Talk:Pogrom/Archive 5

Protected
Page protected. Tom Harrison Talk 21:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Pogroms against" sections
Please could interested editors provide views as to what the criteria should be for including events in the two "Pogroms against" sections in this article? The sections are currently a random selection of events, including: Oncenawhile (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) events which are undisputed as pogroms
 * 2) events which are not most commonly known as pogroms (and their wiki article doesn't therefore have a title including the word pogrom) but some WP:RS scholars use the term, because they fit the theoretical criteria (e.g. User:Oncenawhile/Definitions_of_Pogrom)
 * 3) events which are not most commonly known as pogroms but do not fit the theoretical criteria but some WP:RS scholars use the term because "Jews were among the victims" (see e.g. User:Oncenawhile/Definitions_of_Pogrom)
 * 4) events which are not most commonly known as pogroms and no WP:RS scholars use the term
 * 5) events for which usage of the term pogrom has been disputed by WP:RS scholars (e.g. those at User:Oncenawhile/Definitions_of_Pogrom) whilst this article shows application of the term as unquestioned.


 * Comment This article is in very poor shape, and the result of this RFC, no matter how it closes, won't move the article in the direction of improvement. As it currently stands, the article could just about be renamed to List of pogroms.  It's a brief dictionary definition, a few paragraphs containing discussion of the word pogrom (creating an WP:UNDUE impression of the importance of that topic relative to subject of pogroms overall), and then it's a huge, indiscriminate list of pogroms.  Entirely missing from the article is actual encyclopedic content covering the importance of pogroms throughout history and the impact they have had on the various people and groups affected.  Once all that content is fully developed, then the huge indiscriminate lists of pogroms should be deleted entirely, and discussion of the few most important pogroms throughout history and their impact should be worked in to the article content.  This is a pointless RFC that is yet another in a series of puzzling ruminations over what the definition of pogrom is or is not or whether this or that event was actually a pogrom or not.    19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Having never heard of a Pogrom before, I had to turn to alternate sources because this article has an obvious political agenda behind it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:SOAP), and it appears some editors are using this Russian word to make it out to be something more. The reader is very capable to determine whether some event"is" a pogrom, given some references. Major, historical pogroms of significance should be brought to light. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica talks about the one with Tsar Alexander II in 1881....funny that's absent here. Quite frankly there should not be a discussion on "qualifications" of "events" which "could" be pogroms or not. Highlight some with historical significance, then as Zad states - just delete the "lists" of "qualified" pogroms - the reader can investigate these on their own, once they have a basic feel of what a Pogram is after reading this article. Patriot1010 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Why would one propose to include or exclude material in this article based on an article that was recently and overwhelmingly concluded at Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom to be synthesis? Furthermore, given that this article has so little actual information about its topic, Pogrom, why would one instead focus so unduly on trying to define exactly what is or isn't a pogrom, the very topic of the article deleted at AfD – as if any social construct could ever be defined with such exactness or specificity – or indeed, needed to be? Zad68's conclusion above is exactly right here: "This is a pointless RFC that is yet another in a series of puzzling ruminations over what the definition of pogrom is or is not or whether this or that event was actually a pogrom or not". Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As the self-appointed WP:OWNer of this article, you appear to be ignoring what is right in front of you. Zad68 wrote "this article is in very poor shape" and Patriot1010 wrote "this article has an obvious political agenda behind it". I believe your editing has created this mess over the last few years and you appear determined to continue doing everything in your power to obstruct its improvement. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not "the self-appointed WP:OWNer of this article", nor are any of your other absurd accusations accurate or appropriate.. Please remove your personal attacks, or this on-going behavior will be raised in the appropriate venue. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again Once, your vexatious article may have gone away, but my question hasn't - do you have have any evidence which supports your assertion that "Jayjg is the WP:OWNer of this article"? Or indeed that he appointed himself the WP:OWNer of this article??!? (I found this notion very amusing).. Zargulon (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Zargulon, as I said at the AfD, i can't keep answering your questions forever without you answering a single one of mine. Anyway, I already answered this one at the AfD. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once, could you please explain why you would make such a personal comment about Jayjg if you didn't intend to substantiate it? Surely you want to convince people about what an awful WP:OWNer he is.. it can't be that you just made the remark to scandalize people and get some cheap attention? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, if you really want an audit of your own behaviour at this article over the last 12 months you are welcome to raise this whereever you like. The quality of discussion on these talk pages (and now archives) has been abysmal. I have tried and tried and tried to have a thoughtful discussion with you to improve this article but without success. When you took a wikibreak I managed to make progress in constructive discussions with Zad and Zargulon, but you came back and reversed it all. I am confident that my behaviour in these discussions will stand up to scrutiny, and that any audit of the last 12 months will instead raise questions about your own behaviour. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your cooperation Once, do I take it this means we are all agreed that a WP:ANI should be started as soon as possible? I recall Once's confidence regarding the recent WP:AFD and I hope that this will go at least as well for him if not better. Zargulon (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sarcasm.
 * As i have said, you are welcome to do so. I would only ask that you scope it to cover the last 12 months of discussions, which to my mind have shown the worst face of wikipedia. So much effort for so little gain, hampered by paranoia and a total disregard for collaboration. We all have something to add if we work together, but you appear to set on working against me. You might also mention that you spurned a good chance of helping our communication improve at User_talk:Zargulon.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once, if you really feel so negatively, can I ask why you are sticking around at all? There are plenty of other projects and even Wikipedia topics that you could conceivably move on to. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the best question you've asked for a while. It's because I believe that progress towards the truth cannot be impeded forever. If we found a way to collaborate I know that we would get to the right place. We just haven't worked out how to work with each other yet. I have value to add here, so do you, and we can actually add that value if we work together instead of against each other. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what leads you to believe that you have value to add here? You are clearly very interested in constructing a "definition of pogrom", and you may have something to add by becoming a scholar and creating scholarly works devoted to a "definition of pogrom". Why are you not doing that, rather than imposing yourself poor wikipedia page, where your contributions are quite rightly just dismissed as prohibited original research? Zargulon (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Noone has claimed violation of WP:OR, because the sources I am using are of the highest quality. The most common argument that you and others have used against my contributions is WP:UNDUE - a totally subjective argument which allows you to argue for the removal of anything that doesn't support your POV. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that the AFD on your proposed article, which was upheld, "claimed violation of WP:OR"? Here's a hint.. its first line was "The article violates WP:DICDEF, and consists entirely of original research". Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Zargulon, Zad68, Oncenawhile stated immediately above (regarding me) that "When you took a wikibreak I managed to make progress in constructive discussions with Zad and Zargulon, but you came back and reversed it all". I certainly don't want to "reverse progress". Would you characterize that statement as being accurate? Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They both changed their minds and supported your reversal. So I know their answers. You should try asking the same question to a neutral observer instead. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't characterize that statement as being accurate. Zargulon (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * They both changed their minds and supported... I'm stunned.  Once appears to be stating that it is somehow suspicious or problematic for an editor to make a convincing case on an article Talk page and bring most other editors around to supporting his/her point of view.  In fact, doing just this is the very foundation of WP:CONSENSUS, the heart of Wikipedia's collaborative editing model.  It really should be questioned whether someone who rejects this model can be of value to Wikipedia.  This isn't what has happened anyway.  I reviewed Jayjg's article edits and Talk page contributions for the past year and have found his contributions to be positive. Does this have anything to do with the content of the article pogrom?  If someone is going to file a case regarding editor behavior, do it at one of the appropriate venues, for crying out loud.  Stop talking about it here or at some other article Talk page or at an AFD.  Please, just stop it.    03:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's try to end this. I do need to clear up some points you made though. Your comment above relies on Jayjg having made "a convincing case on an article Talk page and bring most other editors around to supporting his/her point of view" at the time. But the evidence at the discussion shows the opposite - Jayjg didn't even make any talk page comments at the time my "changed their minds" comment above is referring to! He didn't comment on it until a week later, and even then didn't come close to "making a case" let alone a "convincing case"!
