Onceinawhile (talk | contribs) |
|||
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
::::::::::Perhaps I can illustrate it best through the words of a scholar: [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3235335?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21100792065631 "Pogrom" implies an entirely different constellation of factors than "race riot."]. The first sentence clearly fails to accurately reflect the complexity of the word conveyed by all the scholarly RS. Now please respond to the points I made in my post of 23:02, 29 April 2012. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 08:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
::::::::::Perhaps I can illustrate it best through the words of a scholar: [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3235335?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21100792065631 "Pogrom" implies an entirely different constellation of factors than "race riot."]. The first sentence clearly fails to accurately reflect the complexity of the word conveyed by all the scholarly RS. Now please respond to the points I made in my post of 23:02, 29 April 2012. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 08:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent|::::::::::}} I will be improving the first and second sentences along these lines. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 10:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
{{outdent|::::::::::}} I will be improving the first and second sentences along these lines. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 10:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:If you were able to actually "improve" the sentences, then I wouldn't object. However, it was you who insisted that a source that described pogroms as a kind of "race riot" be included; now you insist on including a source that says the opposite. This is manufactured controversy, intended not to enlighten as to the term's meaning, but rather to undermine the entire concept of a pogrom. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Sources added == |
== Sources added == |
||
Line 124: | Line 125: | ||
:''Comparison of the violence of the revolutionary era to earlier pogroms reveals elements of both continuity and discontinuity. In the context of the former Russian Empire as a whole, the geographic location of the pogroms followed a traditional pattern, that is, the majority of attacks took place in Ukrainian ethnolinguistic territory."'' |
:''Comparison of the violence of the revolutionary era to earlier pogroms reveals elements of both continuity and discontinuity. In the context of the former Russian Empire as a whole, the geographic location of the pogroms followed a traditional pattern, that is, the majority of attacks took place in Ukrainian ethnolinguistic territory."'' |
||
According to the [[Henry Abramson]] article, he "is largely known for his scholarship in Ukrainian Jewish history and antisemitic iconography", both directly connected to the topic of pogroms. Please could you confirm whether you have any objections to the inclusion of Abramson's position in this article? [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 12:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
According to the [[Henry Abramson]] article, he "is largely known for his scholarship in Ukrainian Jewish history and antisemitic iconography", both directly connected to the topic of pogroms. Please could you confirm whether you have any objections to the inclusion of Abramson's position in this article? [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 12:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::The material is out of context, and therefore inappropriate. Does the term " |
::The material is out of context, and therefore inappropriate. Does the term "pogrom" in the [[1966 anti-Igbo pogrom]] imply an act of antisemitism? How about the [[Kirovabad pogrom]]? Or are you arguing that those articles should be renamed, to conform with Abramson's statement? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Abramson does not suggest the word cannot be applied to violence against non-Jews (and nor do I). Just that when it is applied to violence against Jews, it has "come to imply an act of antisemitism". Can you please clarify whether you truly question that? If so, can you provide a single RS which questions such an assertion? [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 08:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
:::Abramson does not suggest the word cannot be applied to violence against non-Jews (and nor do I). Just that when it is applied to violence against Jews, it has "come to imply an act of antisemitism". Can you please clarify whether you truly question that? If so, can you provide a single RS which questions such an assertion? [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 08:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::Jayjg, can I assume from your silence that you have no further objections to either of these sources being used in the article? If not. I will add them in shortly. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 10:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
::::Jayjg, can I assume from your silence that you have no further objections to either of these sources being used in the article? If not. I will add them in shortly. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 10:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::No, you can assume from my silence that I was away from Wikipedia. Your insertion was out of context, and implied that the term could not be applied to events involving non-Jews, or outside Russia, or perpetrated for "non-antisemitic" reasons. The attempt to attribute this purely to antisemitism, and therefore exclude events that are related to simply cultural or religious conflict, misrepresents the actual body of literature on the subject (as opposed to the literature cherry-picked from Google books for a specific purpose). [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Engel material == |
== Engel material == |
||
Line 176: | Line 178: | ||
:* PROPOSED BETTER METHOD ("The counterproposal method"): I make a bold edit, you revert it and provide a counter proposal on talk. I provide another counter proposal, you do the same, we move closer to the middle and reach agreement. |
:* PROPOSED BETTER METHOD ("The counterproposal method"): I make a bold edit, you revert it and provide a counter proposal on talk. I provide another counter proposal, you do the same, we move closer to the middle and reach agreement. |
||
:What do you think? We could continue with the GBOOAS method if you like but it seems inefficient. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 08:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
:What do you think? We could continue with the GBOOAS method if you like but it seems inefficient. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 08:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::The current method is better, because it helps ensure that all additions are in line with policy, and are for the purpose of improving the article, rather than proving a point. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Archiving == |
== Archiving == |
||
Line 258: | Line 261: | ||
::# Some editors can only edit "once in a while". Over archiving disadvantages such editors versus those who can edit every day.</small> |
::# Some editors can only edit "once in a while". Over archiving disadvantages such editors versus those who can edit every day.</small> |
||
::Anyway. To try to centralise this debate properly, I have formalised an RFC at [[Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving_talk_pages]]. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
::Anyway. To try to centralise this debate properly, I have formalised an RFC at [[Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving_talk_pages]]. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Please review the [[fallacy of many questions]]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Further sources (bringing back from archive) == |
== Further sources (bringing back from archive) == |
||
Line 283: | Line 287: | ||
::The complex question is "what is a pogrom". If you read all the sources, you will see that it is far from straightforward. |
::The complex question is "what is a pogrom". If you read all the sources, you will see that it is far from straightforward. |
||
::You appear to have misunderstood my request. I did not say "please could you ask me a bunch more questions", but instead I said "your specific analysis of this would be appreciated" - which means I requested some constructive comments. Of course, you are under no obligation to adhere to my request, I just want to ensure that you didn't misunderstand the fact that your endless questions don't actually move things forward as quickly as if you were to contribute positively to the debate. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 08:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
::You appear to have misunderstood my request. I did not say "please could you ask me a bunch more questions", but instead I said "your specific analysis of this would be appreciated" - which means I requested some constructive comments. Of course, you are under no obligation to adhere to my request, I just want to ensure that you didn't misunderstand the fact that your endless questions don't actually move things forward as quickly as if you were to contribute positively to the debate. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 08:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Per the comment below, this is not a "complex question". As all human social constructs, as Engel points out, it "is not a pre-existing natural category but an abstraction created by human beings". That fact, however, does not imply unusual "complexity". [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> |
|||
== When was the first pogrom? Let's clarify. == |
== When was the first pogrom? Let's clarify. == |
||
Line 300: | Line 305: | ||
:::::::::I am not in a position to judge whether these sources are reliable. In principle, comments about the application of the word to specific events are better than generalizations. [[User:Zargulon|Zargulon]] ([[User talk:Zargulon|talk]]) 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::::I am not in a position to judge whether these sources are reliable. In principle, comments about the application of the word to specific events are better than generalizations. [[User:Zargulon|Zargulon]] ([[User talk:Zargulon|talk]]) 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::Fair comment. I have added in the sentence, with a couple of thoughtful sources quotes. I have also added a number of additional clarifications and sources in to the definition section to make this a little more sophisticated. If you have the time or inclination to read a few of the sources, I would be grateful for your views. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 23:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
