Talk:Pogrom/Archive 4

Deleting the phrase "characterizations of a number of events as pogroms have been disputed by historians"
My explanation above is the last comment on this I believe. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the article text under discussion, proposal is to delete it:


 * "...and characterizations of a number of events as pogroms have been disputed by historians."

Sources:


 * Anti-Jewish Violence. Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History: "No doubt many will contend that history suggests the need for a serious attempt to clarify what a pogrom is or is not. In the event, however, no such clarification is possible, for 'pogrom' is not a pre-existing natural category but an abstraction created by human beings in order to divide complex and infinitely varies social phenomena into manageable units of analysis. As a result, in the absence of universal agreement concerning the specific behaviours to which the word refers or of some supreme authority to whom the power of definition has been delegated, there can be no logically or empirically compelling grounds for declaring that some particular episode does or does not merit the label."


 * Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882: "To detemine what pogroms were, it is essential to consider what they were not. The following events have all been characterized as 'pogroms' by historians: the Kiev 'pogrom' of 1113, the Cossack uprising under Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 1648; the Koliivshchnyna of 1768; riotous attacks on Jews in Odessa in 1821, 1859 and 1871, and in Akkerman, Bessarabia province, in 1865; the waves of violence in 1881-2; the Kishinev and Gomel riots of 1903; the anti-Jewish violence during the revolutionary years 1905-6; the 'military pogroms' in 1914-16; the attacks on Jews by military units and irregulars during the Russian Civil War of 1919-21; and attacks on Jews amidst the national struggles between Poles and Ukrainians in 1920. Virtually the only common feature of these events was that Jews were among the victims, although they were not always the primary target. To begin with the earliest events, Alexander Pereswetoff-Morath has advanced a strong argument against considering the Kiev riots of 1113 an anti-Jewish pogrom. During the Cossack Uprising of 1648 and the Koliivschyna of the following century, which loom so prominently in the Jewish collective memory, Jews were neither the initial nor the principal targets. Rather, they fell victim because of their economic links to the main target, the Polish feudal system, which created an antagonism exacerbated in 1768 by religious antipathy between Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians. The loyalist violence of 1905-6 occurred within the context of a much broader social and political movement, and featured attacks against other 'revolutionary' elements, such as students and teachers, in addition to the Jews. Amidst the chaos of revolution, moreover, the presence of organized Jewish self-defense sponsored by revolutionary parties, complicated the picture, since some self-defense activities were intentionally provocative. The 'military pogroms' of 1914-16' have the dubious distinction of being the first events in which agents of the Russian state - in this case military commanders in the field who were unaccountable to the civilian government - designated the Jews as a target and directed violence against them. In 1919-21, the suffering of East European Jews occurred amidst a complete breakdown of public order. The widespread atrocities carried out by all combatants fell upon many different segments of the population."

Arguments in favor of removing the phrase:


 * First, the supplied sources do not support the piece of the sentence. The sources are supporting the idea that "pogrom" doesn't have a very clear, universally-upheld definition.  The sources provided here are not arguing there are events that Scholar X calls "pogroms", and Scholar Y says that they should not.  Yes, I saw the rest of the Anti-Jewish Violence but is it really important?
 * Second, the piece of the sentence is not really meaningful and does not add encyclopedic value to the article. As the sources point out, "pogrom" is a word invented by people to describe a concept, the definition is imprecise, and so it's  redundant to point out that various people who use a word with no universally agreed-upon definition are going to disagree on its application in some cases.
 * Third, I do not see the reliable sources emphasizing the idea that historians argue about whether events are or are not "pogroms." Why should this be mentioned in the article when it's not emphasized by the sources supplied?

