, but it's definitely reasonable and sensible. Olmert used the exact term twice, and was the acting Prime Minister of Israel at the time. If you think that a group of Gaza settlers calling IDF soldiers "Nazis" or kapos etc. is equivalent to the serving Prime Minister of Israel referring to an incident of mob-run ethnic violence as a "pogrom", then perhaps you should think about editing that into the "Nazi" article. I don't think Olmert was being facetious or sensationalist, I think he responded both emotionally and rationally to what he saw. The Prime Minister has to be far more careful about what he says in public than a group of settlers in Gaza do. In any case, my addition appears to meet the standard Jayjg and I tacitly agreed upon; if you have an issue with this standard, please bring it to light. Alternatively, if you'd like to add a reliable and objective source referring to the 1929 Hebron riots as a "pogrom", I doubt I'd have any problem with you doing so. Please keep your criticisms to the content of the article and the content of my edits and those of others, and refrain from ascribing motivations to people in what appears to be an attempt to discredit their ideas. BostonFenian (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to express an opinion about which events should appear in the article (at least, not now), but I am going to express my amazement over your words. You must be the only person on the planet who thinks that the public pronouncements of a politician should be taken at face value. Zerotalk 01:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Whether you know it or not, you're implying that my position is that since Olmert termed the incidents "pogroms" in public, therefore they must indeed be pogroms. Of course, this isn't my position at all -- rather, my position is simply that Olmert referred to the incidents as "pogroms". If you are having difficulty understanding the difference, perhaps you should look at the passage in question again and note that I didn't directly say, nor even insinuate, that the two incidents were in fact pogroms. I only labeled the incidents referred to by Olmert as "incidents" and "attacks", and left the "pogrom" portion to the sourced Olmert quotes. To recap, GZee argued, in a nutshell, that just because Olmert said it doesn't make it true, for if this were so, then the IDF soldiers who forcibly removed the settlers from the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza were indeed Nazis since this charge was leveled at them by the settlers. My response to this was to question the comparative equivalency between the significance of the Prime Minister of a country using a historically-sensitive term in a unique situation, and a slur thrown about at the IDF by a group of settlers who were not themselves political leaders of a state. I hope this makes the flow of conversation more clear to you. To be honest, I think all of this is far more attention than this issue (spanning one edit which added sourced content) deserves. Maybe I brought on this mountain out of a molehill by implying the removal was POV-related. If that's the case, I apologize. BostonFenian (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
BostonFenian, do you believe the Olmert event was a pogrom? If yes state so and state why. If not, then explain why it merits being mentioned in this article. (As of now my impression is that you do not think it is a pogrom but because a PM called it that it deserves being mentioned here.) (As an aside, in the archived talk I motioned that the entire "modern usage" section should be removed. I still think that this article should only be about the term "pogrom" and about the historical incidents that led to the coinage of the term. If desired, there can be a different article to list of all the pogroms that have taken place in history.) GZee (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Quick follow up: BostonFenian, for clarification, do you think the Olmert incidents deserve being included in this article simply because they meet Jayjg's standard of actual use of the term irrespective of whether or not the events in question were in fact pogroms? If so, then I think it is all the more necessary to separate this article into two separate articles. GZee (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Major problem in article

Talking about Holocust and Pogroms at the same time is like talking about Creamy Cream. I think it is needed to divide those two, as pogrom is a failure of the goverment in control, or intention like in Holocust. Pointing pogroms, in terms this ethnic group is responsible, is a plain dumb generalization. The goverments in control are the ones who carry responsiblity, there must be perspective of this. Criminals are everywhere. Lets take Jedwabne for exemple. The town was controlled by Nazi Germany, who led this to happen, the criminals who did this was not punished by the goverment in control. What had Poland as a goverment to do with this? They failed to stop german invasion, not more then that. If someone wants to held ethic people responsible like Polish people at Jedwabne, then he should start the impossible, by checking their DNA and tracking back their orgins which would lead to one conclusion that makes no sense whats so ever. So, this article should be totally remade with more reason. KTTdestroyer (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; what text do you think should be modified and how? Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Stress marks on the Russian Words

I'm not entirely sure what the Wikipedia policy on stress marks on Russian words is, but I've put them in because it's helpful for academic reasons. I've seen some articles that use them and others that don't so I'm torn. Do we object? Alexandre8 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

2004 pogroms against Christians and Serbs in Kosovo

What about the pogroms against Christians and Serbs and Gypsies in Kosovo in 2004? Why isn't that on the list?