::::::::::Fair comment. I have added in the sentence, with a couple of thoughtful sources quotes. I have also added a number of additional clarifications and sources in to the definition section to make this a little more sophisticated. If you have the time or inclination to read a few of the sources, I would be grateful for your views. [[User:Oncenawhile|Oncenawhile]] ([[User talk:Oncenawhile|talk]]) 23:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::Sorry, I've had to remove the material. To begin with, there is no real "controversy" about what a "pogrom" is, despite the fact that, as with all such terms, the definition, and the events to which it can apply, may vary. The literature on pogroms does not spend large amounts of time agonizing over all the possible meanings of the term, or events to which it could apply; rather, it focuses on the actual events, material that this article sorely lacks. Editors cannot manufacture "controversy", particularly if the purpose of such a manufactured controversy is simply to attempt to either |
|||
:::::::::::a) exclude specific events (e.g. those committed by Muslims or Arabs) from being so-labeled, or |
|||
:::::::::::b) call into question whether or not those events are "really" pogroms. |
|||
:::::::::::For example, if an editor had attempted to remove the "pogrom" label from a number of articles, and was unsuccessful, and then tried instead to modify this article so as to exclude those same events, that would indicate a violation of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR]]. Yet fully 40% of the current "Etymology and definition" has been recently edited to add exactly this sort of material. Let's stick to policy on this, and go through the suggested changes one at a time, evaluating each for whether or not it complies with policy, particularly [[WP:UNDUE]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:NOR]]. [[Cherry picking (fallacy)|Cherry picking]] sources found through searching Google books for specific terms is not an appropriate way to find material. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:40, 15 May 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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)
- That's not the source. The source is Britannica, which describes it as "a mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious, racial, or national minority. The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." It says nothing about antisemitism. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Let's compare:
- THE EXISTING TEXT: It originally and still typically refers to 19th- and 20th-century attacks on Jews, particularly in the Russian Empire
- THE SECOND PROPOSED SOURCE: The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
- They don't look too similar to me. So, what should we do? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Let's compare:
- That's not the source. The source is Britannica, which describes it as "a mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious, racial, or national minority. The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." It says nothing about antisemitism. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:59, 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:
OK, so in this context, please explain your earlier post which quoted WP:SYNTH. Where is the line between "summarizing an article in the lead" and "mixing the definitions of two different sources"? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SYNTH would apply if the article were to use Britannica as a source, paraphrasing it, and then an editor searched Google books for other definitions that used the word "antisemitic" or "antisemitism", with the view of adding the word "antisemitic" from those other definitions to the existing one. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is not an accurate paraphrase. The first sentence adds extra facts not in britannica. The second sentence (above) does not have the same meaning - "originally and still typically" is not the same as "usually". Oncenawhile (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- The second sentence is the one that paraphrases Britannica. The term pogrom was originally used in English to describe attacks on Jews (well attested from this article), and "typically" is a synonym for "usually. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, what is your source for the first sentence, and what is your source for your statement above that "The term pogrom was originally used in English to describe attacks on Jews"? I have put a few we could use at the bottom of this talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't write the first sentence, but it seems a reasonable summary of the article. Do you object to any part of it? Regarding the sentence "The term pogrom was originally used in English to describe attacks on Jews", it's now cited to Klier, using a footnote that already existed in the article. Problem solved! Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- On the first sentence, I think we should source it - we have so many good sources. On the second, the Klier source doesn't follow the text in the article as well as Mojzes (see above). Your objection to the Mojzes source was WP:SYNTH - but you now appear to have done the same with Klier? Please can you explain? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- John Klier writes "By the twentieth century, the word 'pogrom' had become a generic term in English for all forms of collective violence directed against Jews. The term was especially associated with Eastern Europe and the Russian Empire, the scene of the most serious outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence before the Holocaust." The text in the article and lede follows that quite well, and Klier is a vastly more reliable author on the topic of pogroms than Paul Mojzes. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- That Klier quote is out of context without his next sentence "Yet when applied indiscriminately to events in Eastern Europe, the term can be misleading, the more so when it implies that "pogroms" were regular events in the region and that they always shared common features". So, if you are not comfortable with Mojzes, we will need to find another quote to support it. What about a source for the first sentence - do you have one? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The second sentence is not part of the definition, but rather a statement about how some people apply the term to events he doesn't think warrant it. Klier is a good source, so the second sentence is fully supported, and will neither need nor be having endless further discussion on the topic. Regarding the first sentence, it's a summary of the article contents. Is there something you object to in it? Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- That Klier quote is out of context without his next sentence "Yet when applied indiscriminately to events in Eastern Europe, the term can be misleading, the more so when it implies that "pogroms" were regular events in the region and that they always shared common features". So, if you are not comfortable with Mojzes, we will need to find another quote to support it. What about a source for the first sentence - do you have one? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- John Klier writes "By the twentieth century, the word 'pogrom' had become a generic term in English for all forms of collective violence directed against Jews. The term was especially associated with Eastern Europe and the Russian Empire, the scene of the most serious outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence before the Holocaust." The text in the article and lede follows that quite well, and Klier is a vastly more reliable author on the topic of pogroms than Paul Mojzes. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- On the first sentence, I think we should source it - we have so many good sources. On the second, the Klier source doesn't follow the text in the article as well as Mojzes (see above). Your objection to the Mojzes source was WP:SYNTH - but you now appear to have done the same with Klier? Please can you explain? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't write the first sentence, but it seems a reasonable summary of the article. Do you object to any part of it? Regarding the sentence "The term pogrom was originally used in English to describe attacks on Jews", it's now cited to Klier, using a footnote that already existed in the article. Problem solved! Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, what is your source for the first sentence, and what is your source for your statement above that "The term pogrom was originally used in English to describe attacks on Jews"? I have put a few we could use at the bottom of this talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- The second sentence is the one that paraphrases Britannica. The term pogrom was originally used in English to describe attacks on Jews (well attested from this article), and "typically" is a synonym for "usually. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is not an accurate paraphrase. The first sentence adds extra facts not in britannica. The second sentence (above) does not have the same meaning - "originally and still typically" is not the same as "usually". Oncenawhile (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree with your interpretation. You have taken the statement out of context. So the second sentence remains without an appropriate source.
As for the first sentence, most reputable sources qualify such a statement more carefully. The first sentence needs to accurately reflect the complexity of the word. Currently, it is far too simplistic in light of the wealth of sources we have which explain the word much better. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- The second sentence is fully and adequately sourced, as shown clearly above; further non-factual claims to the contrary are disruptive. I will not responding further on this topic, as it is settled. Regarding the first sentence, is there something specific you object to in it? Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any rule in wikipedia which suggests that one editor in a discussion can unilaterally declare the discussion settled. Nor am I aware of a rule which suggests that cordial disagreements violate WP:DISRUPT. I suspect these rules do not exist. You are welcome to get a third opinion on this.
- In order to be helpful, I will summarise my issues more clearly:
- You said above "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."
- It was then proven that (a) many sources refer to the Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire as antisemitic; (b) "mixing the definitions of two different sources" was perfectly acceptable when it refered to your interpretation of Klier.
- You then unilaterally added the Klier source, and suggested it was the end of the discussion, despite the fact that your entire reason for reverting my original edit was disproven.
- In light of the huge number of sources provided, on this page and on Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, no valid reason has been provided to exclude the word antisemitic from the sentence as proposed above.