Comments? 19:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The current suggestion that there is notable controversy over use of the word pogrom is a strong assertion, and none of the sources support it. Zargulon (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zad68, and Zargulon on this matter. -- Jethro  B  00:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Zad68; in fact, those are the reasons I objected to this insertion when it was first proposed, and later removed it. Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with you Zad's interpretation of the sources that they are commenting on something completely different. They focus on pogroms' indeterminate nature and that "no such clarification is possible for this "abstraction created by human beings", and evince nothing regarding any academic "dispute". On the contrary, both sources accept that the vague parameters will make any definitive characterisation difficult which consequently offers little scope for unambiguous disagreement in the portrayal of events. Quite frankly, the proposed sentence is clearly unsupported by the cited sources which seem to have been perfunctorily adduced to buttress tenuous positions and preconceptions. ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

✅ Implemented per agreement without objection here. 03:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by Oncenawhile that changed my content above that I added above my signature, as it was a WP:TPNO problem. Oncenawhile, may I ask you to kindly make your point without editing my comments. Actually, it would be best if you could start a new section instead of editing in this closed one. Thanks... 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The missing information in the previous debate
Further to the above discussion which involved only one editor who had read the sources (Zad), i'm highlighting here the main points not discussed which shine a different light on the question.

Below, I have replaced the erroneous wording from the first source above with the correct wording - which directly supports the wording being discussed.

I have also underlined a couple of sentences in the second - have a look at what the author is writing throughout the paragraph and compare it to the first sentence in our article about what a pogrom is, you will see that none of the events qualify in our definition or his.


 * Anti-Jewish Violence. Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History: "No doubt many will contend that history suggests the need for a serious attempt to clarify what a pogrom is or is not. In the event, however, no such clarification is possible, for 'pogrom' is not a pre-existing natural category but an abstraction created by human beings in order to divide complex and infinitely varies social phenomena into manageable units of analysis. As a result, in the absence of universal agreement concerning the specific behaviours to which the word refers or of some supreme authority to whom the power of definition has been delegated, there can be no logically or empirically compelling grounds for declaring that some particular episode does or does not merit the label." "the repeated protests of some scholars that what happened in Lwów in November 1918 was not, strictly speaking, a “pogrom”— or similar claims about the killing of two Jews and one Pole in the townlet of Przytyk in March 1936, which became the subject of a similar bit of semantic legerdemain and ongoing argument in Poland and beyond in 2001" [Oncenawhile -> strike out removing not relevant quote and adding (in bold) relevant quote]
 * Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882: "To detemine what pogroms were, it is essential to consider what they were not. The following events have all been characterized as 'pogroms' by historians: the Kiev 'pogrom' of 1113, the Cossack uprising under Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 1648; the Koliivshchnyna of 1768; riotous attacks on Jews in Odessa in 1821, 1859 and 1871, and in Akkerman, Bessarabia province, in 1865; the waves of violence in 1881-2; the Kishinev and Gomel riots of 1903; the anti-Jewish violence during the revolutionary years 1905-6; the 'military pogroms' in 1914-16; the attacks on Jews by military units and irregulars during the Russian Civil War of 1919-21; and attacks on Jews amidst the national struggles between Poles and Ukrainians in 1920. Virtually the only common feature of these events was that Jews were among the victims, although they were not always the primary target. To begin with the earliest events, Alexander Pereswetoff-Morath has advanced a strong argument against considering the Kiev riots of 1113 an anti-Jewish pogrom. During the Cossack Uprising of 1648 and the Koliivschyna of the following century, which loom so prominently in the Jewish collective memory, Jews were neither the initial nor the principal targets. Rather, they fell victim because of their economic links to the main target, the Polish feudal system, which created an antagonism exacerbated in 1768 by religious antipathy between Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians. The loyalist violence of 1905-6 occurred within the context of a much broader social and political movement, and featured attacks against other 'revolutionary' elements, such as students and teachers, in addition to the Jews. Amidst the chaos of revolution, moreover, the presence of organized Jewish self-defense sponsored by revolutionary parties, complicated the picture, since some self-defense activities were intentionally provocative. The 'military pogroms' of 1914-16' have the dubious distinction of being the first events in which agents of the Russian state - in this case military commanders in the field who were unaccountable to the civilian government - designated the Jews as a target and directed violence against them. In 1919-21, the suffering of East European Jews occurred amidst a complete breakdown of public order. The widespread atrocities carried out by all combatants fell upon many different segments of the population." [Oncenawhile -> added underlining. The whole paragraph is the author explaining why these events are not pogroms]