 * Honestly Zad, I am disappointed about what appears to have happened to our working relationship. I respect the way you work and I like working together with you - in fact I believe your perspectives are very complementary to my own. I just can't work together with you when you are supported by bullies whose behaviour tips the natural intellectual balance to destroy any real discussion and collaboration. In other words, if others had just left us alone to work together we could have actually made this into a balanced and high quality article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I researched your profiles to determine why you are at each other's throats, because as an outsider its not makin' much sense. ..... Jayjg and Zargulon likes Jewish stuff, Oncenawhile likes Palestine stuff. Could we end the Jewish versus Palestine thing? Patriot1010 (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Patriot, whatever my areas of interest, I take care that my contributions are impartial, and I'm not prepared to accept your hearsay or inferences about the activities or prejudices of Jayjg or Oncenawhile. Please stop casting cavalier aspersions and confine your contributions to what is relevant to this article per WP:TALK. Zargulon (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 3 comments, about 3-5 lines each in response to the RFC.....and then one comment where three people engaged in personal attacks.....documents right above this entry. Puleeeze. As Zad stated - please stop now.  WP:Civil, etc.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Patriot, for what's worth i'd say that your summary is close, but not accurate for a number of reasons, particularly that I "like" both stuff (and I am certain that the others here do too). In my opinion the read-across is actually left wing vs right wing, or liberal vs conservative. The liberal side pushes "truth" and "clarity" as the route to enlightenment and fairness, while the right wing works to avoid change as the route to stability. Both are admirable goals and will continue as long as humankind does. Anyway, back to the point.... Oncenawhile (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once, I am still trying to work out from your comment whether you see yourself as a "liberal" or a "conservative". Can you please try to explain how e.g. your recent attempt to create a "Definition of Pogrom" article was either a "push for truth and clarity" or an "avoidance of change as the route to stability"? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with working that one out. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I figured it out. Conservatives love "definitions".. once they have forced a "definition" on a term, however unnaturally, they can prevent people from using it in intelligent new ways, thereby "ensuring stability" and "avoiding change". So, you are a conservative. Nothing wrong with that, so they tell me. Have you considered putting some effort into Conservapedia? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way. I have been trying to add sources into this article (or a new article) that explain in a clear and hopefully balanced way the debate around the usage (and misusage) of this word. These sources provide "clarity" on what is a thorny topic. And they don't "force a definition" - if you had read the article (and/or the sources) you would have seen that the sources show that there isn't an agreed definition anywhere.
 * Conservatism thrives on popular ignorance - the less people understand about history, the less they care to change things. Your fight to exclude this information is helping people remain ignorant on the topic, and contributing to a misleading perception about the history of pogroms. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fascinating - so now, according to you, conservatism "thrives on ignorance" but is also an "admirable goal". A self-hating conservative apparently. Your sources indeed don't "force a definition" - in fact they barely mention definition except to reject it. So please let us all know, why have *you* been trying to force a definition? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence suggests you don't understand basic political concepts. The heart of conservatism is about stability and security for "me and my people" above all, whereas the heart of liberalism is about justice and fairness for all. Both are admirable, but conflict with each other by definition. When you quoted me above you missed out the word "popular" - that's the critical word there if you want to understand what i'm saying.
 * To your question, i can only answer it if you show me a specific example of me trying to force a definition. I can tell you that my intent is to follow the sources, which it seems we both agree show only that there isn't an agreed definition anywhere. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, according to you, conservatism "thrives on popular ignorance", but is an admirable goal? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An ideology focused on security and stability has much less need for knowledge of history and world affairs than an ideology focused on ethereal concepts like justice and equality. That is why conservative political leaders usually are not "intellectuals".