Targeted? Yes. Mass movement? Yes. (There are pictures with hundreds of people attacking churches, from kids as young as 7 to old men over 60) Huge damage? Yes. Hundreds of destroyed churches and monasteries, over a hundred thousand people driven out of their homes and out of the "country", hundreds of houses and villages destroyed, hundreds of people wounded, several dead.

It should definitely be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.33.193 (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. Do reliable sources describe these incidents as "pogroms"? Jayjg (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You will of course not find that word in any major media publication from the West, which is what you would probably only accept as a "credible source". And the reasons are completely obvious, since they have a political goal and are involved there on the ground, nothing that would make it look like they let a major pogrom happen under their watch (especially if done by the ones who they are siding with and advertising, as the opressed and the ones in need of rescue, in the media and politics) will ever get out to our Western public. So you won't find anything that will tell you what is really happening in Kosovo (they go so far as to call that pogrom "ethnic clashes"), just as anyone living inside the German occupied territory and their allies countries would never have heard the word or anything about the "holocaust" if Germany had won the war, just like people in the Soviet Union have never heard the word Gulag or anything about that when the communists were still in power etc etc. To think that it is any different in our countries (Western hemisphere) is self-deception and arrogance.
There should be a definition of what that is, and if something fits that definition, one shouldn't need the permission of somebody else to call it what it is (does that (having to ask for someones permission to call something by its name) remind you of something?). There are a lot of sources on the internet where they call it by its name of what it was, you just won't find that in major publications of Western news agencies.
It fits the definition, it should definitely be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.20.51 (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
What you are describing is original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Instead, Wikipedia requires that information included in article must be cited to reliable sources. Reliable sources need not be a "major media publication from the West", but they must meet the requirements outlined in WP:RS. Please click on the links I've provided, and read the linked policies and guidelines. Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Use to describe ancient/medieval massacres of Jews

Drawing on Jayjg's point, I am concerned that the events described in "Ancient/medieval" sections of this article have not been widely (if at all) referred to as "pogroms" in reliable sources, are not normally referred to as "pogroms" by reliable sources, and also do not seem to meet the reliably sourced definitions of "pogrom" as massacres which were perpetrated against Jews in the 18th/19th century in Eastern Europe. If they are "pogroms", then it is by analogy rather than by common usage, and even so, reliable sources are required for this analogy. Perhaps it would be better to remove or relegate these sections.. their presence may constitute a continuing excuse for editors with POVs to insert low-quality material into this article characterizing their favourite riot as a pogrom. Zargulon (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point. I've removed some of the material to start, and we should look carefully at the rest to see whether or not it is commonly described as a "pogrom". Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hamidian massacres

I've moved the following recent insertion here for discussion:

The Hamidian massacres of 1894–1896, refers to the massacring of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. Jonathan C. Friedman wrote ,"They cost the lives of about 100,000 Armenians, mostly men and boys, who were killed in a wave in pogrom-like violence perpetrated by individuals who had organized in mosques and whom the local authorities tolerated or encouraged."[47]

These terrible events are typically referred to as a "massacre", not a pogrom, and the visible source used only refers to them as "pogrom-like". This article is about events typically referred to as "pogroms", not events typically referred to as other things (e.g. "massacres", "riots", etc.), even if a small number of stray sources use the term "pogrom", or "pogrom-like", or compare them to a pogrom. Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

1984 anti-Sikh riots

I've moved the following recent insertion here for discussion:

In 1984, Sikhs experienced a pogrom in India.[48][49]

These terrible events are typically referred to as a "riots", not a pogrom - that is, in fact, the name given them by our own Wikipedia article! Moreover, that is the name given them in the sources too, aside from the headline (in one case), which are typically written to entice readers to read the article, not for accuracy, and from a single mention in the other source. This article is about events typically referred to as "pogroms", not events typically referred to as other things (e.g. "massacres", "riots", etc.), even if a small number of stray sources use the term "pogrom", or "pogrom-like", or compare them to a pogrom. Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jakarta Riots of May 1998

I've moved the following recent insertion here for discussion:

The Jakarta Riots of May 1998 were pogroms targeted against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia.[50][51]