- The first sentence remains unsourced, and fails to accurately reflect the complexity of the word. My issue is not with what is there, but with what is not there.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- So there's nothing specific you object to in the first sentence? Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please respond to my points above. I respected your question and spent time and effort answering it thoughtfully. If you want to contribute here, please respect my points by responding to them. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please respond to my previously raised (and unsanswered) question of 22:58, 29 April 2012 . Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- It was answered. See the last bullet of my response 23:02, 29 April 2012. I have been as specific as I possibly can. Please can we move this debate forward. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your "response 23:02, 29 April 2012" did not list anything specific in the sentence to which you objected, but rather listed general objections to the sentence. Specific items would include words, phrases, etc. in the existing sentence to which you objected, or which you felt should be changed. Please review the meanings of the words "specific" and "general", and respond to my previously raised (and unanswered) question of 22:58, 29 April 2012 . Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- What policy suggests that "general issues" such as "The first sentence remains unsourced, and fails to accurately reflect the complexity of the word" are invalid? I have responded to your question with everything I have. Now please respond to the points I made in my post of 23:02, 29 April 2012, which remain unanswered. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Citations are not mandatory in ledes, unless there is something controversial included in them. Is there anything specific you object to in the first sentence? Any word or phrase you think should be changed? Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I can illustrate it best through the words of a scholar: "Pogrom" implies an entirely different constellation of factors than "race riot.". The first sentence clearly fails to accurately reflect the complexity of the word conveyed by all the scholarly RS. Now please respond to the points I made in my post of 23:02, 29 April 2012. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Citations are not mandatory in ledes, unless there is something controversial included in them. Is there anything specific you object to in the first sentence? Any word or phrase you think should be changed? Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- What policy suggests that "general issues" such as "The first sentence remains unsourced, and fails to accurately reflect the complexity of the word" are invalid? I have responded to your question with everything I have. Now please respond to the points I made in my post of 23:02, 29 April 2012, which remain unanswered. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your "response 23:02, 29 April 2012" did not list anything specific in the sentence to which you objected, but rather listed general objections to the sentence. Specific items would include words, phrases, etc. in the existing sentence to which you objected, or which you felt should be changed. Please review the meanings of the words "specific" and "general", and respond to my previously raised (and unanswered) question of 22:58, 29 April 2012 . Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- It was answered. See the last bullet of my response 23:02, 29 April 2012. I have been as specific as I possibly can. Please can we move this debate forward. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please respond to my previously raised (and unsanswered) question of 22:58, 29 April 2012 . Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please respond to my points above. I respected your question and spent time and effort answering it thoughtfully. If you want to contribute here, please respect my points by responding to them. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- So there's nothing specific you object to in the first sentence? Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I will be improving the first and second sentences along these lines. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you were able to actually "improve" the sentences, then I wouldn't object. However, it was you who insisted that a source that described pogroms as a kind of "race riot" be included; now you insist on including a source that says the opposite. This is manufactured controversy, intended not to enlighten as to the term's meaning, but rather to undermine the entire concept of a pogrom. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Sources added
Two sources have been recently added, apparently because they use the term "antisemitic". I've moved them here, because it's unclear what they actually add to the article, or what context they provide:
- The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789 states that pogroms were "were antisemitic distrubances that periodically occurred within the tsarist empire". [1]
- Henry Abramson wrote that "in mainstream usage the word has come to imply an act of antisemitism"[2]
It's not clear what the first dictionary definition adds to the understanding of "pogrom" already found in the article. The existing definition, from Encyclopaedia Britannica, is already more specific regarding things such as geography and timespan. In addition, the context and meaning of the snippet quoted from the second quote is unclear. The author is writing specifically about the Ukraine from 1917-1920 - does he mean to expand his definition outside that range? It appears as if the only reason this snippet has been cherry-picked chosen is because it uses the word "antisemitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly you are removing eminently authoritative RS. The reasons given are not policy-based. It is not policy-based to imply that if there is a definition in one of several feasible, and equally authoritative, sources, the first in shall be the benchmark for adjudicating the appropriateness of the others. As for cherry-picking, that goes both ways. The EB definition has been cherrypicked, and then used to challenge the rest. There's no visible logic to this. One must accept that definitions vary over equally valid RS, and therefore several RS are required to clarify a term that has been variously defined. Abramson says 'has come to imply', he did not, were he referring to 1917-20, write 'came to imply'. The present tense refers to the date of writing, not to the date covered by his research.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- "eminently authoritative RS"? What does that even mean? Is the Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary a well-known "authority" on pogroms? Is Abramson? And who says we have "several feasible, and equally authoritative, sources"? The challenge is to the person inserting the material to make the case for it. What does the Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary definition add that wasn't already given by the Britannica explanation? What exactly is Abramson saying, beyond that snippet, and in what context? Have you read the entire source, and can you provide the answers? The policy here is WP:V - we must make sure we use good and relevant sources, in context, and accurately represent what they say. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, your first comment included a personal attack. Neither comment provided any comment on the the underlying debate here:
- (1) For this article, is it appropriate for us to have a variety of definitions provided by different RS?
- (2) If so, should I understand from your comments above that you believe the definitions you left in the article are somehow more reliable or more correct that the ones you removed? If so, please explain.
I will revert your changes which should stand until a policy based explanation is provided to support your (or anyone else's) objection. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not edit-war here - respect WP:BRD. The issues raised are entirely policy-based, and the material cannot go in until the issues are addressed. Please address the policy-based issued raised above. For example, what exactly does the Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary definition add that is not already stated more informatively by Britannica? And what is the exact context for the snippet quoted from Abramson? Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I answer directly your questions, will you then directly answer mine? I need this commitment from you if we are to be able to more forward. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please review my previous comments in this section. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewed as requested. I will answer your question directly if you commit to answering mine directly. Please confirm. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now please respond to those questions. You are, of course, not obliged to answer them, but then the objections will remain unanswered. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am happy to respond, but I note that you have so far avoided making any commitment to respond to my questions if I do so. If we are to move forward here, we need this mutual commitment. I cannot go on answering your questions without an understanding that at a certain point you will answer mine. Please confirm your intention. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- You appear to be treating the WP:BRD process as a marriage proposal and seem fixated on "mutual commitment". The talk page evidences the bilateral discussions in response to your queries and it would be helpful if you would focus on the issue at hand.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)- Please don't interrupt. I am trying to find a way that Jayjg and I can work together. Let him answer so we can move on. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- You appear to be treating the WP:BRD process as a marriage proposal and seem fixated on "mutual commitment". The talk page evidences the bilateral discussions in response to your queries and it would be helpful if you would focus on the issue at hand.
- I am happy to respond, but I note that you have so far avoided making any commitment to respond to my questions if I do so. If we are to move forward here, we need this mutual commitment. I cannot go on answering your questions without an understanding that at a certain point you will answer mine. Please confirm your intention. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now please respond to those questions. You are, of course, not obliged to answer them, but then the objections will remain unanswered. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewed as requested. I will answer your question directly if you commit to answering mine directly. Please confirm. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please review my previous comments in this section. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I answer directly your questions, will you then directly answer mine? I need this commitment from you if we are to be able to more forward. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, please could you confirm whether you wish to progress this thread? All i am asking for is reciprocity. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are free to respond to the objections raised at the beginning of the section or not, as you see fit. You are not under any obligation to answer them, of course, but if you don't, they will remain unanswered. I am under no obligation to make "deals" with you before you respond to the objections raised. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- True. But you have highlighted your unwillingness to cooperate. If you ask me a question, I do my best to answer. But when I ask you a question, I often get another question in response, evading my original question. We can't move forward unless we can trust each other to provide an equal amount of questions and answers. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- But you have highlighted your unwillingness to cooperate? I have done nothing of the sort, and per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have committed to answer your questions in good faith. You appear unwilling to do the same. Perhaps i am naive, but i don't think this is too much to ask. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg, can i assume from your silence that you do not wish to discuss this. I will therefore assume:
- (1) For this article, it IS appropriate for us to have a variety of definitions provided by different RS; and
- (2) All reliable sources should be included so long as they bring something incremental to the readers' understanding of the subject.