 * Can we get back to the point please? If you want me to continue answering your questions like some kind of school teacher, you'll need to respond to mine too - e.g. the question in my previous post. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't your point that this whole debate was caused by some sort of "read-across", whatever that means, between, in your fantasy world, "liberals" and "conservatives"? Don't you want people to address the points you make rather than ignore them? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have known better than to try to talk to you like a mature adult. You appear to be only interested in games. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you have also known better than to violate WP:TALK by speculating about other editors' political views? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, your two favorite techniques in combination: "Misleading Rhetorical Questions" and "WP:LASTWORD". Sadly for you, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:MMORPG. Stop wasting everyone's time. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once, can you please explain what you mean when you say my questions are "rhetorical", other than in that you choose not to answer them? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Zargulon, the article "Rhetorical question" is has good summary - "In simple terms, it is a question asked more to produce an effect than to summon an answer". Oncenawhile (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Once, can you give an example of a question of mine which you think is "asked more to produce an effect than to summon an answer", specifying what "effect" you think it was meant to produce? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, your last question, of 12:42 28 March 2013, was intended to produce an effect of either irony or sarcasm. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But you could not have been referring to that question, since you made your comment before it existed. So what question were you referring to? And what "effect" do you think it was meant to produce? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with the previous comments. The "list" form needs to be addressed to start the extensive amount of work needed on the article. Dreambeaver  (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There shouldn't be two (or any) "pogroms against" sections. There should be an article about the pogrom as a phenomenon, with a few informative or significant examples. The article should not be about the word pogrom, nor primarily a list. Tom Harrison Talk 11:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with getting rid of both "pogroms against" sections. I think after the TOC there should be an "Introduction" section, which starts with what is currently the "Etymology" section, and goes on to mention the 19th century pogroms which gave rise to the word in English as defined by a reliable source. Then there should be a "The Pogroms" section, which summarizes these original pogroms. Then there should be a "Pogrom studies" section, which summarizes what has been written in reliable sources, particularly academic sources, about Pogroms, incidentally including references to other anti-Jewish events (e.g. Alexandria riots) and events against other groups (E.g. anti-Igbo violence) where pertinent. It should not be a list and nor should strive to mention exhaustively every event which has been described somewhere or other as a Pogrom. Zargulon (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC conclusion
My assessment of this RFC's comments is that: Any disgreement of this assessment? If so, we can put in a request at WP:Requests_for_closure. 14:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * there is no support to act on any of the RFC's proposed changes
 * there is unanimous agreement against any further development of "Pogroms against" sections
 * there is unanimous agreement for cutting back on or eliminating the lists of pogroms
 * there is unanimous agreement against any further development of content regarding definitions
 * there is unanimous agreement for cutting back on or eliminating the "definitions" content
 * there is unanimous agreement that the article is missing coverage of its core encyclopedic topics like the most significant historical pogroms
 * Nope - that sounds like an accurate summary to me. Zargulon (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your conclusions extrapolate a little far. We can agree on the "pogroms against" section - ie your bullets 1,2,3 and 6.
 * However points 4 and 5 were simply not discussed by most responses, nor were they the subject of the rfc, so let's please avoid a fight here and leave these topics for now. If you want to open up another rfc on the definitions section you are welcome to do so. In fact I think we should do so, once we've finished this pogroms against question.
 * Separately we have the question of what to do with material to be deleted from the pogroms against section. I would be happy for a separate article to be created along the lines of List of events named massacres to house any deleted material from the lists. I would also be fine if we just delete the info. I have no preference either way.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they were addressed in the RFC, Points 4 and 5 were decisively agreed by contributors to the "Definitions of Pogrom" AFD as well as elsewhere on this talk page. There is overwhelming agreement that the page needs to be rewritten from the beginning, and keeping the now discredited "definitions" material content is out of the question. Zargulon (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to uninvolved readers: Zargulon's post is rewriting the history of other people's wikipedia comments (again). The AfD was focused on the question of a separate article, and did not comment on this section in this article. So points 4 and 5 were simply not addressed in the AFD, and any suggestion that the "definitions material" of this article has been discredited by consensus has no basis in reality. I encourage readers to take a view for themselves by reading the AfD. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the link - almost all the opinions in the AFD addressing points 4 and 5 were those of "uninvolved readers". Once, can you try to explain why these opinions shouldn't count? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your post does not make sense. None of the uninvolved comments in the AfD addressed this article in the way you are suggesting. They were addressing the User:Oncenawhile/Definitions of Pogrom article. I encourage other readers to review the AfD link and see for themselves. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the AFD commenters quoted WP:OR, WP:DICDEF, WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK, thereby rejecting the material, not merely the proposed article. So please explain why you say that my "post doesn't make sense"? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the material in this article is different from the material in the article those comments referred to. If you bothered to read the material you comment on you would have known that. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Zargulon (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree with Zargulon, because we are involved in the RFC responses, if there isn't unanimous agreement we can't really argue it. If need be we should get an uninvolved experienced editor to do the close for us, as mentioned.    19:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The most significant historical pogroms
Zad, will you provide a suggestion for which are the "most significant historical pogroms", per your sixth summary point above? Once that's agreed it should be straightforward to implement the improvements. For the avoidance of doubt, given past history here I think it will be most efficient if someone other than me implements the changes as I would rather avoid a continued mindless battle. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, and I'll probably be standing away from the direct development of this article's content as well, as I'm already busy with other areas. To re-emphasize, the development should not be just about trimming down the list of pogroms, but rather significant expansion of article content on their history, causes, effect and lasting impact. Here's what a brief comb through sources produced:  Encyclopedia Judaica covers the 1880s pogroms by Alexander II, mentioning Kirovograd as the first, called Kiev the "most severe", mentions others, and then covers their influence on Jewish history, including the May Laws and the expulsion of Jews.  EJ also covers the early 1900s, Kishinev and Odessa ("most serious"), and explains their causes.  EJ also has an article on Kristallnacht ("the November pogroms") and covers its importance and lasting effect ("It came to stand for the final shattering of Jewish existence in Germany.", "The November pogrom shattered all Jewish illusions. Life in the Reich was no longer possible.") Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity has a special sub-article on pogroms of pre-Soviet Russia and covers Alexander II, covers precipitating events, and calls out Kishinev, Odessa, Kiev, and again provides not just a list of events but also covers their importance, extent, motivations/causes.  The same encyclopedia mentions the Kristallnacht pogrom in its Holocaust article, which also mentions "In the first weeks of the German attack on the USSR, a wave of bloody pogroms swept through the western Soviet territories from Latvia to Moldova." Less frequently mentioned are things like:  the Dictionary of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict mentions attacks on Jews in pre-1948 Palestine, and World Religions Reference Library discusses pogroms carried out by the Christians of Poland and Russia in the late 17th century.  Other things like the 1740 Batavia massacre and 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom/riots might deserve only a brief mention here if an encyclopedic theme covering them can be developed.

Tagging
We now appear to have a dispute over tagging here. There has been a long running discussion over various aspects of the article between a small group of editors, including me, for more than a year. In March we held an RfC about certain sections of the article which brought in previously uninvolved editors with comments such as "Having never heard of a Pogrom before, I had to turn to alternate sources because this article has an obvious political agenda behind it" and "...the extensive amount of work needed on the article". Even involved opposing editors wrote "This article is in very poor shape" and "this article has so little actual information about its topic, Pogrom". A month ago i wrote "...given past history here I think it will be most efficient if someone other than me implements the changes as I would rather avoid a continued mindless battle". But none of the previously involved editors have time to make any improvements. So we are in limbo with a broad agreement that the article is in poor shape. Surely therefore this is the exact scenario for which many of wikipedia's tags were created, and therefore a perfect example of when they should be used? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once, can you please point in to the places in the talk page where consensus that


 * "This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject."
 * "This article focuses too much on specific examples without clearly discussing its abstract general subject."