The sentence is now supported by the two sources shown in this thread, as well as the references in the article to the Morgenthau Report and the Crown Heights riot (albeit the disputers in the latter are not historians). This deals with Zad's first and third points above. Zad's second point is more relevant to the discussion below about how we define what a pogrom is in our first sentence.

Comments on this would be gratefully received before I add the phrase back in. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that a couple of authors have discussed whether or not certain events qualified as pogroms, and have noted that there is no one fixed definition agreed to by every historian or individual. The latter, as has been explained a number of times, is quite common of all types of social interactions, whether one is defining "battle", "riot", "demonstration", or thousands of other commonly used terms. This has all been discussed at length previously, where the strong consensus was that this was typical and that the emphasis being placed on it in your presentation was WP:UNDUE and not representative of the overall focus of reliable sources that discuss pogroms. Before attempting to overturn that strong consensus, you would have to get an equally strong consensus in favor of your proposal, which has just recently been rejected. I think you'll have to provide much stronger evidence than what you've come up with so far if you're going to convince people that your proposal complies with WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is based on substantive discussions, not votes. The available information has changed now that I have provided the further information. Instead of discussing the new info, you chose to dismiss it as "a couple of authors(!)", despite the fact that these two authors have been acknowledged by others above as being our two highest quality sources on the subject. Throwing WP:UNDUE is absurd - you would need to be able to explain why it's ok to provide information about each debate as our top authors do, but not to summarise the issue in half a sentence! There is a wiki-name for your stance: WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We've had substantive discussion on the subject above, from which a strong consensus developed. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a game. Your persistent attempts to use WP:LASTWORD to stymie thoughtful discussion with other good faith editors is completely unhelpful. If you have nothing to say, please say nothing. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the irony in that statement intentional or unintentional? Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Are any editors here willing to comment on the new information provided above? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing a specific change to the article? Honestly, I'm not seeing anything substantially new here.    04:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Zad, yes i'd like to add back the half-sentence which was deleted. I believe the evidence above refutes the first and third of the three points you made in your original post above. To progress this discussion i would like to understand your current view of those two points in light of the new evidence and explanation. Thanks in advance as always. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The half sentence was deleted with a strong consensus here because it was clear the preponderance of sources, including the ones you've brought, didn't support the way the sources were being interpreted, the weight being placed on the half sentence, or the way it was being used. The sources you've brought aren't new; have you had a chance to review all the sources? Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Here is another source which unambiguously support the proposed half-sentence: Does anyone have any sources which disagree with these? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ideology, Politics, and Diplomacy in East Central Europe: "Blatant and brutal attacks against Jews emphatically did occur, but opinions differed then, and continue to differ now, about the applicability of the term "pogrom" to these incidents... [footnote] For example, Ezra Mendelsohn, The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars, describes these actions as pogroms, while Norman Davies says flatly that they were no such thing, God's Playground: A History of Poland, and Europe: A History. Jerzy Tomaszewski, ed. Najnowsze dziejow Zydow w Polsce, labels the Lwow riots of November 1918 a pogrom, but not the Pinsk affair. The disagreement does not so much concern the facts of what happened, but how to characterize them. For its part, the Morgenthau report consciously strove to limit usage of the word "pogrom" as an elastic and imprecise term applied indiscriminately to a broad range of actions, from individual muggins to concerted mob attacks, instead employing the more general, less emotive "excesses"."