- I will be editing the article on this basis, and reinstating some of the sources you removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- You still haven't responded to the objections raised at the start of this thread. They therefore still stand, and there is no basis for restoring the material. If you wish to respond to the objections, you are still free to do so. Edit-warring while deliberately refusing to respond directly on Talk: is not viewed positively on Wikipedia, and deliberate refusal to even attempt to reach consensus is unlikely to achieve any consensus for change. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but you have repeatedly refused my requests for cooperation. What is my incentive to provide a thoughtful response without an agreement from you to also respond to my questions. Just look at the way the other threads on this page are going. They prove that my assumption is correct - you are refusing to answer my questions while continually posing new ones of your own in response to my answers. Please confirm whether you intend to cooperate, and we can move forward in this discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- You still haven't responded to the objections raised at the start of this thread. They therefore still stand, and there is no basis for restoring the material. If you wish to respond to the objections, you are still free to do so. Edit-warring while deliberately refusing to respond directly on Talk: is not viewed positively on Wikipedia, and deliberate refusal to even attempt to reach consensus is unlikely to achieve any consensus for change. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg, can i assume from your silence that you do not wish to discuss this. I will therefore assume:
- I have committed to answer your questions in good faith. You appear unwilling to do the same. Perhaps i am naive, but i don't think this is too much to ask. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- But you have highlighted your unwillingness to cooperate? I have done nothing of the sort, and per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- True. But you have highlighted your unwillingness to cooperate. If you ask me a question, I do my best to answer. But when I ask you a question, I often get another question in response, evading my original question. We can't move forward unless we can trust each other to provide an equal amount of questions and answers. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I just ask for reciprocity. I answer your questions, you answer mine. Seems fair to me. Let's try it this way. Here is the full context of the Abramson quote which you requested:
- "The etymological roots of the term pogrom are unclear, although it seems to be derived from the Slavic word for "thunder(bolt)" (Russian: grom, Ukrainian: hrim). The first syllable, po-, is a prefix indicating "means" or "target". The word therefore seems to imply a sudden burst of energy (thunderbolt) directed at a specific target. A pogrom is generally thought of as a cross between a popular riot and a military atrocity, where an unarmed civilian, often urban, population is attacked by either an army unit or peasants from surrounding villages, or a combination of the two. Early instances of this phenomenon in the Russian Empire were described using various terms (here in Russian): demonstratsii, gonenie, draky, besporiadki (demonstrations, persecution, fights, riots). Pogrom, however, has been the most effective in entering European languages, perhaps through Yiddish usage. Jews have not been the only group to suffer under this phenomenon, but historically Jews have been frequent victims of such violence. In mainstream usage, the word has come to imply an act of antisemitism.
- Comparison of the violence of the revolutionary era to earlier pogroms reveals elements of both continuity and discontinuity. In the context of the former Russian Empire as a whole, the geographic location of the pogroms followed a traditional pattern, that is, the majority of attacks took place in Ukrainian ethnolinguistic territory."
According to the Henry Abramson article, he "is largely known for his scholarship in Ukrainian Jewish history and antisemitic iconography", both directly connected to the topic of pogroms. Please could you confirm whether you have any objections to the inclusion of Abramson's position in this article? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The material is out of context, and therefore inappropriate. Does the term "pogrom" in the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom imply an act of antisemitism? How about the Kirovabad pogrom? Or are you arguing that those articles should be renamed, to conform with Abramson's statement? Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Abramson does not suggest the word cannot be applied to violence against non-Jews (and nor do I). Just that when it is applied to violence against Jews, it has "come to imply an act of antisemitism". Can you please clarify whether you truly question that? If so, can you provide a single RS which questions such an assertion? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg, can I assume from your silence that you have no further objections to either of these sources being used in the article? If not. I will add them in shortly. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, you can assume from my silence that I was away from Wikipedia. Your insertion was out of context, and implied that the term could not be applied to events involving non-Jews, or outside Russia, or perpetrated for "non-antisemitic" reasons. The attempt to attribute this purely to antisemitism, and therefore exclude events that are related to simply cultural or religious conflict, misrepresents the actual body of literature on the subject (as opposed to the literature cherry-picked from Google books for a specific purpose). Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg, can I assume from your silence that you have no further objections to either of these sources being used in the article? If not. I will add them in shortly. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Abramson does not suggest the word cannot be applied to violence against non-Jews (and nor do I). Just that when it is applied to violence against Jews, it has "come to imply an act of antisemitism". Can you please clarify whether you truly question that? If so, can you provide a single RS which questions such an assertion? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The material is out of context, and therefore inappropriate. Does the term "pogrom" in the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom imply an act of antisemitism? How about the Kirovabad pogrom? Or are you arguing that those articles should be renamed, to conform with Abramson's statement? Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Engel material
I've moved some inserted material from a book by Aaron Hughes here for discussion:
Aaron Hughes wrote that majority of the incidents habitually tagged as pogroms display shared characteristics, such that they "took place in divided societies in which ethnicity or religion (or both) served as significant definers of both social boundaries and social rank, ... involved collective violent applications of force by members of what perpetrators believed to be a higher-ranking ethnic or religious group against members of what they considered a lower-ranking or subaltern group, ... appliers of the decisive force tended to interpret the behaviour of victims according to stereotypes commonly applied to the groups to which they belonged, ... perpetrators expressed some complaint about the victims' group, ...[and] a fundamental lack of confidence on the part of those who purveyed decisive violence in the adequacy of the impersonal rule of law to deliver true justice in the event of a heinous wrong."<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AUYQ8JQ-iM0C&pg=PA19 The Invention of Jewish Identity: Bible, Philosophy, and the Art of Translation, By Aaron W. Hughes]</ref>
To begin with, the author is actually David Engel - that's a perennial problem with briefly scanning google snippets looking for keywords as opposed to reading actual books, one often inserts the wrong author name. In this case, it's also the wrong book title; I leave it to the inserter to discover the book's actual title. Regarding the material itself, the chapter from which it comes is quite interesting, but I'm not sure this summary really captures the author's meaning - in part, because the author concludes this section of material with the statement: "Please note: I do not claim that these features, taken together, constitute the essential defining characteristics of a "pogrom"." Yet that is exactly the impression given by the insertion! If we're going to make good use of this author, and we should, then we need to do so with care to ensure we get basic things right, like the author's name and book title, before we even attempt to summarize what author is trying to say. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I will not continue to stand for these personal attacks ("that's a perennial problem with briefly scanning google snippets looking for keywords as opposed to reading actual books, one often inserts the wrong author name"). You don't know anything about my research style, so I suggest you refrain from making further assumptions.
- As to your points:
- (a) title and name: thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix. It's good news because David Engel (historian) has excellent credentials.
- (b) summarization: to be clear, I had also noted the "please note" statement, and had therefore attempted to summarize the source as closely as possible. hence the carefully worded introduction "wrote that majority of the incidents habitually tagged as pogroms display shared characteristics" which follows closely the way Engel introduced it himself. I cannot suggest any improvement as this was my best effort - if you think still think the impression given is misleading, please suggest an amendment.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you actually have a copy of the book, and have read it in its entirety, then I'll be happy to admit I was in error. Until then, please note what Engel says: Please note: I do not claim that these features, taken together, constitute the essential defining characteristics of a "pogrom". Why have you attempted to use as a definition something Engel states is not a definition? Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your question is rhetorical. Please confirm whether you intend to make a suggested amendment. If your comment is not specific, it cannot be addressed, and therefore your comment is not valid. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- My question is not rhetorical, and is quite specific. Please respond. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- You question relates to "why I attempted to do something" that you believe I attempted to do. That is focused on me, the contributor, rather than the content. The question is not appropriate.
- Please confirm whether you intend to suggest an amendment to the text. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The question about why you did something was to provide you with an opportunity to justify adding an apparent definition when the author himself says he is not defining what a pogrom is. As such, it's quite obviously solely about article content. You are not obliged to avail yourself of that opportunity, but you cannot create a definition out of material the authors disavows as one. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The phrase "wrote that majority of the incidents habitually tagged as pogroms display shared characteristics" is accurate to the source. The author wrote that these characteristics are not necessarily the "essential defining characteristics". It is a subtle distinction. Please clarify your intention - do you intend to help reach a resolution here? I have made a proposal in my edit, I need a specific counter proposal from you. Please confirm. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is difficult to reach a resolution when faced with equivocation in response to specific questions. You inexplicably dismissed a valid query as a rhetorical question before unduly claiming that it formed a personal attack. Finally, you have posited a peculiar specious distinction to this significant question. I shall ask again: Why do you see fit to include statements that the author definitively rejected as constituting a definition?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)- I have answered that question above. The quote was used with an introduction that was accurate to the source. It did not seek to give any other impression. Please focus on the content rather than "why I saw fit". I can't answer that question directly with any other answer than "I didn't", because my edit was in good faith. We are not going to be able to resolve this without focusing on the actual content. I have all the time in the world if you would like to keep going round in circles. But it would be better for wikipedia if you just make a proposal to amend the proposed text so that you're happy with it. The source is quality scholarly research, so your efforts to find a compromise would be worthwhile. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- It would be better for Wikipedia if you didn't insist this article must use as a definition something the author himself disavows as a definition. Jayjg (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I do not insist that at all. Please confirm whether you intend to make a proposal to amend the proposed text so that you're happy with it. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- It would be better for Wikipedia if you didn't insist this article must use as a definition something the author himself disavows as a definition. Jayjg (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have answered that question above. The quote was used with an introduction that was accurate to the source. It did not seek to give any other impression. Please focus on the content rather than "why I saw fit". I can't answer that question directly with any other answer than "I didn't", because my edit was in good faith. We are not going to be able to resolve this without focusing on the actual content. I have all the time in the world if you would like to keep going round in circles. But it would be better for wikipedia if you just make a proposal to amend the proposed text so that you're happy with it. The source is quality scholarly research, so your efforts to find a compromise would be worthwhile. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is difficult to reach a resolution when faced with equivocation in response to specific questions. You inexplicably dismissed a valid query as a rhetorical question before unduly claiming that it formed a personal attack. Finally, you have posited a peculiar specious distinction to this significant question. I shall ask again: Why do you see fit to include statements that the author definitively rejected as constituting a definition?