 * "This article is missing information about most significant historical pogroms which gave rise to the English usage"
 * Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the topics being focused on in the tag, then change them in the tag box to those topics you do agree need work, don't just remove the whole thing. If you disagree with the overall concept of highlighting that this article needs an overhaul, then say so, and explain why.
 * The only question that matters here is "how can we help the article to improve?". Your history suggests you don't want to improve the article via constructive collaboration with me, and the last month of silence shows you have no time or interest to fix it on your own, so we have only the "highlight the problem and let other editors come and help" route left open.
 * Our energy must be focused on encouraging improvement in the article, not these constant mindless debates that you appear so keen to encourage.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once, please try to answer my questions. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered any of the points made in my original post. Stop blocking and start talking. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You might find this page helpful: Template messages/Disputes. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once, if you really want your tags on the page, please try to answer my questions. You might also find the following page helpful: WP:Edit warring. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Zargulon, you have a long history of gamesmanship which any interested observer can see by reviewing your talk page comments on this page. This takes the form of you ignoring the core issue at hand, and then asking incessant questions which are often rhetorical and misleading. It is amusing to watch, but it is very bad for wikipedia. WP:BRD includes the term discuss. Until you start engaging in real discussion, you are not properly engaging in the BRD process but are simply being disruptive. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Brewcrewer, thanks for your unsurprisingly inane contribution. Your track record on this page means I have come to expect this low quality tag teaming from you here. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once, please stop grandstanding and answer my questions. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Disappointed to see you wish to continue this facile game of incessantly asking for answers to your questions whilst ignoring points directed at you first. If you have no intention of engaging in a respectful discussion, stop wasting everyone's time. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Tagging - section break and compromise proposal
Once, I thought that placing four article-wide tags was over the top. However, I agree with you that the article is clearly deficient, and the comments from the Talk:Pogrom RFC show wider support for that finding too. As a general aside, I don't know about you, but personally I hate tags, especially article-wide tags. Tags are supposed to "attract editors to articles" and they're not supposed to be used as a "badge of shame" or to "warn reader" - wording like this is in almost every template's documentation. However I don't know of any editors who surf around looking for tags to fix, and I think nearly every article-wide tag is placed as a badge of shame or a warning to readers, and they always end up bringing more heat than light. Besides, if those are the real purposes of the tags, why can't they be placed on the article Talk page instead of in the article? Anyway... The specific tags you added weren't on target. We didn't end up with a consensus that there was a POV problem with the lead and we didn't ever discuss a problem with "insufficient context" so I was really puzzled by that one. And it could not have been more clear after both the "Definitions of pogrom" AFD and the RFC above that there's no consensus that this article needs more content about usage of the term. But I definitely agree the body of the article does focus on too much on specific examples and not enough on the abstract general subject, that was pretty much the finding of the RFC. The specific doesn't quite fit that though, as a tag it does not allow custom detail, and it doesn't work as a section template. So as a compromise let's put a section-level Missing information filled in with "most significant historical pogroms" in the "Pogroms against Jews" section, just like we discussed in the RFC and just like you and I discussed in the section above Talk:Pogrom. Would you be willing to accept that? 02:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Zad, thanks for bringing some sanity back here. As an aside, I have always respected and complimented your methods, and only have a problem when you let the many bullies and tagteamers roaming around this page swing the discussion away from a reasonable middle ground towards an extreme position.
 * On your points, we both appear to agree on what tags are officially supposed to do, but we have differing views on their usage in practice (as many editors do). FWIW, in my experience when tags are added to popular articles:
 * it makes more people think more carefully when they read the article, so readers will occasionally drop into talk to give their point of view
 * those editors who view the tag as a badge of shame are incentivised to fix the article.
 * Sadly, here, because no one has time to fix it expect me (who apparently can't fix it given the consistent edit wars that arise instead of thoughtful discussion every time i try), we appear to have gone for what I deem to be the lazy option: "fix the symptom rather than the core problem". By having an edit war over the placing of tags, we are just exacerbating the core issue and the increasing the heat here.
 * As it relates to whether the problem is article wide, per the quotes I pulled from above:
 * "Having never heard of a Pogrom before, I had to turn to alternate sources because this article has an obvious political agenda behind it"
 * "...the extensive amount of work needed on the article"
 * "This article is in very poor shape"
 * "this article has so little actual information about its topic, Pogrom"
 * ...all four are commenting article wide. So I would not feel comfortable with no article wide tag (unless we are prepared to fix the article, which would be highly preferable).
 * On your points about how on target the tags were, I hear you and am happy to find a middle ground. I'm not confident that the bullies and tagteamers will allow us to agree on somewhere reasonable though, but let's see.
 * I am prepared to accept many of your points, although note i disagree with the concept that an issue raised needs full consensus before it can be put as a tag. Conceptually speaking, to take your example, if there really was full consensus that the lead is POV, then it would have been changed already. Surely so long as the dispute is reasonable and based on sources, then it shouldn't just be hidden. For example, on the question of neutrality in the lead, the problems are twofold: (1) certain events are shown as undisputed pogroms despite the fact we have RS showing that there is disagreement over the applicability of the term to those specific events; and (2) the first sentence states categorically what a pogrom is, despite the fact that we have many RS who either disagree with that definition or else strongly believe there is no fixed definition. These are reasonable complaints that need to be addressed by carefully finding consensus, assuming that you and other editors are willing to work on that.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once, I understand your frustration, but based on my experience, as long as a contentious conversation turns away from the article and turns to comments about editors, there's no chance for productive discussion or reaching consensus, and you're only shooting yourself in the foot. So, turning back to content: Like all other article content, tags require consensus for inclusion.  Tags are especially tricky because they're a judgment call and if they're disputed, support for them is often determined from a head-count, or, at worst, from whoever got the last revert in.  (This is another reason I don't like them.) At this time there's clearly no consensus to apply an article-wide tag, and I think you'd agree it's highly unlikely that we will develop such a consensus.  But I do think there's a good case made here for something, and so even though I don't like them, I'm offering the section tag as a compromise.  Keep in mind that I'm only one of several editors who need to be brought on board to support a section tag, so other editors here would need to be convinced to support it as well, and I'm willing to help do that (no guarantee it'll work).  A section tag would still meet the goals you stated above of warning the reader and being a badge of shame to incentivize work on the article, even though template documentation specifically directs us not to use tags for those purposes. If you're still insisting on an article-wide tag, feel free to work on your own to develop consensus for it with the other editors here.     13:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What about that one that says "This section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject"? That at least is not gratuitously negative. Zargulon (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a possibility too but if we're going to be adding a tag at all I think it should be more informative and specify what the issue is.   14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg
The file File:ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

How to move forward? Identifying the problem, so we might collaborate on improvements
Regarding our inability to progress any improvements to this page, I made my views clear above, and sadly but not surprisingly the same dynamics reappeared and we got nowhere.

