Talk:Pogrom

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * @The Great Mule of Eupatoria, It's referred to as the "October 7 pogrom" or variants of that in too many sources to just deleting it. We should add opposing views, because that is not a typical way to describe it, and it gets the power dynamic backwards (or upside down). But we need something citable? We could just list a couple of examples of "the ____ on 7 October" but it's not ideal. For a strong counterpoint we need something that actually says "it was not a pogrom because…" or at least something that very directly says "the event on 7 October was a (something else) because _____" and gives reasons for it being or "terrorist attack" or a "millitary operation" or something else? MWQs (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I found one source refuting it directly so far… "Why so many people call the Oct. 7 massacre a ‘pogrom’ — and what they miss when they do so" in the Forward, which says that it does not resemble historical pogroms. MWQs (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


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


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


 * I really don’t know if this counts, but this times of Israel article describes attacks on military bases. Obviously I am not denying civilian massacres, all I am saying is that the attack was launched on mainly military targets (with major exceptions like Re’im massacre which killed 360 civilians, about half of the civilians death toll on October 7)
 * https://www.timesofisrael.com/strange-to-be-here-without-them-soldiers-who-survived-oct-7-return-to-nahal-oz-base/amp/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


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


 * I think the bigger difference is the wall? Parts of the attack superficially resemble a pogrom, but them needing to break out of Gaza first turns it into something completely different? But that's definitely too comples to say without something citable saying almost exactly that. MWQs (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Great Mule of Eupatoria on second thoughts, maybe the best option is just to summarise the attack as factually as particle, what they damaged any who they attacked, and let the reader decide whether thar describes a pogrom. MWQs (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Fair, the reason objecting to it stood out to me initially was that most pogroms were a stronger empire or mob killing Jews because of antisemitism, or because the oppressed minority was treated as the blame for things that went wrong (If I recall correctly some mobs even blamed Jews for the Black Death), while October 7 was a besieged and imprisoned population tearing down their prison walls launching a retaliation that did involve civilians massacres. If “military operation” sounds euphemistic then “military attack” can also work, other than that I agree The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one of them is listed as blaming Jews for the black death. MWQs (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * might be the strangest title I have ever read, "The settler pogrom in Huwara was anti-Zionist"? MWQs (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think "military operation" quite fits, it makes it sound evenly matched? which misses the issue of 37,000 vs 500,000 troops and rockets vs nukes. But "military operation" fits better than "pogrom" and it's a much more widely held view, so it's definitely necessary to include. MWQs (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be better to make the page more comprehensive than narrow the scope. A pogrom is much more specific than just "any bigotry anywhere". It is a violent attack on people and property, belonging to an already marginalised minority, over a short period of time, committed by people who aren't officially part of military or security services, but encouraged or ignored by law enforcement or the military. This type of violence has historically been disproportionately aimed at Jews, so the article focusing on antisemitism is not wp:undue.
 * There would not be very many that we need to add, If we include only events that fit a narrow definition of a pogrom and are referred to as pogroms in non-fringe sources. I am only aware of two events like that targeting non-Jewish populations in Gujarat and Hawara, both associated with a series violent events. There would be others I am not aware of, but probably fewer than what is here already.
 * MWQs (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does פוגרום count? (Hebrew, presumably from Yiddish, for Pogrom)
 * MWQs (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The size of the table: Too much text makes the table hard to navigate. It should link to the main page for the event or a section above, instead of having a whole paragraph in the last column. For any that have sources, but don't have their own wiki page, maybe most of the text should be moved up to the body of the text? MWQs (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I put all the pogrom name citation neededs in their own column, so it can be sorted by that and we can find them quicker. I also put the long text in footnotes. MWQs (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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


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