These terrible events are typically referred to as a "riots", not a pogrom - that is, in fact, the name given them by our own Wikipedia article! In fact, it's also the term used by the first source, aside from one generic mention, and the it's also only used once by the second source, a free-lance writer. This article is about events typically referred to as "pogroms", not events typically referred to as other things (e.g. "massacres", "riots", etc.), even if a small number of stray sources use the term "pogrom", or "pogrom-like", or compare them to a pogrom. Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

wiki articles can not be used as sources --we use reliable secondary sources and if they call it a pogrom that's what we go by. Rjensen (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not a real response. These events are typically called "riots", even if a couple of stray sources also refer to them in some way as "pogroms" (and sometimes as both). Please respond more meaningfully and substantively. Also, you haven't responded regarding the other riots; each case is unique. Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry when the RS call them pogroms that's what we report. You are taking a fringe position here that violates the RS rules. Rjensen (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Unclear what you mean. Sources call them all sorts of things; a fringe set of them use the word "pogrom", often in addition to the word "riot". You are taking a position that violates RS rules. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. If you wish to have a real discussion about this, you will need to make meaningful and substantive responses. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul riots

I've moved the following recent insertion here for discussion:

In the 1955 Istanbul pogrom, ethnic Greeks, Armenians, and Jews were attacked and overwhelmed by ethnic Turkish mobs.[52]