By chance I stumbled across an academic paper released a few months ago about wikipedia - they conclude: ...which is a very nice and succinct summary of what has happened on this talk page.
 * "The language of the talk pages of conflict articles gets more reduced in complexity than that of regular articles and the leader-follower behavior is more intensive."

Sadly they didn't give any ideas to resolve the dynamic.

At the moment we have a page which everyone agrees is substandard, but our dysfunctional talk dynamics are getting in the way of either us improving it or encouraging others to come and help.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Once, it is fascinating to be kept up to date on your chance internet stumblings. Let us all express our gratitude. Zargulon (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn does not look like a reliable source to me
The section Pogrom opens with the statement by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn that "Of the pogroms, about 40% were perpetrated by the Ukrainian People's Republic forces led by Symon Petliura". Since Solzhenitsyn in 1990 called for the creation of a new Slavic state bringing together Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and parts of Kazakhstan that he considered to be Russified and Petliura wanted an independent Ukraine I would not be surprised if Solzhenitsyn "toned up" the percentage of Petliura forces to make all Ukrainian nationalist look bad. I am not alone in this —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The Times articles
The 1903 version is the first usage of "Pogrom" according to the Times Digital Archive. The 1882 article (also shown on the right) is the first usage of "Pogromen", as confirmed by the Oxford English Dictionary. To my mind the 1903 article is a much more interesting exhibit for readers. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Once, your link does not lead to any text which states that either of these articles constituted the first use of any particular word. Do you have a source for either of these "first use" assertions of yours, or not? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Times Digital Archive one needs a subscription. I have one, but if you don't you will not be able to double check.
 * For pogromen, I have a hard copy OED confirming it, which is double confirmed in this article.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like the jpeg, but it is a matter of taste - I won't remove it. However the YIVO source treats Pogromen as just an archaic plural of Pogrom, so it is misleading to use a caption which suggests that the word was not used before 1903, particularly in the absence of accessible citations. So either use the 1882 image, or write the caption very carefully. Zargulon (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done my best. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked it slightly to more accurately reflect the source and reduce WP:DICDEF overtones. Zargulon (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Characteristics
Oncenawhile, can you explain what you are trying to do with this section? It looks like OR to me. It also looks like it was copied more or less directly from User:Oncenawhile/Definitions_of_Pogrom, which was deleted as WP:SYNTH at Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw this article light up my watchlist today, and was disappointed to see the re-appearance of this line of content after what I thought was a pretty firm consensus against it, last time it was discussed. Have things changed?  Doesn't appear so.    03:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus against an article is not the same as consensus against all of its contents. I don't remember any negative comments about this piece in the AfD. Jayjg's edit yesterday out of the blue highlighted the fact that this article is lacking a proper explanation of the characteristics of a pogrom, i.e. to support the first sentence of the lead. Do you still want to keep it out? As I said it's a first draft - I have no pride of authorship. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I participated in that AfD and it seemed that there was a consensus against all of the article's contents. Generally if there is a lot of good content in an article and a lot of bad content, you don't delete the article but delete the bad content. This was not the decision made. Copying major parts of the article into other articles is like softly recreating the article, which there was a consensus to delete. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree. If you really believe this, please be more specific rather than making vague assertions. Here's the link Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are already Etymology and Usage sections, which is where this general kind of information would go, but those sections shouldn't get any bigger than they are now. I find the "In this year, this guy said 'this thing'; in that year, this other guy said 'that thing', ..." style very poor writing for an encyclopedia article.  Those look like my raw notes I make for myself when I do article development, they're useful to me but an article should not be written in that style.  Prose needs to be based on' that sort of stuff, it shouldn't be it.    20:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Trying to improve this article is like pulling teeth. Surely you see some room from improvement in the current usage section? Surely you can see something positive about having a more clear explanation of the characteristics of a pogrom? Is my draft really so bad it's impossible to salvage into something useful? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Zad68 and Ynhockey, the Etymolody and Usage sections are already long enough (too long, actually); the article can't be improved by even more OR. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is not called History of Pogroms. Surely it needs to properly describe what a pogrom is. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

List of "Pogroms against other ethnic targets"
I've removed a number of items from the section title "Pogroms against other ethnic targets", because there's no indication that reliable sources commonly refer to these incidents as "pogroms". Some of them aren't even specific "incidents" per se, but rather a series of actions. Many of the sources or links used didn't even mention the term "pogrom", and even if some did, the fact that one source or another (e.g. a newspaper headline) might describe an action as a "pogrom", or a having a "pogrom" as part of it, is not reason enough to consider the action to be a pogrom. This aricle is not List of incidents described by at least one source as a pogrom - if it is going to list items at all, then they should be commonly referred to as pogroms. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't have a problem with your concept, just with its execution. If you're going to have a "commonly used" requirement in here, We need to agree exactly how to measure it first. Then it can be applied consistently, rather than at your whim. So, if you really want to delete these, please propose a way to measure "commonly" for events mentioned as pogroms in this article, ideally based on existing policy or guidelines.
 * Separately, please explain your deletion of race riots and retention of hep-hep riots in the see alsos.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if you feel you must put an item in this list, then you need to justify its inclusion. If it's not called a "pogrom", then why is it here? Separately, please explain why you think Hep hep riots should be deleted as a See Also, which Race riots should be retained. Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to behave consistently. Many of the existing events you didn't delete are more tenuous than the ones you did. We should either delete all, none, or have a rule to measure. The events you deleted have been in this article for a very long time, so we retain the WP:STATUSQUO unless you want to put in the effort to do a proper job here.
