Onceinawhile (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
::Please comment on the proposed inclusion of the word in THIS sentence. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 07:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
::Please comment on the proposed inclusion of the word in THIS sentence. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 07:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::The source used doesn't describe them as "antisemitic". In fact, very few [[WP:RS|reliable]] [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] do. Mixing the definitions of two different sources that say different things would be [[WP:SYNTH]]. Please also review previous comments in this section. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 11:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
:::The source used doesn't describe them as "antisemitic". In fact, very few [[WP:RS|reliable]] [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] do. Mixing the definitions of two different sources that say different things would be [[WP:SYNTH]]. Please also review previous comments in this section. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 11:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::OK, let's do this slowly. We can take as much time as you need. |
|||
::::* THE SOURCE: The word pogrom, meaning riot, is of Russian origin and is usually encountered in '''the experiences of violent [[anti-semitic]] outbursts in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia''' |
|||
::::* THE EXISTING TEXT: It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century attacks on [[Jews]], particularly in the [[Russian Empire]] |
|||
::::* THE PROPOSED TEXT: It originally and still typically refers to '''[[anti-semitic]] 19th- and 20th-century attacks on [[Jews]], particularly in the [[Russian Empire]]''' |
|||
::::Now, please explain, in non-technical terms for simple people like me, without the use of any wikirules, why you believe that the source doesn't justify the addition of the word anti-semitic in the sentence. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 17:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Let's discuss == |
== Let's discuss == |
Revision as of 17:42, 20 April 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Istanbul riots
I've moved the following recent insertion here for discussion:
In the 1955 Istanbul pogrom, ethnic Greeks, Armenians, and Jews were attacked and overwhelmed by ethnic Turkish mobs.[1]
These terrible events are typically referred to as a "riots", not a pogrom - that is, in fact, the name given them by our own Wikipedia article! The source itself only describes them as a "pogrom" in passing (in an image caption). This article is about events typically referred to as "pogroms", not events typically referred to as other things (e.g. "massacres", "riots", etc.), even if a small number of stray sources use the term "pogrom", or "pogrom-like", or compare them to a pogrom. Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted, as google shows that "pogrom" is frequently employed as a description of these events, indeed google books returns more hits for "pogrom" than it does for "riots". Gatoclass (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're searching, but for books published since 1955, removing the publishers that just print the contents of Wikipedia articles, novels, and other false positives:
- +"the istanbul pogrom" -"General Books LLC" -"vdm publishing" : 9 hits
- +"the istanbul riots" -"General Books LLC" -"vdm publishing": 66 hits
- Reading through the results it quickly becomes apparent that there are almost no false positives in the second search, and that "Istanbul riots" is seven times as common in reliable sources as "Istanbul pogrom". Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't strike me as a very efficient search string. I did a search on google books for "1955 istanbul greek pogrom" and "1955 istanbul greek riot" (both without the
parenthesisquote marks) and returned, from memory, about 1,700 hits for the first and 1,500 for the second. Gatoclass (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)- Why isn't it an "efficient search string"? We're looking for the name of the events, that's a search that will get it much more efficiently than any other. And when I do a google search for ""1955 istanbul greek pogrom" I get zero hits; when you say "without parenthesis" do you mean not enclosed in quotation marks? If so, you're just getting hundreds of false positives. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just repeated the search with the "general books llc" and "vdm publishing" results excluded, and got about 1950 hits for the "pogrom" string and 3390 for "riots". Regardless, I think it should be clear from those results that "pogrom" is a commonly employed term for this event. Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why isn't it an "efficient search string"? We're looking for the name of the events, that's a search that will get it much more efficiently than any other. And when I do a google search for ""1955 istanbul greek pogrom" I get zero hits; when you say "without parenthesis" do you mean not enclosed in quotation marks? If so, you're just getting hundreds of false positives. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't strike me as a very efficient search string. I did a search on google books for "1955 istanbul greek pogrom" and "1955 istanbul greek riot" (both without the
- I'm not sure what you're searching, but for books published since 1955, removing the publishers that just print the contents of Wikipedia articles, novels, and other false positives:
- (edit conflict) Sorry, yes, I meant quote marks. With regard to your search string, in my experience, having too specific a search string tends to exclude a lot of valid hits. But since you raise the question of false positives, I might do a couple of other searches to see what comes up. Gatoclass (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Having refined my search terms a tad, I have to concede that "istanbul riots" seems a much more common term. I will probably have to look at the results much more closely to resolve the issue, but as I don't have time to do so right now, I will not object to a reversion at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
My reference, was Baum and Samuels, 2011. [1]. It was not picked up in my explanation, so I include it here. Politis (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've used the reference, and incorporated the material into the article. Jayjg (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Genocidal massacre
According to Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century by Paul Mojzes, a similar term to pogrom is genocidal massacre. Does anyone have any objections to including this statement in the article? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are lots of definitions; we can't include every one. Also, Mojzes says a lot more than just that it's similar to a genocidal massacre. What would you want to include? Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but this seems to me to be a pretty close comparator, and helpful for readers to compare. I had intended to add a very simple sentence that says:
- A similar term is "genocidal massacre".
- Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Mojzes said many thing; selective quoting of this specific statement is not an accurate statement of his views on the topic, and the material itself seems to add little. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Every source in this article says "many things", so this same comment could apply for every statement in the article! Oncenawhile (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Mojzes said many thing; selective quoting of this specific statement is not an accurate statement of his views on the topic, and the material itself seems to add little. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but this seems to me to be a pretty close comparator, and helpful for readers to compare. I had intended to add a very simple sentence that says:
What does the word pogrom imply? (RFC)
A number of articles on wikipedia have been amended in recent years to include the word pogrom in their title. In most cases, these are articles about highly politicized events. It would be helpful to have opinions from the community with respect to what this word implies about the event that is being described, and therefore when the word is appropriate, and when it is not. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. The term "pogrom" can be applied to events that are referred to as pogroms in reliable sources, if they are not referred to as such, they should not be referred to as such on wikipedia. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. The problem relates to a number of articles which do not have an obvious commonname. These politicized incidents have many secondary sources commenting on them. Some sources use the word pogrom, and others don't. Sometimes it's obvious if pogrom is applied by most sources, other times it's obvious they don't, but the majority of the time it's very difficult to agree what the majority of sources say. The question is whether and what the word implies - reaching agreement on this point will help us work out when the word is being used in a neutral sense vs when it is implying something about the event which may not have been established in the sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem (for me at least)arose when I noted some months back that Chesdovi created three articles, and built up another by Greyshark, retrojecting the specifically modern term pogrom back into the past, to give thumbnail accounts of incidents where Jewish communities suffered from violence: 1517 Safed pogrom,1517 Hebron pogrom 1834 Safed pogrom and 1838 Safed pogrom
- The objections are obvious(a) few, if any sources, use the word 'pogrom' for these 4 events (b) if the principle used here (pogrom= any assault on a Jewish community by an ethnic majority) were just, then all examples of Jewish communities suffering persecution, plundering and violence over the millenia can bear the title pogrom (c) this principle goes against RS usage as the guideline and defies the generally accepted usage of the term. Our article here writes-
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries".[7] The term is also used in reference to attacks on non-Jewish ethnic minorities; reviewing its uses in scholarly literature, Werner Bergmann proposes that pogroms be "defined as a unilateral, nongovernmental form of collective violence initiated by the majority population against a largely defenseless ethnic group, and occurring when the majority expect the state to provide them with no assistance in overcoming a (perceived) threat from the minority."[8] The 1919 Morgenthau Report argued that the term pogrom was inapplicable to the conditions existing in a war zone, and required the situation to be antisemitic in nature, rather than political.[9] Philip Herbst states that the term has sometimes "been used loosely, and according to some, misused in an inflammatory way", particularly in reference to attacks that are not "organized or officially sanctioned".[10]
- Wiki is not definitive, but the overall drift here suggests Chesdovi's stubs (and the incidents are so underreported those pages cannot but remain stubs) are both WP:OR, and instrumental in their use of the word pogrom to describe several premodern instances of razzias where Jews suffered. I think all of those articles, even if retained, should be retitled. Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- To add one other point on the articles which Nishidani refers to - the sources on these events generally do not suggest that the attacks were carries out on the ethnic minority because of their ethnicity, which this article suggests is a prerequisite for the correct use of the term pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter what the word "implies". All that matters is WP:COMMONNAME, or how the event is typically described by WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I gather then that, since in the four articles I cited, the WP:COMMONNAME is not 'pogrom', that we are all agreed here that the four article headings must be altered to conform to policy on this. Thanks. Unless there are objections, then anyone with the technical knowhow to change article names should go ahead and alter them. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- It does if the implication is disputed or fringe. The word is loaded with subtext that a word like riot or massacre is not (just look at all the different scholars quoted in this article who try to explain it in different ways), so its helpful if we have an agreed position on what the implications are. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- It only matters what reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies say. It doesn't matter if a Wikipedia editor "disputes" what a pogrom is, and we can't invent our own criteria based on different definitions. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, repeating doesn't make your statement any more insightful. You're missing the point - i've bolded it above. Now back to the issue at hand. A specific question has been asked here - if you don't like the question, you don't need to participate. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Plot Spoiler's points are completely accurate and worth repeating: All that matters is WP:COMMONNAME, or how the event is typically described by WP:RS.. I've bolded it here because that is, in fact, the only bolded material here that is relevant to policy. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Jayjg, do you not agree with my suggestion that if you don't like the question, you don't need to participate? It would be better for wikipedia if you hold back and let uninvolved editors comment on the question being asked. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Plot Spoiler's points are completely accurate and worth repeating: All that matters is WP:COMMONNAME, or how the event is typically described by WP:RS.. I've bolded it here because that is, in fact, the only bolded material here that is relevant to policy. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, repeating doesn't make your statement any more insightful. You're missing the point - i've bolded it above. Now back to the issue at hand. A specific question has been asked here - if you don't like the question, you don't need to participate. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- It only matters what reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies say. It doesn't matter if a Wikipedia editor "disputes" what a pogrom is, and we can't invent our own criteria based on different definitions. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter what the word "implies". All that matters is WP:COMMONNAME, or how the event is typically described by WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- To add one other point on the articles which Nishidani refers to - the sources on these events generally do not suggest that the attacks were carries out on the ethnic minority because of their ethnicity, which this article suggests is a prerequisite for the correct use of the term pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. The problem relates to a number of articles which do not have an obvious commonname. These politicized incidents have many secondary sources commenting on them. Some sources use the word pogrom, and others don't. Sometimes it's obvious if pogrom is applied by most sources, other times it's obvious they don't, but the majority of the time it's very difficult to agree what the majority of sources say. The question is whether and what the word implies - reaching agreement on this point will help us work out when the word is being used in a neutral sense vs when it is implying something about the event which may not have been established in the sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Terrific. Two of three quotations in the definition, the most authoritative ones, show that pogrom has strong overtones of antisemitism. Chesdovi is caught out using the word, in WP:OR style, of premodern events. How do you resolve the problem? Get rid of antisemitism in the lead, and have several support that. Farcical. None of the serious objections have been addressed.Nishidani (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct - sadly, certain editors seem to prefer not to address the question. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nishidani, please review WP:COMMONNAME - that's the only "serious objection" that hasn't been addressed here. Oncenawhile, Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg. I posted detailed comments on this page before editing in an impeccable source to the article, whose definitions were patently inadequate. Instead of reverting while not responding to my reasons on this talk page, while advising me in the edit summary to talk about my reasons for edits on the talk page, please respond to what I wrote above. Thank you. Your idea of 'serious objections' is not an adequate answer. WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with the issues raised in this section. Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- This section is about how to name articles. The relevant guideline is WP:COMMONNAME. I have no idea why you think your latest comment is relevant; I certainly don't see it. Jayjg (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg. I posted detailed comments on this page before editing in an impeccable source to the article, whose definitions were patently inadequate. Instead of reverting while not responding to my reasons on this talk page, while advising me in the edit summary to talk about my reasons for edits on the talk page, please respond to what I wrote above. Thank you. Your idea of 'serious objections' is not an adequate answer. WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with the issues raised in this section. Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nishidani, please review WP:COMMONNAME - that's the only "serious objection" that hasn't been addressed here. Oncenawhile, Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct - sadly, certain editors seem to prefer not to address the question. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion appears to have resulted in some WP:Wikifogging. Views from other uninvolved editors here on the basic question would be very helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your admitting to WP:Wikifogging; please do not engage in it in the future. Regarding your insertion:
Paul Mojzes wrote that the word pogrom is more nuanced than "riot" and that a more accurate meaning is genocidal massacre[2]
- Mojzes doesn't write that "genocidal massacre" is a "more accurate meaning" - he gives a more lengthy and nuanced discussion of the term. Please cite sources accurately. Jayjg (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Antisemitic
I have removed "antisemitic" from the lead because clearly not all pogroms were antisemitic. The lead section itself has examples of pogroms that were unrelated to Jews, such as the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think you were too hasty - that's not what the sentence was saying. I'll repaste the sentence below:
- It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century
antisemiticattacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
- It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century
- Are you saying that you believe that the pogroms in Russia that the english usage of the word originally refers to were not antisemitic? This article might help you: Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire.
- Or, to focus on a different part of the sentence, can you please explain you views as to when an "attack on Jews" is not anti-semitic? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- If the two are synonymous, there is no need for the pleonasm in the lead.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)- If you are using pleonasm because I introduced it in our conversation on my page, you misunderstand it. Pogrom was originally used predominantly of anti-Jewish riots. Like all words, the restricted meaning was loosened and generalised to denote a generic phenomenon. More importantly 'Pogrom' and 'antisemitic', the former a noun and the latter adjective, being functionally different, cannot be classed as synonyms, and therefore their combination cannot be an example of 'pleonasm'.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- If have seen outrageous cases of wp:own on Wikipedia but you are the first to have the audacity to extend it to individual words. I am baffled as to why the accuracy of its usage is contingent upon "If you are using pleonasm because I introduced it in our conversation on my page".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC) - I don't own words, I use them, and correct myself and others when they are used solecistically, as you did here to justify a poor edit. That is the crux, not my joke about our exchanges on my talk page, where I frequently had to notify you of your misuse of terms not in common usage. If one backs an edit with remarks that are obscure or inaccurate, the judgement for the edit is skewed. So please try to give comprehensible policy-adequate reasons for what you do round here. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- If have seen outrageous cases of wp:own on Wikipedia but you are the first to have the audacity to extend it to individual words. I am baffled as to why the accuracy of its usage is contingent upon "If you are using pleonasm because I introduced it in our conversation on my page".
- Indeed. Moreover, the mixing of the definitions of various sources is WP:SYNTH, and the source itself is a 1919 report, which hardly meets the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Jayjg, but you are mistaken. The source being in my edit is here Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century, Paul Mojzes.
- The word pogrom, meaning riot, is of Russian origin and is usually encountered in the experiences of violent anti-semitic outbursts in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia. Pogrom became a more nuanced term than riot, though they share common elements. A more accurate meaning of pogrom is genocidal massacre, that is, a semi-spontaneous mob attack, an outburst by a more dominant ethnic or religious group over a minority that is usually scapegoated for an alleged undermining of values that weakens the entire society.
- This is WP:RS, and very clear. Please clarify your objection to this source. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- As an aside, Ankh and Jayjg, please could you confirm whether your comments above mean that you are both encouraging the removal of the term antisemitic from any article where it may have been used unnecessarily? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Jayjg, but you are mistaken. The source being in my edit is here Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century, Paul Mojzes.