- The phrase "wrote that majority of the incidents habitually tagged as pogroms display shared characteristics" is accurate to the source. The author wrote that these characteristics are not necessarily the "essential defining characteristics". It is a subtle distinction. Please clarify your intention - do you intend to help reach a resolution here? I have made a proposal in my edit, I need a specific counter proposal from you. Please confirm. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- The question about why you did something was to provide you with an opportunity to justify adding an apparent definition when the author himself says he is not defining what a pogrom is. As such, it's quite obviously solely about article content. You are not obliged to avail yourself of that opportunity, but you cannot create a definition out of material the authors disavows as one. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- My question is not rhetorical, and is quite specific. Please respond. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your question is rhetorical. Please confirm whether you intend to make a suggested amendment. If your comment is not specific, it cannot be addressed, and therefore your comment is not valid. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you actually have a copy of the book, and have read it in its entirety, then I'll be happy to admit I was in error. Until then, please note what Engel says: Please note: I do not claim that these features, taken together, constitute the essential defining characteristics of a "pogrom". Why have you attempted to use as a definition something Engel states is not a definition? Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
How will "amending" the text help with the problem that it is being added to the definition section even though its author says it is not a definition. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK - thank you. If i understand you correctly, you aren't objecting to the way it was written, just its placement in the article. How about a new section called "Characteristics"? There are quite a lot of other sources that talk to that topic - for example the "organised" vs "unorganised" debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Characteristics" in this context is just another word for "definition". Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- The author says that the events he listed "display a suprising number of shared characteristics" but that "that these features, taken together, [do not] constitute the essential defining characteristics". So the author disagrees with you. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- His statement has nothing to do with mine. Furthermore, if he states that that these "shared characteristics... [do not] constitute the essential defining characteristics", then why would we cite them in a "characteristics" section? It's the same as the disavowed "definition"! Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems you are not familiar with essentialism. What the author is saying is that "that majority" of pogroms have these shared characteristics, but that these characteristics are not all "essential", for the reasons he explains in the rest of the essay. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- "It seems you are not familiar with essentialism" is a statement 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) 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems you are not familiar with essentialism. What the author is saying is that "that majority" of pogroms have these shared characteristics, but that these characteristics are not all "essential", for the reasons he explains in the rest of the essay. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- His statement has nothing to do with mine. Furthermore, if he states that that these "shared characteristics... [do not] constitute the essential defining characteristics", then why would we cite them in a "characteristics" section? It's the same as the disavowed "definition"! Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- The author says that the events he listed "display a suprising number of shared characteristics" but that "that these features, taken together, [do not] constitute the essential defining characteristics". So the author disagrees with you. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Characteristics" in this context is just another word for "definition". Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg, what the author is saying is that "that majority" of pogroms have these shared characteristics, but that these characteristics are not all "essential" (see essentialism), for the reasons he explains in the rest of the essay. Do you agree with this interpretation? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- What leads you to believe the author is presenting characteristics that are "shared" but not "essential"? Why would we mention characteristics if they are not essential? Also, since "characteristic" in this context is identical with "definition", why would we cite a non-definition as a definition? Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because the author writes the events he listed "display a suprising number of shared characteristics" but that "that these features, taken together, [do not] constitute the essential defining characteristics". Engel is a high quality RS on this topic, so his views on the shared characteristics are additive to this article. Your argument is self-defeating. You say "Why would we mention characteristics if they are not essential?" - what you should be asking is "Why would Engel spend a few pages mentioning characteristics if they are not essential?" Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Shared characteritics" that the author disavows as not "constitut[ing] the essential defining characteristics", and definitions that the author as disavowed as definitions, appear to at best be confusing, at worst imply an authority and meaning that the himself author denies. "Additive to the article" isn't a rationale for adding material. There's no point in speculating on why Engel did things, but we need to have a rationale for why we do things here, and it must be policy/quideline-based. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- The policy is WP:RS. Here, an excellent RS thought it appropriate to devote a number of pages to these shared characteristics. It is appropriate for us to summarise this excellent RS. If you think the summary is imperfect, i implore you to amend it. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:RS is not the relevant policy, since we all agree that the source is, in general, reliable on this topic. However, just because something is reliably sourced, that does not mean it must be added to an article. On the contrary, Wikipedia articles are deliberately kept to a limited size, and must be written in a way that is appropriate for a general purpose for an encyclopedia. If you think this material should be added, despite the fact that the author himself has disavowed it in more than one way, then you must provide a specific rationale. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Specific rationale: Engel's description of the shared characteristics of pogroms is the best I have seen in it's breadth and lucidity. The heart of this article is about describing what a pogrom is, and this author describes it more throughly than those in the article already. I agree that it should be appropriately caveated, and suggestions remain welcome. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The author insists that, despite your view that his description of the shared characteristics of pogroms is the best I have seen in it's breadth and lucidity, his description does not "constitute the essential defining characteristics". Therefore, the objections raised in my comments of 23:59, 24 April 2012, 01:13, 25 April 2012, 22:56, 29 April 2012 etc. still remain unanswered. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- As previously noted, your argument does not hold water because if the author thought that that statement negated the value of the text, then he surely wouldn't have written it. If it is good enough for Engel, it is good enough for us. Do you have a specific issue with the proposed drafting. We could caveat it further if it would help reach consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- As previously noted, an editor cannot contradict an author's explicit statements by doing original research on what the editor thinks the author really meant. Since it's not good enough for Engel, it's not good enough for us. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- As previously noted, your argument does not hold water because if the author thought that that statement negated the value of the text, then he surely wouldn't have written it. If it is good enough for Engel, it is good enough for us. Do you have a specific issue with the proposed drafting. We could caveat it further if it would help reach consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- The author insists that, despite your view that his description of the shared characteristics of pogroms is the best I have seen in it's breadth and lucidity, his description does not "constitute the essential defining characteristics". Therefore, the objections raised in my comments of 23:59, 24 April 2012, 01:13, 25 April 2012, 22:56, 29 April 2012 etc. still remain unanswered. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Specific rationale: Engel's description of the shared characteristics of pogroms is the best I have seen in it's breadth and lucidity. The heart of this article is about describing what a pogrom is, and this author describes it more throughly than those in the article already. I agree that it should be appropriately caveated, and suggestions remain welcome. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:RS is not the relevant policy, since we all agree that the source is, in general, reliable on this topic. However, just because something is reliably sourced, that does not mean it must be added to an article. On the contrary, Wikipedia articles are deliberately kept to a limited size, and must be written in a way that is appropriate for a general purpose for an encyclopedia. If you think this material should be added, despite the fact that the author himself has disavowed it in more than one way, then you must provide a specific rationale. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- The policy is WP:RS. Here, an excellent RS thought it appropriate to devote a number of pages to these shared characteristics. It is appropriate for us to summarise this excellent RS. If you think the summary is imperfect, i implore you to amend it. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Shared characteritics" that the author disavows as not "constitut[ing] the essential defining characteristics", and definitions that the author as disavowed as definitions, appear to at best be confusing, at worst imply an authority and meaning that the himself author denies. "Additive to the article" isn't a rationale for adding material. There's no point in speculating on why Engel did things, but we need to have a rationale for why we do things here, and it must be policy/quideline-based. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because the author writes the events he listed "display a suprising number of shared characteristics" but that "that these features, taken together, [do not] constitute the essential defining characteristics". Engel is a high quality RS on this topic, so his views on the shared characteristics are additive to this article. Your argument is self-defeating. You say "Why would we mention characteristics if they are not essential?" - what you should be asking is "Why would Engel spend a few pages mentioning characteristics if they are not essential?" Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It is absurd to say "it's not good enough for Engel" when he devotes multiple pages of thoughtful discussion to it.