 * The see alsos is obvious, let's not waste time. Hep hep should be deleted because it's already mentioned on the page - we can't have every event listed also under see also. And race riots are very closely related to pogroms - we have sources which state this.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like there is a consistent definition of "Pogrom" anywhere, so it is not clear when an event of ethnical violence can be classified as a pogrom. It is therefore not possible to make a definite list of pogroms. The article should provide the list of the earliest events that in practice came to define the term, and mention that other ethnical violence events has been classified as pogroms with the list of most important such events. -- H eptor  talk 01:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sad to see we're back to the same ol' same ol' again here too. It's better if the article doesn't have a big list of "things at one time or another called a pogrom" in it, per WP:USEPROSE.  Would prefer not to see a list at all, and just like we discussed last time, my thoughts on this haven't changed since my comments in the The most significant historical pogroms subsection, still visible here toward the top of this Talk page.   03:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I agree with Heptor and Zad. All I care about here is consistency. Can someone please implement this, because too many of my edits have been reverted without any thought. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oncenawhile, I don't understand your comment. It looks like Jayjg was implementing this, and you were basically reverting him without thought. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Jayjg's version was neither all or nothing, but a "selected" version based on what appears to be WP:OR. Either we leave the list open (like other list articles, and as my revert was suggesting), or we have no list (as Heptor and Zad are suggesting, which applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish events), or we have Jayjg's "selection" idea but with a consensus-agreed rule for what stays on the list. Any of these options are ok with me. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, based on his comments and edit summaries, I didn't get the impression wants a list at all.  I actually think we're all on the same page here that we need to let the best-quality reliable sources lead us to which events will or will not be included, and that it'd be better if there were no list, but rather prose discussion.  I thought Jayjg's edits, starting with this removal of poorly-supported or entirely unsourced items was an improvement along these lines, and a step in the right direction.  The revert of those edits interrupted what I saw as progress.  I'm hoping that as we're having a meeting of the minds here on this Talk page, and are more or less in agreement with how things should progress (at least in theory), we can give Jayjg a chance to continue.   19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oncenawhile, I agree with Zad68. I've read Jayjg's comments, and he obviously wasn't writing what you suggest. His first comment in this section says "if it is going to list items at all" - not that it has to list items. What's more, everyone here and at the AfD say that any incidents mentioned here should be specific ones following reasonable criteria - read Heptor's comment above for an example. Looking at the current and older comments on this Talk page, it looks like you are stating that Jayjg is trying to do something against some consensus, and you're just trying to follow consensus, but I see the exact opposite: Jayjg is trying to implement consensus, and you are impeding that. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will wait and watch for a while. You can see why I might be skeptical, having waited more than half a year with no progress, despite all this having been discussed before and me suggesting that it would be best if others implement.
 * Anyway, if Jayjg is going to remove the lists properly, let him remove the lists. If he is going to remove only selected items from the lists, let him tell us what the criteria is, so we can get consensus on it.
 * As an aside, the only thing impeding progress is all these other voices trying to talk for Jayjg. Perhaps if Galassi and others hadn't supported Jayjg's attempt to subvert WP:BRD, Jayjg and I could have finished the D in BRD and we would have been able to work this out for ourselves. Or perhaps you are both wrong about Jayjg's intentions. It all remains to be seen. I am on the edge of my seat. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've completed some of the cleanup, turning various lists into prose, and trying to stick to events that are generally or at least commonly called "pogroms". If there are any other events that people feel should be added (or removed), please feel free to suggest them. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How are you defining "commonly called", when considering which events should be included and which should not? Please be specific. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"If you feel you must put an item in this list, then you need to justify its inclusion. If it's not called a 'pogrom', then why is it here?" Jayjg, perhaps you didn't realize you'd done it, but you wiped the entries about Ehud Olmert referring to those two separate incidents in the West Bank in 2008. Both were properly cited using reliable sources (the BBC and Sydney Morning Herald). Both incidents were called "pogroms", and the fact that they were called so is a significant point in both articles. Thus, not only do these incidents meet the criteria you're asking for, but they seem to me to be uniquely valuable to the article and therefore doubly warrant inclusion. In addition, we went through this very same issue back in September 2011, about these exact edits, and you raised no objection at that time to their inclusion. They stayed on the page until the first edit you made on 3 November 2013. I'm going to put them back into the article, under the "pogroms against non-Jews" heading. If you do have a valid complaint about this entry, please raise it here on the talk page so that we can work out any issues. This is about the fourth or fifth time that these properly and reliably sourced, relevant edits I made -- originally back in 2008 -- have been removed without adequate explanation. The edit follows: Direct action (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has used the term "pogrom" twice in recent history to describe attacks against Palestinian Arab civilians perpetrated by Israeli settlers. The first usage was in reference to a group of West Bank settlers from Yitzhar who attacked a Palestinian village in September 2008. The second usage described an incident which occurred in December 2008, wherein Hebron settlers lashed out at Palestinians in that city in response to the eviction of a settler group from a disputed building by Israeli security. Olmert opined, "As a Jew, I was ashamed at the scenes of Jews opening fire at innocent Arabs in Hebron. There is no other definition than the term 'pogrom' to describe what I have seen".

I note that Jayjg has been away from editing wiki-wide for about 3 weeks now. I am looking forward to his answer to your and my questions on his return. After so many years we need to stop wasting time on unnecessary arguments and reach agreement on criteria for inclusion of the events listed on this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Olmert paragraph that Jayjg removed was particularly well-written, but I do think it is reasonable that the Olmert incident should be mentioned in this article, of course in using a strictly objective formulation. An Israeli prime minister saying for the first time that certain Jews had conducted a pogrom is a notable item in a Pogrom encyclopedia page. Zargulon (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the exact reason I put the two incidents in the article in the first place, and restored them each time they've been removed. It's a unique and definitely notable occurrence and I think it's perfect for this article given the context both of the statements and of the wiki article. While my feelings are somewhat hurt that my writing was criticized (just kidding -- I wrote it quite blandly and matter-of-factly because I wanted to avoid editorializing about the incidents on which Olmert was commenting, and on Olmert's comments themselves) if you identify any grammatical or structural issues in the segment, please feel free to improve upon those issues. Direct action (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. This article desperately needs a reasoned and exhaustive conversation between all the editors particularly concerned with the article, so that we can work towards a consensus about the entry criteria, which will allow us to move past the constant reverts and rewrites, and into collaborating to make this a more informative and better-quality article. Direct action (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See List of events named pogrom. It follows the article List of events named massacres, which has had meaningful editor discussion around criteria in the past. Hopefully this will act as a good structured central list of pogroms described on wikipedia. It should also allow this article to become more focused. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing
Oncenawhile, please stop your obvious wp:tendentious editing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain what on earth you are talking about. In detail, please. I view this as a personal attack. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because somebody flippantly calls something a pogrom doesn't make it a pogrom. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) That goes for a number of other events in this article, see e.g. Limerick or Tredegar; (2) Noone is saying it does, either in the article or on the talk page - the discussion above suggests the relevance is the overall interest to the reader that an Israeli leader would use the word pogrom in that way given its deep connections with Jewish History; (3) please explain why you think this editing is tendentious. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot/Galassi - I think the Israeli incidents should go in, and I don't understand your argument against them. There is no suggestion of saying that they are or are not pogroms, only of noting Olmert's statement, which is an important illustration of the point which the paragraph is making, namely how the idea of pogrom has been extended in the real world during modern times. Zargulon (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If they're going to revert they need to come up with a better reason than there being "no consensus", as per WP:DRNC. As for WP:WEIGHT, that's an issue that needs to be worked out on the talk page, not via an edit war. Galassi and Plot Spoiler, if you have serious problems with this edit you need to bring them here. Direct action (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "No consensus" is not a legitimate reason to delete sourced information without providing evidence/policy based objections to the sourced content. Plot spoiler is topic banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and his deletion of material relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict is in contravention of that ban. Dlv999 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Medieval pogroms
I have brought the prose list describing medieval pogroms to the talk page (below):
 * Massive violent attacks against Jews date back at least to the Crusades such as the Pogroms of 1096 in France and Germany (the first "Christian" pogroms to be officially recorded), as well as the massacres of Jews at London and York in 1189–1190. During the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, beginning in the 9th century, Islamic Spain was more tolerant towards Jews. In the 11th century, however, there were several Muslim pogroms against Jews; notably those that occurred in Córdoba in 1011 and in Granada in 1066. In the 1066 Granada massacre, the first large pogrom on European soil, a Muslim mob crucified the Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred about 4,000 Jews In 1033 about 6,000 Jews were killed in Fez, Morocco, by Muslim mobs. Mobs in Fez murdered thousands of Jews in 1276, and again, leaving only 11 alive, in 1465.  In Europe in 1348, because of the hysteria surrounding the Black Plague, Jews were massacred by Christians in Chillon, Basle, Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, Dresden, and Mainz. By 1351, 60 major and 150 smaller Jewish communities had been destroyed. A large number of the surviving Jews fled to Poland, which was very welcoming to Jews at the time and remained a haven for displaced Jews until the Nazi conquest and purge. In 1506, after an episode of famine and bad harvests, a pogrom happened in Lisbon, Portugal, in which more than 500 "New Christian" (forcibly converted Jews) people were slaughtered and/or burnt by an angry Christian mob, in the first night of what became known as the "Lisbon Massacre". The killing occurred from 19 to 21 April, almost eliminating the entire Jewish or Jewish-descendant community residing in that city. Even the Portuguese military and the king himself had difficulty stopping it. The event is today remembered with a monument in S. Domingos' church. In what is present-day Israel, the 1517 Safed pogrom had mass-murder, theft, and beatings against Jews. Tens of thousands of Jews were massacred by Cossacks in Ukraine during the Khmelnytsky Uprising of 1648–1657, and thousands more during the Koliyivshchyna in 1768–1769. In Morocco there was a pogrom in 1790 in Tetouan, started by sultan Yazid. The Jewish quarter was pillaged and many women raped. 

These events are not appropriately sourced - many either do not have sources, or have sources which do not use the word pogrom. Please could anyone who wishes to add this back please improve the sourcing. Otherwise it seems to be a list of events in which there were Jewish victims, rather than actual pogroms. This article should not be a duplicate of History of antisemitism - we need to apply some criteria here, so let's start with getting the sourcing correct. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of pogrom
All, please see a new article at Definitions of pogrom. This has a much narrower scope than the previous incarnation. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All, please see

Together we can defeat POVFORKs. Thanks. Zargulon (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Definitions_of_pogrom_(2nd_nomination)
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/List of events named pogrom

Olmert quote verbatim
Ok Direct, state your case. Zargulon (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Zargulon, I was out of the country for a time and completely forgot about my edits to this article and our discussion. At the moment I don't feel particularly inclined to continue struggling with you over the inclusion of any part of Olmert's quotes. Therefore, despite the fact that I still feel I was in the right and your position wasn't/isn't, I find your "compromise" of keeping the quotes in the footnotes to be adequate. Nevertheless, I will come back to this thread and "state [my] case" when I find the time, simply as a matter of record. Direct action (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok great - I promise I'll hear you out. Zargulon (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning to everybody involved in edit warring on this page
I've added this page to my watchlist. I'm dismayed to see the slugfest that was the AfD continue here. I'm not going to take sides, but I do have a responsibility to see that things don't get out of hand. I understand that several of the editors who are working on this page have strongly differing opinions. I urge you to try and find some common ground, or go work on other articles for a while. If edit warring and uncivil behavior continues, I'm not going to try and figure out who's right and who's wrong, I'm just going to block all the participants. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. But first please can you put the article back the way it was this morning immediately following the merge (ie before the edit warring), so we are all on a level playing field and incentivized to discuss. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. I'm not going to replace one wrong version with a different wrong version.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was your version, not some arbitrary middle-of-an-edit-war version. The normal "wrong version" guidelines don't apply when it was the neutral admin who began the situation for neutral reasons.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternatively can you please mediate? I respect that you don't want to be involved, but we are desperately in need of a neutral editor to help us through this. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would make a very good mediator here. I do, however, suggest that all parties involved here take a look at WP:Dispute resolution for some ideas on how to work this out. My take on this is that posting to WP:3 might be an excellent way to get some unbiased input.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Once's reverts of policy tags
Once, rather than edit warring, would you please try to express which specific tags you object to, and why? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I object to all of them, because they are unexplained. A tag is to highlight a concern - the onus is on you to explain why you have put each tag there.
 * I also object to you removing the criteria without consensus.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They are hardly unexplained, unless you wilfully ignore all the discussion we have had on this talk page and on the multiple AFDs for your WP:POVFORKs. Please review WP:IDHT. Also please review WP:BURDEN so that you understand where the "onus" is. What do you mean by "removing the criteria without consensus"? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is where you deleted the "list criteria" without consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once, could you please clarify whether you think the criterion for entry into this list should be 'This is a list of events for which one of the commonly accepted names includes the word "pogrom"', or something contained in the comment which I deleted? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is that there should be a criteria. I don't care what it is - the community can decide. But having no criteria is unacceptable. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you agree that the current criteria for the list is not well defined, can you please explain why you are disruptively reverting my list-cleanup tag? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with that. I think the criteria is just fine. But if you want to change it (note "change" not "delete") I won't stand in the way - you just need to get consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for this inclusion criteria drafted by Oncenawhile. This pointy POV pushing, tendentious editing, and wikilawyering needs to stop. It seems quite clear that Oncenawhile doesn't enter discussion to address the merits, but to just then wholly reject the other person's concerns. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once, you say you 'think the criterion is just fine'. Please clarify which criterion you are referring to, the one in the article which I quoted, or the one in the comment which you objected to me deleting. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The one i objected to you deleting. Please now explain you position on this. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, can you try to explain why your preferred criterion in use should be in a comment, while the criterion which readers see on the page should be a different criterion, which is not your preferred one? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reader sees a summarised version of what the editor sees. We don't need to burden the reader with the detailed criteria. The two versions don't contradict, so there is no problem.