These terrible events are typically referred to as a "riots", not a pogrom - that is, in fact, the name given them by our own Wikipedia article! The source itself only describes them as a "pogrom" in passing (in an image caption). This article is about events typically referred to as "pogroms", not events typically referred to as other things (e.g. "massacres", "riots", etc.), even if a small number of stray sources use the term "pogrom", or "pogrom-like", or compare them to a pogrom. Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted, as google shows that "pogrom" is frequently employed as a description of these events, indeed google books returns more hits for "pogrom" than it does for "riots". Gatoclass (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're searching, but for books published since 1955, removing the publishers that just print the contents of Wikipedia articles, novels, and other false positives:
  • +"the istanbul pogrom" -"General Books LLC" -"vdm publishing" : 9 hits
  • +"the istanbul riots" -"General Books LLC" -"vdm publishing": 66 hits
Reading through the results it quickly becomes apparent that there are almost no false positives in the second search, and that "Istanbul riots" is seven times as common in reliable sources as "Istanbul pogrom". Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't strike me as a very efficient search string. I did a search on google books for "1955 istanbul greek pogrom" and "1955 istanbul greek riot" (both without the parenthesis quote marks) and returned, from memory, about 1,700 hits for the first and 1,500 for the second. Gatoclass (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't it an "efficient search string"? We're looking for the name of the events, that's a search that will get it much more efficiently than any other. And when I do a google search for ""1955 istanbul greek pogrom" I get zero hits; when you say "without parenthesis" do you mean not enclosed in quotation marks? If so, you're just getting hundreds of false positives. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Just repeated the search with the "general books llc" and "vdm publishing" results excluded, and got about 1950 hits for the "pogrom" string and 3390 for "riots". Regardless, I think it should be clear from those results that "pogrom" is a commonly employed term for this event. Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No, again, these are false positives. As far as I can tell there are only nine non-fiction books on Google books that use the term, as opposed to 66 that use "riots". You need to make proper searches - what is your exact search? Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, yes, I meant quote marks. With regard to your search string, in my experience, having too specific a search string tends to exclude a lot of valid hits. But since you raise the question of false positives, I might do a couple of other searches to see what comes up. Gatoclass (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Having refined my search terms a tad, I have to concede that "istanbul riots" seems a much more common term. I will probably have to look at the results much more closely to resolve the issue, but as I don't have time to do so right now, I will not object to a reversion at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My reference, was Baum and Samuels, 2011. [10]. It was not picked up in my explanation, so I include it here. Politis (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've used the reference, and incorporated the material into the article. Jayjg (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ KansasCity.com
  2. ^ [11]
  3. ^ Manius Aquillius and the First Mithridatic War.
  4. ^ Dig uncovers Boudicca's brutal streak, The Observer, December 3, 2000.
  5. ^ Kaifung Jews. University of Cumbria.
  6. ^ Sicilian Vespers, 1911 Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
  7. ^ Lebanon - Religious Conflicts, U.S. Library of Congress.
  8. ^ Damascus - LoveToKnow 1911.
  9. ^ Akcam, Taner. A Shameful Act. 2006, p. 42.
  10. ^ "The number of Armenian children under twelve years of age made orphans by the massacres of 1895 is estimated by the missionaries at 50.000". Fifty Thousand Orphans made So by the Turkish Massacres of Armenians. // New York Times, Dec. 18, 1896.
  11. ^ Godfrey Mwakikagile, Ethnic politics in Kenya and Nigeria (2001) pp 26-57
  12. ^ Country Histories - Empire's Children.
  13. ^ Heartman, Adam (2006-09-26). "A Homemade Genocide". Who's Fault Is It?. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ Zanzibar Revolution 1964.
  15. ^ Indonesian academics fight burning of books on 1965 coup, smh.com.au.
  16. ^ BBC News | Analysis | Indonesia: Why ethnic Chinese are afraid.
  17. ^ Vickers (2005), p. 158.
  18. ^ http://www.fas.org/irp/world/indonesia/indonesia-1998.htm Indonesia Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998.
  19. ^ Swadesh Bahadur Singh (editor of the Sher-i-Panjâb weekly): “Cabinet berth for a Sikh”, Indian Express, 1996-05-31.
  20. ^ Mahesh Sharma, Sonia Gandhi: A Biography (2005) p. 65
  21. ^ Rita Manchanda, Women, War and Peace in South Asia (Sage, 2001) pp 42-100
  22. ^ Essential Background: Overview of human rights issues in India (Human Rights Watch World Report 2008, 31-1-2008).
  23. ^ Thousands homeless after Hindu-Christian violence in India, International Herald Tribune, August 29, 2008.
  24. ^ "Gujarat riot death toll revealed". BBC News. May 11, 2005.
  25. ^ Dyer, Gwynne (22 April 2002). "Leader whips up anti-Muslim hatred". The Record. p. A.9.
  26. ^ Focus on Mesketian Turks.
  27. ^ Meskhetian Turk Communities around the World.
  28. ^ Tuva: Russia's Tibet or the Next Lithuania?
  29. ^ UNHCR | Refworld | Assessment for Tuvinians in Russia.
  30. ^ Notes from Baku: Black January, EurasiaNet Human Rights.
  31. ^ Egyptian riots reveal wide religious divide, csmonitor.com, April 19, 2006.
  32. ^ BBC News | MIDDLE EAST | Funerals for victims of Egypt clashes.
  33. ^ Tim Pat Coogan, The troubles: Ireland's ordeal, 1966-1996, and the search for peace (2002) p 182-83
  34. ^ Class, religion spark riots across China, theage.com.au, November 3, 2004.
  35. ^ France, U.N. Start Ivory Coast Evacuation, FOXNews.com.
  36. ^ "Editorial: Racist moves will rebound on Tonga", New Zealand Herald, November 23, 2001.
  37. ^ Spiller, Penny: "Riots highlight Chinese tensions", BBC News, Friday, 21 April 2006, 18:57 GMT.
  38. ^ Elena Eliseeva, Kurds Plan Exodus from South Kazakstan, IWPR, 22 January 2008.
  39. ^ Kazakhstan: Ethnic Clashes a Worrying Sign, November 28, 2007.
  40. ^ Richard Pithouse, 'The Pogroms in South Africa: a crisis in citizenship' Mute Magazine, June 2008.
  41. ^ Christians, targeted and suffering, flee Iraq.
  42. ^ IRAQ Terror campaign targets Chaldean church in Iraq, Asia News.
  43. ^ Mark Lattimer: 'In 20 years, there will be no more Christians in Iraq' | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited.
  44. ^ Iraq's Mandaeans 'face extinction'.
  45. ^ Iraq's Yazidis fear annihilation.
  46. ^ Mahir Ali, "Tragedy in Gojra" Forbes Aug 5, 2009
  47. ^ Jonathan C. Friedman (2011). "The Routledge history of the Holocaust". Taylor & Francis. p.31. ISBN 0415779561
  48. ^ Bedi, Rahul (1 November 2009). "Indira Gandhi's death remembered". BBC. Retrieved 2009-11-02. The 25th anniversary of Indira Gandhi's assassination revives stark memories of some 3,000 Sikhs killed brutally in the orderly pogrom that followed her killing
  49. ^ State pogroms glossed over. The Times of India. 31 December 2005.
  50. ^ "Overseas and under siege", The Economist, 11 August 2009
  51. ^ "US, China vie for influence among Indonesian riches". Asia Times. May 6, 2011.
  52. ^ "Istanbul love story". The Post and Courier. April 10, 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pogrom/Archive_1&oldid=1137089675"