Anyway, we stalled here because I was hoping to encourage you in collaboration here. All I asked was for a suggested amendment. Engel is clearly an excellent source for this topic.
I'm going to drop my pride and do it myself with a carefully thought through proposal. Feel free to revert me as you wish. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am pleased to note that we appear to have found a method by which we can actually work together constructively. However, it has taken us about three weeks to get to the bottom of one paragraph. I have analysed this method below, and made an alternative suggestion:
- CURRENT METHOD ("The GBOOAS method"): I make a bold edit, you revert it and point out on talk anything negative you can see. You do not mention anything positive (i.e. "constructive"). I defend it and ask for clarification, you respond with more negatives, acronyms and questions but limit any constructive remarks and do not make a counterproposal. Indirectly you provide some clues as to what you may be able to accept. The cycle of discussion repeats and continues until those clues paint enough of a picture for me to have another go at editing the article.
- PROPOSED BETTER METHOD ("The counterproposal method"): I make a bold edit, you revert it and provide a counter proposal on talk. I provide another counter proposal, you do the same, we move closer to the middle and reach agreement.
- What do you think? We could continue with the GBOOAS method if you like but it seems inefficient. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Archiving
It is not appropriate that Jayjg insists on reducing the Miszabot autoarchiving on this talk page to a one week timescale (see here with an unclear talk comment, here as an undo and here with an inappropriate talk comment on this page, and interestingly also here on a different page). Jayjg, I respectfully request that you gain consensus for such adjustments while active talk page discussions which you are involved in are going on. It would be fine if you were an uninvolved editor, but otherwise it is a potential conflict of interest. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The talk page is growing quickly, and active threads will not be archived. Your comment did not voice any specific objections other than "Jayjg did it", and it would be more constructive if you would expand upon this.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC) - I would also recommend you review the contents of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. When an article editor adjusts archive parameters of that article's Talk: page to more sensible settings it is not a "conflict of interest". On the contrary, it's almost always the editors of the article who do so. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am trying to learn best practice from the AE discussion. What would you like to do to resolve this dispute? Open an RfC? Go to mediation? Or perhaps you could just take my objection as proof that you do not have consensus for this change and put it back to the way it was. While we are in heavy active edit mode, it is simply not appropriate for early archiving. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- You want to have an RFC or mediation over how frequently this paged is automatically archived? Also, please keep in mind that when a page is "in heavy active edit mode" is exactly the time when one increases the frequency of archiving, and to repeat, active threads are never archived! Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I am suggesting having a broader discussion over whether it is appropriate for anyone to change the timing (a) whilst they are involved in all of the recent talk discussions which may get archived; and (b) in the face of opposition. It feels very wrong to me. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think this demonstrates both a misunderstanding of how automated archiving works and a combative attitude over any change, no matter how minor or sensible, that has plagued this article. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since we disagree, am I not correct that reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO is appropriate? Or is your view more correct that mine? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a possible compromise position we could agree on here to allow everyone to get back to working on content? Dlv999 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be very happy to compromise. In the interim, I have asked for views at User talk:Misza13. It would be good to get a proper view on this, as this is not the first time this has happened... Oncenawhile (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are currently 11 separate discussions on the Talk page, not all of them active. As has been stated before, active threads will not be archived, and even if this dreaded eventuality does occur, threads can be plucked from the archives and revisited. The archive repository is not a neglected corner in the dusty Wiki loft, crammed with bin bags overflowing with decaying musty discussion.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)- I have this same issue with Jayjg on Circumcision. I am constantly searching the archives and new editors keep bringing the same topics because of our over active archive bot. This seems like a tactical maneuver to maintain the status quo and limit discussion, something that is contrary to the spirit of the wiki. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- There are currently 11 separate discussions on the Talk page, not all of them active. As has been stated before, active threads will not be archived, and even if this dreaded eventuality does occur, threads can be plucked from the archives and revisited. The archive repository is not a neglected corner in the dusty Wiki loft, crammed with bin bags overflowing with decaying musty discussion.
- I'd be very happy to compromise. In the interim, I have asked for views at User talk:Misza13. It would be good to get a proper view on this, as this is not the first time this has happened... Oncenawhile (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a possible compromise position we could agree on here to allow everyone to get back to working on content? Dlv999 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since we disagree, am I not correct that reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO is appropriate? Or is your view more correct that mine? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think this demonstrates both a misunderstanding of how automated archiving works and a combative attitude over any change, no matter how minor or sensible, that has plagued this article. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I am suggesting having a broader discussion over whether it is appropriate for anyone to change the timing (a) whilst they are involved in all of the recent talk discussions which may get archived; and (b) in the face of opposition. It feels very wrong to me. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- You want to have an RFC or mediation over how frequently this paged is automatically archived? Also, please keep in mind that when a page is "in heavy active edit mode" is exactly the time when one increases the frequency of archiving, and to repeat, active threads are never archived! Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am trying to learn best practice from the AE discussion. What would you like to do to resolve this dispute? Open an RfC? Go to mediation? Or perhaps you could just take my objection as proof that you do not have consensus for this change and put it back to the way it was. While we are in heavy active edit mode, it is simply not appropriate for early archiving. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
(coming in as uninvolved from Misza13's talk) May I ask what would be the goal of keeping the original timing? Are there going to be active editors which will miss these threads?
Shortening the time when a page starts getting lengthy is fairly standard practice. Oncenawhile, I'm not seeing how Jayjg could be gaining a vantage in talk page discussions by doing this...is there something that I'm missing? I would recommend that you suggest a compromise if you are worried about editors missing threads (10-14 days?).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming in to discuss this Berean Hunter. It's not just about the timing, but also about the minimum number of threads which has been set at 4. To answer your questions:
- What tactical advantages could be gained by aggressive archiving (for the avoidance of doubt, these are not intended to apply to any editor in particular, and any similiarity in editing style should therefore be seen as purely coincidental):
- If an editor is in support of the WP:STATUSQUO, they may make "tactically indirect" talk page comments which do not deal with the actual issue, thereby delaying dispute resolution. When this is done repeatedly, discussions can fizzle out to the advantage of the "tactically indirect" editor. But the point remains open. If archiving occurs too quickly, the discussion gets "filed away" before other editors have a chance to turn up to break the deadlock
- If a debate turns into a heated dispute, neutral editors will analyse talk page comments to take a view as to how the issue began. Archiving too quickly may mean that the initial talk discussions get filed away, which may skew the perspective of the comments. An example from last week is when in an AE discussion, the admins involved did not notice that two weeks before a number of edits which turned up the heat on an article, objections had been set out on the talk page - it wasn't noticed because that thread had already been archived.
- It is sometimes convenient for editors to do a u-turn on their debating positions. Archiving too quickly can allow such u-turns to be brushed under the carpet.
- Some comments are open questions, intended to remain open until such time as an editor who has the information arrives. Some editors may prefer those questions were never answered.
- A number of our readers habitually read the talk pages, as they can be as interesting as the articles themselves. If a page is "over-archived" it may give the impression that there is consensus for the current version of the article in situations where there are many unresolved issues.
- Some editors can only edit "once in a while". Over archiving disadvantages such editors versus those who can edit every day.
- To your point about standard practice:
- WP:TALKCOND says "archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 200 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". So a minimum number of threads of 4 is not standard practice
- WP:ARCHIVE says "Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on a talk page other than your user talk page." (which was not gained recently at Talk:1929 Palestine riots)
- WP:BRD suggests standard practice is to discuss after disagreement is shown via a revert and clear edit message. That was not the route taken by the editors here or on the 1929 article.