- If you are using pleonasm because I introduced it in our conversation on my page, you misunderstand it. Pogrom was originally used predominantly of anti-Jewish riots. Like all words, the restricted meaning was loosened and generalised to denote a generic phenomenon. More importantly 'Pogrom' and 'antisemitic', the former a noun and the latter adjective, being functionally different, cannot be classed as synonyms, and therefore their combination cannot be an example of 'pleonasm'.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- If the two are synonymous, there is no need for the pleonasm in the lead.
Noone has responded to my quote above, nor has anyone explained why the proposed additional word is not appropriate. In the absence of any comment, I will add the word back in, in the context above. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- It has already been explained that while one specific source may use "antisemitic", clearly not all events called "pogroms" are antisemitic, and other sources use the more general (and accurate) description of "attacks against Jews". At best this fairly unique definition restricts the overall description in a way that's incompatible with other definitions. See also WP:SYNTH. Please stop adding obviously inappropriate material. Jayjg (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- ...that's not what the sentence was saying. I'll repaste the sentence below:
- It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century
antisemiticattacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
- It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century
- Please comment on the proposed inclusion of the word in THIS sentence. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- The source used doesn't describe them as "antisemitic". In fact, very few reliable secondary sources do. Mixing the definitions of two different sources that say different things would be WP:SYNTH. Please also review previous comments in this section. Jayjg (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, let's do this slowly. We can take as much time as you need.
- THE SOURCE: The word pogrom, meaning riot, is of Russian origin and is usually encountered in the experiences of violent anti-semitic outbursts in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia
- THE EXISTING TEXT: It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century attacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
- THE PROPOSED TEXT: It originally and still typically refers to anti-semitic 19th- and 20th-century attacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
- Now, please explain, in non-technical terms for simple people like me, without the use of any wikirules, why you believe that the source doesn't justify the addition of the word anti-semitic in the sentence. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, let's do this slowly. We can take as much time as you need.
- The source used doesn't describe them as "antisemitic". In fact, very few reliable secondary sources do. Mixing the definitions of two different sources that say different things would be WP:SYNTH. Please also review previous comments in this section. Jayjg (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- ...that's not what the sentence was saying. I'll repaste the sentence below:
Let's discuss
Since my additions have been twice reverted with a jovial 'let's discuss'
- Let's discuss these proposed insertions one at a time, per WP:BRD. (TW)) (undo) (Plotspoiler)
- (let's stick with Britannica for now, and discuss the rest of these proposed (Jayjg)
and I have discussed my views and heard nothing apropos from either, I've created this section in order to allow the two, and any others, to 'discuss these insertions'. Please gentleman, follow on from your promise to discuss the insertions.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- If no credible arguments are brought by those who have reverted, your good faith and well sourced edits should remain. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The lead should state what the term currently means before delving into past incidents of its usage.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)- No one has 'delved into past incidents of its usage,' (a phrase that is, by the way, meaningless, since it is totally obscure what an 'incident of usage' is supposed to mean. You have not given an argument.
- The lead does not follow the source, Enc Brit, which has 'either approved or condoned by authorities', a key element in many definitions. No one allows me to fix this. Why? I'm still waiting for intelligible arguments from the other reverters, as promised.Nishidani (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The lead should state what the term currently means before delving into past incidents of its usage.
- If no credible arguments are brought by those who have reverted, your good faith and well sourced edits should remain. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, to which specific proposed insertion are you referring? Your comment is non-specific. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well actually, the reverts, being blanket reverts, failed to be specific. A reverter should explain what is wrong, and justify the ejection of material he has reverted off the article, I should think, especially when the sources are (a) perfectly RS and (b)on topic. I'll just leave it to other editors to see if the material I added here and here is useful, and judge whether it warrants inclusion or not, since I am not prepossessed by the argument, and have little time.
- To sum up. The definition used ignores the 'organised' which still is in the Enc Brit. source. If you use that source (and the OED) properly, a problem arises. I can see why that has been elided: i.e. the classic pogroms studied by Weinberg and Klier et al., turn out not to be 'organised' by authorities. I added the 'usually' in the lead because the RS say this aspect, contained in many RS definitions, is now discredited as a 'myth'. My intervention here was to reformulate per RS the definition in order to be comprehensive, nuanced, and not allow any contradiction between the definition as given in a source you all accept, and what modern scholarship now argues.