 * This isn't moving the argument any further as it's already covered by Jayjg's previous points. Nobody is doubting that there have been disagreements over the applicability of the term "pogrom" to certain historical events.  This is just a another particular instance.  Likewise, there have been motorized wheeled vehicles over which people have argued about the applicability of the term "car".  That doesn't mean that the article car needs to carry a disclaimer in its definition, "and characterizations of a number of vehicles as cars have been disputed".  The article already has enough hedging and qualifiers in it, this is unnecessary.    04:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Two questions on your answer:
 * 1. Am I correct to understand that you acknowledge that of the three points you made in this edit, your first and third issues have been solved by the additional sources since provided? I am happy to continue discussing these two points if not.
 * 2. The word car is not a politicized word, and I am not aware of any modern scholarly debate on its usage (please provide sources if you have them). However, usage of terminology for many forms of collective violence is disputed. Genocide is a good example, and the second sentence of our article states that "a precise definition varies among genocide scholars" and links to a whole article on Genocide definitions. The situation of the word pogrom is similar to genocide, but different insofar as even less research has been done (Bergmann writes that "use of the term... is inconsistent in the literature", that "there is as yet no consensus on terminology among researchers", that "there has as yet been little interlinked research into pogroms" and that pogrom research has not yet focused on "distinguishing pogroms from other, closely related forms of ethnic violence".) This is all high quality information and surely is interesting to readers. If Jayjg is worried about such information undermining or debasing the word (as he suggested in a comment some time ago), he needn't be - we can write this in a fair and balanced way based on sources. But the article isn't balanced on this at the moment - there is no hint of any scholarly disagreement over definition in the lead and the topic has been confined to a single short paragraph, despite the fact that it is impossible to really understand the word pogrom without understanding both the areas of scholarly agreement and the areas of scholarly disagreement. Any reader coming to this article wants to know what a pogrom "is" - surely it's useful to explain as clearly as possible how well-defined the term is and what the state of scholarly research is?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If your concern is that "the article isn't balanced on this at the moment", then it's not clear to me how your edits, which violate WP:UNDUE, will fix that. On the contrary, they would make it worse. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment is an empty "contradiction" - please try to stay in the top the three sections of the pyramid. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Characteristics section
The continuing discussion about the first sentence had brought to light a deficiency in the article - nowhere do we substantiate the points made in the first sentence with any detail. So instead of having a debate on talk about exactly what the first sentence might look like, I suggest that our energies would be better spend collaborating on a "Characteristics" section which goes through the key characteristics one by one and provides a description of each and an explanation of how this separates pogroms from other forms of collective violence and to what extent each is disputed. The characteristics I have in mind are those those in Zad's table, plus others from Werner Bergmann (p353): Everyone agree with the proposal? If so, we can start building out the explanations for each. Would be great if we could collaborate on actual content here. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "a violent riot"
 * "generally against Jews"
 * "government involvement" / "condonement by the forces of law"
 * "killings and destruction"
 * "collective attribution"
 * "imbalance of power"
 * "level of organization"
 * "applicability during wartime"
 * The citations that immediately follow the first paragraph substantiate the entire paragraph, including the first sentence of the article. Thus the claimed "deficiency in the article" does not exist, and the "issue" is solved. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please collaborate, or otherwise stay away. You know WP:LEAD as well as I do: "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Oncenawhile (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Collaborating doesn't mean an editor must agree with you. Telling an editor to "stay away" indicates WP:OWN issues; please try to work collaboratively. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, collaborating does not mean that. Nor does it mean an endless stream of inane comments which impede progress. So those are two things that collaborating does not mean, and in terms of what the word does mean we have the dictionary definition of "working together towards a common goal". So if our common goal is to improve this article, and we both accept that this article is not (and will never be) perfect, how exactly do you define "collaboration"? If this article is to progress we need to agree on what collaboration means and then how we can collaborate together. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of Pogrom
Please would all interested editors come and help out at Definitions of Pogrom. Due to certain editors strong feelings here that too much information in this article about the word itself was WP:UNDUE, a new article has been created. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For all those not already aware, please join in at Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)