- Hopefully this explains why I feel strongly about this. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Concerning gaining consensus on archiving per WP:ARCHIVE, it sounds good but it has been rare for me to see it come about that way and the vast majority are bold implementations by single editors. I never ask and out of oodles of pages that I have archived, I have only ever had one editor protest...an ownership issue and he was relatively alone on his article's talk page. WP:TALKCOND is a guideline that is rarely followed; I just looked at five article talk pages at random in my watchlist and they ranged from 4 to 6 threads which is practical and less weary than the longer pages. I'll give you those pages if you would like.
- Concerning archiving too quickly, those threads won't archive unless no one is actively discussing them. I would recommend the best way forward as seeking a compromise on the archive time and # of threads. Another alternative is letting a neutral third party monitor and adjust the archiving as needed based on discussion activity. If people rarely edit and the pages they chose to edit are highly active that is their loss; they can't expect others to wait on them.
An example of uninvolved admin adjusting archiving on a busy page
|
---|
|
- What would the editors here like to do?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)- This is not a major issue and should not have escalated to this extent. I am amenable to your previous suggested compromise of 10-14 days, although this might need further adjustments if more threads develop.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)- Ankh, you are not sufficiently "independent" of this debate to propose whether this is a "major issue" or whether it should have been "escalated to this extent". Oncenawhile (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am bemused at your assertion that my constructive suggestion constitutes a misrepresention of my independence. My previous comments are clearly written above, and I was responding to "what would the editors here like to do" by expressing my agreement to the proposed compromise.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)- To be clear, I have no problem with your second sentence starting "I am amenable to your previous suggested compromise". I am simply taking issue with the sentence before that. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am bemused at your assertion that my constructive suggestion constitutes a misrepresention of my independence. My previous comments are clearly written above, and I was responding to "what would the editors here like to do" by expressing my agreement to the proposed compromise.
- Ankh, you are not sufficiently "independent" of this debate to propose whether this is a "major issue" or whether it should have been "escalated to this extent". Oncenawhile (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Berean Hunter, I understand your point but I think the example you gave was simply not comparable. The Meredith Kercher page is the 37th biggest talk archive in all of wikipedia at 5,600kb (see WP:Database reports/Talk pages by size), versus this one at about 230kb (including the two archives) and 120kb for the 1929 article (including its archive)
- Having said that, I don't think this is really about numbers - 7 days vs 10-14 or 4 threads vs 10. It's about hindering or helping the improvement of an article. I'd be grateful for your thoughts as to whether over-archiving can hinder discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- It may be possible to manipulate archiving to gain a vantage but I don't see it here. If the compromise of numbers isn't viable for you then I suggest my latter recommendation of having a neutral party come in and make a judgment and adjust the archiving. I would recommend Wwoods if he is willing because he does this all the time (he has been made aware of this thread, already).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC) - The guidelines say 50k, this page was well over 80k, and it's still over 50k. And you're right, all this nonesensical time-wasting about "tactically indirect" comments and archive times, and reflexive reverting or opposing anything I do, is hindering the improvement of an article and Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- It may be possible to manipulate archiving to gain a vantage but I don't see it here. If the compromise of numbers isn't viable for you then I suggest my latter recommendation of having a neutral party come in and make a judgment and adjust the archiving. I would recommend Wwoods if he is willing because he does this all the time (he has been made aware of this thread, already).
- This is not a major issue and should not have escalated to this extent. I am amenable to your previous suggested compromise of 10-14 days, although this might need further adjustments if more threads develop.
- What would the editors here like to do?
- Hi. I looked at the page history. The page isn't huge, and doesn't seem to be growing, so 7 days seems a bit short. As long as a talk page isn't the site of a raging dispute, I lean toward long deadlines -- a month or more. I suggest raising the limit here to 10 days, and see what happens.
- On the other hand, remember that discussions aren't being erased; they're in the archive for referral as needed. So there's no need to keep many discussions here long after they've died; 4 sections is the minimum needed to automatically generate a table of contents.
- —WWoods (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming in Wwoods. I am happy to go with your compromise solution for the sake of getting on with things.
- I'd be grateful if you could humour me by answering one question before you go. That is, do you think there is a small possibility that some editors can gain a tactical advantage by early archiving?
- I like things to be neat and filed away as much as everyone else. On these two articles in question, none of us will ever know if the editors were actually seeking a tactical advantage - the move is so subtle. But I would have thought that whilst a dispute is heated, we should err on the side of caution to ensure that no editor is advantaged or disadvantaged in any way. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Heated disputes don't have stagnant threads for 10 days.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)- Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am referring to an overall page being heated, resulting in a number of threads being opened by the same group of editors. Some of the threads fall behind, not because they are closed but because we don't have unlimited amounts of time. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Heated disputes don't have stagnant threads for 10 days.
Please note that another editor has suggested there may be some "tactical" archiving going on -see Talk:1929_Palestine_riots#Archiving and Talk:Circumcision#Tactical_archiving. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that there is no such thing as "tactical" archiving, a phrase that combines equal parts conspiracism and bad faith. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Are you saying that you believe none of these theoretical situations mentioned above could possibly exist?
- If an editor is in support of the WP:STATUSQUO, they may make "tactically indirect" talk page comments which do not deal with the actual issue, thereby delaying dispute resolution. When this is done repeatedly, discussions can fizzle out to the advantage of the "tactically indirect" editor. But the point remains open. If archiving occurs too quickly, the discussion gets "filed away" before other editors have a chance to turn up to break the deadlock
- If a debate turns into a heated dispute, neutral editors will analyse talk page comments to take a view as to how the issue began. Archiving too quickly may mean that the initial talk discussions get filed away, which may skew the perspective of the comments. An example from last week is when in an AE discussion, the admins involved did not notice that two weeks before a number of edits which turned up the heat on an article, objections had been set out on the talk page - it wasn't noticed because that thread had already been archived.
- It is sometimes convenient for editors to do a u-turn on their debating positions. Archiving too quickly can allow such u-turns to be brushed under the carpet.
- Some comments are open questions, intended to remain open until such time as an editor who has the information arrives. Some editors may prefer those questions were never answered.
- A number of our readers habitually read the talk pages, as they can be as interesting as the articles themselves. If a page is "over-archived" it may give the impression that there is consensus for the current version of the article in situations where there are many unresolved issues.
- Some editors can only edit "once in a while". Over archiving disadvantages such editors versus those who can edit every day.
- Anyway. To try to centralise this debate properly, I have formalised an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving_talk_pages. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please review the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Are you saying that you believe none of these theoretical situations mentioned above could possibly exist?
Further sources (bringing back from archive)
I am putting some additional sources which define a pogrom below. If anyone has any objections to these sources or definitions, please state them now.