- By suppressing 'organised' in the EB source, one deftly sidesteps the problem, but only at the expense of refusing to properly transcribe the full definition given in that source. I don't think this is the way one should go about editing. When a problem like this occurs, one should search for definitions which are more sophisticated and up-to-date. Tutto qua.
- I would suggest in any case that editors who look often at this page, examine the long essay what was a pogrom? in John Klier's recent Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882, Cambridge University Press, 2011 pp.58-90, and harvest it. I would have done this, but since my judgement is so often greeted with suspicion, I'd probably have to spend too much time on the talk page trying to 'justify' the source, my selection of material, where it is placed etc.etc. rather than simply including what his admirably synthetic essay notes. So the best I can do to help out is refer editors to what I added earlier, and to an excellent RS they can cull as they see fit to construct a better page.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It was preceded by 'I can see why that has been elided. 'I can see' in English means 'appreciate' in the sense of understand. 'wilful misrepresentation' is not therefore the point, though I can see how my words can be construed to read that way. By 'deftly sidestep' I meant, an awkward problem is there which is avoided nimbly by dropping two words, so that the real contradiction in sources is avoided. That is a matter of creating a sense of conceptual comfort, rather than an issue of 'suppressing' some awkward truth. I happen to think (yes an Personal judgement on an RS source) that Oncenawhile's RS is wrong, since 'pogroms' are not always 'genocidal massacres': many failed to exact a toll of victims when Jewish resistance forces fought back and armed themselves. Klier has some extraordinary (to me) cites remarking on how rioting peoples in Eastern Europe, beating up Jews, in what were pogrom like activities, only turned murderous when in fact or rumour, Jews did what any decent person would do, i.e. took up arms and shot or hit back.
‘Every pogrom where there was serious loss of life was marked either by the use of firearms by Jews or by the rumour that they were shooting into crowds.'John Klier,Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882, Cambridge University Press, 2011 (ch.2:‘What was a pogrom?’) pp.58-90 p.67
- They expected their carnivelesque brutality to be unopposed, and in so far as Jews just took it on the chin, wouldn't normally murder them (this is the sort of weird mentality that explains why anthropologists now read, and it is distasteful personally to me, to have to take it this way, many incidents of pogrom as Easter ritual carnivals of what Gide called 'gratuitous acts' of violence, whose intensity tipped into murderousness if the 'Jew' didn't 'control himself' and behave as the ritual required, i.e., as a victim). (René Girard's scapegoat theories are appropriate).
- It would help the article, as with antisemitism, if one realized that every definition, and piece of material, in complex historical matters, represents a scholarly interpretation, that the scholarly community is often divided on definitions themselves and should be edited in this light. The range of definitions of 'pogrom' range from those that insist they are organised, to those that insist they were not, but rather spontaneous. I fail to see why editors find this problematical. If you have key definitions that differ substantially in their terms, because scholarship is divided over an issue, you provide a range of definitions covering all bases. To stick with one definition, arbitrary, against this evidence, lends itself to the impression that WP:NPOV is being ignored. To lose sight of this, and allow personal sensitivities or antipathies to dominate exchanges, does an injustice to the page. The arguments, in their variety, are far more interesting than our personal differences.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg, Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.. To be specific, your comment included an attempt to discredit Nishidani by providing an arbitrary interpretation of his intended implications which is not supported by the wider tone of his post. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oncenawhile, Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". To be specific, your comment includes nonsensical turnspeak that makes claims about my comments that are entirely invented, while ignoring the clear statements Nishidani has made. Please make more accurate Talk: page comments. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- As above. I haven't time to edit here, but could you all read Klier, who can be harvested amply for many things on pogroms missing in this article, on matters that should not evoke controversy or personal disputes between editors? Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg, Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.. To be specific, your comment included an attempt to discredit Nishidani by providing an arbitrary interpretation of his intended implications which is not supported by the wider tone of his post. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)