 * Now please answer my question - what is your objection to the criteria you deleted, and what do you propose replacing it with?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You pointed me to IDHT. It says "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive."
 * Surely your tags are a classic case of this? Perpetuating an unnecessary argument in which there is a very wide variety of community views, but one from which we should really just move on... Oncenawhile (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once, please stop referring to fantasy consensus and deal with the points that other editors have raised. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This comment makes no sense to me. Can you explain? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To explain - you have been asked, above, to deal with the points that other editors have raised about your content. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which other editors? In the Afd? There was a wide range of opinions, and very little consensus. Please clarify exactly what points you would like to be focused on. And please explain each of your tags in detail. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See above. Zargulon (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of list inclusion criteria
Regarding the recent deletion of the criteria for inclusion in the merged list in this diff (content which had silent consensus since inception at the mergedfrom article), please could anyone supporting this deletion please explain their concerns with the material? I would note that it based on a long-standing criteria in use at List of events named massacre. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Pogrom list inclusion criteria
Below is the selection criteria (see WP:LSC) for the list of pogroms in this article. This criteria is originally from the article List of events named pogrom which has now been merged here.

Comments are requested with thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , Zargulon and Clarityfiend I recently read the debate at Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom and I am concerned about some of the comments that suggested that List of pogroms would be a better name than List of events named pogrom, particularly from those who complain that "List of events named pogrom" encourage OR. The experience with List of massacres (version from 2007) was far from reducing OR it encouraged it because editors would add events that they considered to be a massacre and if they bothered to include a source then it turns out that in English prose many synonyms are used to describe such events (eg slaughter, butchery, annihilation, extermination, decimation) and often it seems that the choice of word selected by uthors are for reasons such as alliteration rather than definition. So an exclusive list based usage in the text is arbitrary (including sources that use massacre but excluding sources that use slaughter). While a "List of events named ..." can still suffer from problems of alliteration, at least the worst excesses of OR are eliminated (including most POV usage (for example the Cromwell's massacre at Drogheda)) and the list now consists of what is on the label.
 * In the case of "pogrom" if one sticks to English language sources, then I suspect that the problem of synonyms will be less of a problem than with words such as massacre because it has a more specific dictionary meaning and is not used as a verb. Also since World War II and more so since the Bosnian war pogrom usage for current affairs replaced with "Ethnic cleansing", "genocidal massacre" etc. {For more details on the problems with the word massacre see the 2nd AfD}. -- PBS (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The word pogrom refers to extrajudicial action taken against the Jews. The only times Europeans invoke the word otherwise is when they stage a community lynching and pogrom was the only term that came to mind.  To include other "unofficial demonstrations" makes use of the word pogrom synonymous with riot or some such.
 * had no business removing the list of criteria based on the claim that there was consensus for it and I'd like to see that criteria restored. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert's usage of the word
The fact that Olmert called something "pogrom" does not mean anything; it just as well may be emotional name calling. If you want some event to be classified as a pogrom, you must provide a scholarly source, which in a non-occasional manner disusses the event as a case of a pogrom, or at least several sources independently calling it "pogrom". Otherwise we may collect thousands of name-calling cases in numerous subjects: "nazi", "apartheid", etc. -No.Altenmann >t 05:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. See also "Pogrom list inclusion criteria" above.-No.Altenmann >t 05:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing your objections to the talk page. If you comb through the archives of this Talk, you'll note that this edit has been challenged numerous times, and that the current state of the Olmert quotes are the result of consensus-building among the editors. You'll find that the claim that Olmert called something a "pogrom" doesn't make it a pogrom in fact isn't in dispute by anyone. This is why the language of the content is such as it is. It merely states the facts that Olmert (while serving Prime Minister of Israel) used "pogrom" to describe two separate incidents, while making no value judgment as to whether or not he's right. If you pay special attention to User:Zargulon's comment in Talk:Pogrom, you'll note that there is a belief that the uniqueness of a sitting Israeli prime minister using a historically-sensitive term in such a way carries encyclopedic value that warrants the inclusion in the article. Direct action (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus may change, as you know. FUI I reported you for WP:3RR. Now, whatever belief you have about Israeli PM, this is wikipedian's original research. If you find an independent source who singled out Olmert for this utterance, then it will become encyclopedic. Zaqrgulon's comment is nothing but an attempt to justify WP:SYNTH in the article: once again, Olmert's utterance contains no encyclopedic information. Any other value of this utterance in context of this article must be justified by an independent source. -No.Altenmann >t 06:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, Since you all admit that Olmert's opinion does not make the event pogrom, then this is not an example of "pogrom". If you want it to be an example of the usage of the word for other purposes, please add the corresponding section, with references and all, ant this will be a proper place for Olmert's utterance. -No.Altenmann >t 06:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, the content in question isn't in the article as an attempt to provide evidence that these two incidents were pogroms or "examples of pogroms". As such, WP:SYNTH doesn't apply, since there is no conclusion being reached or implied by the content nor by its placement in the article, other than the "conclusion" of the factual matter of Olmert having used the word to describe those incidents. It's in the article because it's a noteworthy use of the term and is illustrative of the mutable and disputed nature of what constitutes a "pogrom", as is described in the "Usage" section. To this effect, an anonymous IP just now quite astutely anticipated a problem given the section the content had been in (the article has changed many times since the original inclusion of the sourced Olmert content, which has subsequently been moved around a lot, to the detriment of the article's quality -- it should not have been residing under the "After World War II" header, a section which clearly refers only to pogroms targeting Jews in the postwar era), and moved it to the "Usage" header, where it better fits given the circumstances. I've now embedded it in the paragraph following that in which Anonymous had originally put it, as it seems most relevant there. Direct action (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Olmert's usage is an example of mainstream or extended usage of the term as described in the section "Usage". People abuse loaded words all the time. If we start citing all utterances of all politicians on all occasions, this will be end of encyclopedia. Examples must be undisputable illustrations of the described concept. In controversial cases "undisputable" means "supplied with solid references which cite this example as proper or imporper usage". Anything less than that is original research no matter which section you put it. -No.Altenmann >t 05:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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