- The Jewish Week, August 9, 2011
- Negro: An Anthology,, by Nancy Cunard
- New York Magazine 9 Sep 1991
- Myth and Madness: The Psychodynamics of Antisemitism, By Mortimer Ostow
- A Dictionary Of Jewish-Christian Relations, By Dr. Edward Kessler, Neil Wenborn
- The Tribes Triumphant: Return Journey to the Middle East, By Charles Glass
This is in addition to the three sources above still being debated:
Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789, By Nicholas Atkin, Michael Biddiss, Frank Tallett (now used in the article)A prayer for the government: Ukrainians and Jews in revolutionary times, 1917-1920, Henry Abramson (now used in the article)Anti-Jewish Violence. Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History. Edited by Jonathan Dekel-Chen, David Gaunt, Natan M. Meir, and Israel Bartal (now used in the article)Crown Heights: Politics and Press Coverage of the Race War That Wasn't, Carol B. Conaway, Polity, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 93-118 (now used in the article)
Grateful for comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you bringing these definitions? What do they say? What do they add? Jayjg (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- They show the variety of definitions and the complexity of the term. Absent any objections, I will addin to the article the further colour on the definition of the term that these sources provide. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I object, because I have no idea what they say, or what they might add to the article. This article doesn't need 20 different definitions of "pogrom", unless there's some specific reason for having them. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it doesn't need 20. But a number of these are from more credible sources than those in the article at the moment. I've got an idea that will help us get through this - when I find some time i'll categorise these sources into the different points they make so we can make our explanation more clear. If you have any preferred sources, it would be helpful if you could tell me now. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I object, because I have no idea what they say, or what they might add to the article. This article doesn't need 20 different definitions of "pogrom", unless there's some specific reason for having them. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- They show the variety of definitions and the complexity of the term. Absent any objections, I will addin to the article the further colour on the definition of the term that these sources provide. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Your specific analysis of this would be appreciated. Those you mentioned are RS and add different angles to a very complex question - if they were contradicting more scholarly sources then I would agree with you, but there is no contradiction. And what about Ostow and Kessler/Wenborn - these appear to be as high quality as any. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- What "complex question"? Are The Jewish Week, Negro: An Anthology, New York Magazine, The Tribes Triumphant: Return Journey to the Middle East, etc. really "more credible sources than those in the article at the moment"? And if they don't "contradict more scholarly sources", then why would we bother adding them, instead of (or even alongside) more scholarly sources? And finally, what do Ostow and Kessler/Wenborn add specifically that this article lacks? We don't simply need more and more definitions. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The complex question is "what is a pogrom". If you read all the sources, you will see that it is far from straightforward.
- You appear to have misunderstood my request. I did not say "please could you ask me a bunch more questions", but instead I said "your specific analysis of this would be appreciated" - which means I requested some constructive comments. Of course, you are under no obligation to adhere to my request, I just want to ensure that you didn't misunderstand the fact that your endless questions don't actually move things forward as quickly as if you were to contribute positively to the debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
When was the first pogrom? Let's clarify.
I note from our previous discussions that some editors here are strongly predisposed to using Britannica as a source. Reading the full Britannica article, it says "The first extensive pogroms followed the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881". That had always been my understanding as well. However, this article names a large number of other events as pogroms which occurred prior to 1881. Britannica does not mention any of these. In addition, many of the scholarly sources provided have shown that the retrospective application of the word pogrom to pre-1881 events is disputed. I propose that we solve this problem by clearly differentiating between those events that are called pogroms by all scholars (i.e. Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire) and the rest. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, if we define "the first pogroms" as being in 1881, that would mean we would have to remove all those attacks on Jews done by Muslims or Arabs before 1881! What a lucky coincidence! And now the purpose of including the statement about not being able to definitively state what is or isn't a pogrom also becomes clear! Regardless, Wikipedia defines a "pogrom" as "anything reliable sources describe as a pogrom". See WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I always thought you knew the rules of wikipedia better than me, but it seems you don't. Let me refresh your memory. WP:COMMONNAME is not defined as you suggest as "anything reliable sources describe as a [ ]", but rather "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" and "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided" and "Neutrality is also considered" (the section notes that words like massacre and scandal are avoided unless they are clearly the most common name).
- Anyway, if you read my post more carefully you will see that I am not suggesting we "define the first pogroms as being in 1881", but rather that we should be "clearly differentiating between those events that are called pogroms by all scholars and the rest" - focus on the word "all". Oncenawhile (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's clear to me that there are at least some events which took place before before 1881 which are normatively referred to as pogroms, and I don't see why there needs to be a "first pogrom", since usage of the term will evolve, possibly encompassing things which it currently does not. A more reasonable and interesting question would be when the word started to be used in historical discourse.
- That said, I think the sources need to be looked at more carefully for the ancient and medieval stuff. Let's start with what is currently uncritically referred to in the article as the "Alexandrian pogrom". It may be that some specific reliable source refers to those events as a pogrom, but I rather doubt that this is normative use among reliable sources. Its link redirects to "Alexandrian riots", which is a stub and has no sources at all except for "The sole source is Philo of Alexandria" who definitely didn't call them the "Alexandrian Pogrom". It might be safest to get rid of the Alexandrian section and write a compensating section in the antisemitism article. This will help to stop unscrupulous challenges to other, better-sourced, uses of the word Pogrom to describe some pre-19th-century events. Zargulon (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Zargulon, I think your post is a fair summary, albeit your position contradicts Britannica and does not capture the subtleties of pogrom-labelling discussed by the scholarly community. I agree with your suggestions - we can't say there was definitively a "first pogrom", as some scholars have definitely applied the word retrospectively from 1881 (whilst others disagree with such application). So in addition to your suggestions, we should also make clear that (1) there is no universally accepted set of characteristics which define the term; and (2) that outside of the archetypal pogroms of 1881 application of the term to other events is often disputed. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - I don't think that's a fair summary of my post, and I think your drifting from the topic of this thread which you yourself started looks a little WP:POINTy. If you really agree with my suggestions, surely what you should have said was "we can't say definitively that there was a first pogrom, so this thread is over".. Zargulon (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I apologise for the confusion but its probably because the "salesy" title of the section doesn't fully reflect the substance of the actual initial post. My conclusion there was "I propose that we solve this problem by clearly differentiating between those events that are called pogroms by all scholars and the rest" - I have always agreed that "we can't say definitively that there was a first pogrom", even if Britannica does say that. Having said that, the fact that Britannica says what is says shouldn't be ignored - we have to note the issue that different people see this in different ways.
- What do you think of my suggestions (1) and (2) above? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not much, unless reliable sources explicitly make those generalizations. Zargulon (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Both Engel and Klier make these points explicitly. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not in a position to judge whether these sources are reliable. In principle, comments about the application of the word to specific events are better than generalizations. Zargulon (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fair comment. I have added in the sentence, with a couple of thoughtful sources quotes. I have also added a number of additional clarifications and sources in to the definition section to make this a little more sophisticated. If you have the time or inclination to read a few of the sources, I would be grateful for your views. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've had to remove the material. To begin with, there is no real "controversy" about what a "pogrom" is, despite the fact that, as with all such terms, the definition, and the events to which it can apply, may vary. The literature on pogroms does not spend large amounts of time agonizing over all the possible meanings of the term, or events to which it could apply; rather, it focuses on the actual events, material that this article sorely lacks. Editors cannot manufacture "controversy", particularly if the purpose of such a manufactured controversy is simply to attempt to either
- a) exclude specific events (e.g. those committed by Muslims or Arabs) from being so-labeled, or
- b) call into question whether or not those events are "really" pogroms.
- For example, if an editor had attempted to remove the "pogrom" label from a number of articles, and was unsuccessful, and then tried instead to modify this article so as to exclude those same events, that would indicate a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Yet fully 40% of the current "Etymology and definition" has been recently edited to add exactly this sort of material. Let's stick to policy on this, and go through the suggested changes one at a time, evaluating each for whether or not it complies with policy, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Cherry picking sources found through searching Google books for specific terms is not an appropriate way to find material. Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fair comment. I have added in the sentence, with a couple of thoughtful sources quotes. I have also added a number of additional clarifications and sources in to the definition section to make this a little more sophisticated. If you have the time or inclination to read a few of the sources, I would be grateful for your views. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not in a position to judge whether these sources are reliable. In principle, comments about the application of the word to specific events are better than generalizations. Zargulon (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Both Engel and Klier make these points explicitly. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not much, unless reliable sources explicitly make those generalizations. Zargulon (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - I don't think that's a fair summary of my post, and I think your drifting from the topic of this thread which you yourself started looks a little WP:POINTy. If you really agree with my suggestions, surely what you should have said was "we can't say definitively that there was a first pogrom, so this thread is over".. Zargulon (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Zargulon, I think your post is a fair summary, albeit your position contradicts Britannica and does not capture the subtleties of pogrom-labelling discussed by the scholarly community. I agree with your suggestions - we can't say there was definitively a "first pogrom", as some scholars have definitely applied the word retrospectively from 1881 (whilst others disagree with such application). So in addition to your suggestions, we should also make clear that (1) there is no universally accepted set of characteristics which define the term; and (2) that outside of the archetypal pogroms of 1881 application of the term to other events is often disputed. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)