Talk:Definitions of pogrom

Copyright concerns

Since the AfD has now closed as 'no consensus', I feel that I should expand on the comment I made in the AfD, [1] and explain why I think there may be significant copyright issues raised with this list. The problem is that it consists to a great extent of direct quotations, largely from sources which are presumably still copyright. It seems to me that this may well exceed what might reasonably be considered 'fair use', in that it isn't extracting part of each definition from each source, but quoting it in full, or substantially so, with no further analysis: effectively just mirroring the source definitions. I feel that the best way to address my concerns will to be to raise this at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems [2], where hopefully we can get some input from those more familiar with policy and guidelines. To centralise discussions, I suggest that any response is posted there rather than here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, as described at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyright_concerns_at_Definitions_of_pogrom, the fair use rationale for this and other similar articles is as follows:

• The articles are explicitly comparing and contrasting the various definitions for what are complex words. This is a Transformation (law)
• We are not presenting these definitions as the views of wikipedia. They are explicitly referenced to their original sources, allowing readers to critique the differences and thereby advancing knowledge
• That so many definitions are presented side by side diminishes the focus on any one quote
• Scholarly debate around the definition of these words are common, and it is typical for scholarly works on the subjects to quote a variety of third party definitions when introducing the topic

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Once's reverting of tags

Once, rather than edit warring, would you please try to express which specific tags you object to, and why? Zargulon (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I object to all of them, because they are unexplained. A tag is to highlight a concern - the onus is on you to explain why you have put each tag there. On you final addition, perhaps you can leave Andy to decide whether we need a copyvio tag - we are having a cordial discussion at the relevant page. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Once, can you try to be more specific about what would constitute a tag being 'explained'? For instance, do you feel that Andy's writing an entire paragraph on the talk page directly above this is not 'explaining'? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Andy explained just fine thanks. He and I are currently engaged in a good faith discussion on the topic. At no point have you raised a concern yourself about that issue, so it looks like an argument-of-convenience for you to justify your drive-by-tagging spree. Whilst that discussion is ongoing, i am fine for the copyvio tag to remain.

Perhaps you can now explain the rest of your proposed tags, one by one, in detail. And stop edit warring them in - the onus is on you to explain and discuss first. I suggest you consider all the comments in the AFD, to ensure you have taken account of the community's views.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside your strange 'onus' comment, let's start with the WP:DICDEF tag. Are you seriously denying that multiple editors have had concerns that this material violates WP:DICDEF? Again, what would be a sufficient 'explanation' for you? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Those editors did not have consensus on the point. So the article was not deleted. If every article which was not deleted was then tagged with the concerns of the deletion nominator, wikipedia would be full of tags. If you don't have consensus for deletion, you don't have consensus for tags if your arguments are the same. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Once, please familiarize yourself non sequitur. Didn't it occur to you that, if tags required consensus, then there wouldn't be any controversial articles with tags? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Tags do require consensus, as does everything on wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_tagging_following_an_AFD. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. Who would have thought.. Zargulon (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Remember this [3]? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Once, I had quite forgotten! An excellent example of how tags can be removed when there is consensus against them, and an enchanting trip down memory lane. Now do you have any further issues with the WP:DICDEF tag, or shall we move on to the next one? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually back then consensus hadn't formed yet. You were simply implementing WP:BRD (note the edit summary in the diff). Please could you follow your own advice and implement that here by self reverting? Then we can continue the discussion. Obviously we can then implement whichever tags we agree on after good faith discussion. But we need to get back to the BRD baseline first. Thanks in advance. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The tags can stay - there are clearly issues that need resolving, and tags serve the purpose of attracting outside input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Andy, the tags all represent binary issues - either we have an article like this or we don't. I can't envisage a middle ground which outside input could help us reach (if you think there is a middle ground, I would love to know what it is). Therefore these tags serve no purpose other than to continue the afd informally. It just seems like manipulation of wiki norms - imagine if this happened after every no consensus AFD. It would be better for us to just start another AFD than have this permanent limbo. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought about this comment and concluded that I answered my own question. The best thing to do here is to have another AFD, but this time even wider. The questions raised by you and others are all valid, so we need to leave it down to consensus. I truly hope that after this new AFD, all of us will be satisfied enough to move on from this. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Once I'm afraid I will have ask you to "continue the discussion" directly, rather than holding it hostage to a bizarre demand that I follow some "advice" that I allegedly gave myself almost a year ago. If you don't feel this is reasonable, can you please explain why? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Because BRD is a widely held wiki norm, and it is not reasonable for you to uphold it when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't. If you think that your choosing to ignore BRD in this instance is reasonable, please explain why? Thanks in advance. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I take it you no longer wish to discuss the tags or any other aspect of this page. That being the case, kindly raise any other matters elsewhere in order to avoid violating WP:TALK. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I do. I just don't know how to work with you, as you appear obsessed with manipulating wikipedia's editing norms. Perhaps you think this is some kind of WP:MMO. It really isn't. It's about reasonable people working together to advance knowledge, not about winning arguments.

As you have already noted (from your comment on the AFD page), I have tried to open up the question of whether this kind of article is acceptable to a much wider audience. I really don't care what the outcome is, so long as it represents the community's view.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And yet you will keep trying until you get the result you want. Good luck with that. Zargulon (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The only result I want is to end this debate by reaching a consensus view. It seems from your attempt to sabotage the new afd that you would rather avoid wide discussion. Please explain why? Thanks in advance. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Once, you have instigated all your 'wider discussion' attempts in inappropriate places, with predictable results. So isn't it you who are 'sabotaging wider discussion'? Please restrict your contributions on this page to matters specifically relevant to the article "Definitions of pogrom", per WP:TALK. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk)

When you started the AFD at this article two weeks ago, you breached WP:CANVAS by notifying only those who would likely support you. It made a mockery of the afd and skewed the results. That is pure sabotage.

What i am trying to do is have a wide, balanced debate, on the topics which came up at the afd, particularly dicdef and copyright which are both important judgements for the community.

Anyway, i will take this to the Village Pump for further discussion. I would like to focus solely on dicdef and copyright at that discussion.

So perhaps we could deal with the rest of your tags here and now, so that we don't have to bother the wider forum with them.

Please could you now explain the rest of your tags?

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Once, please don't forum shop. If you think that the WP:DICDEF tag should be inappropriate, this talk page would be the normal place to express why. No-one is stopping you - thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on dicdef.

Now please explain the rationale for the other tags before i remove them. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hat note concerns

I see no point in placing banners at the top of an article unless it directly contains information that is of use to readers. This was shown overwhelmingly to be the editorial consensus recently in a debate about orphan tags.

Placing tags at the start of an article a tactic used by some editors to shame other editors into improving an article or just to blight an article they don't like. Conscientious editors who place such hat-note tags on an article will usually then add a section to the talk page so that it can be seen where the consensus lies. As no sections have been created I am going to do it. --PBS (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary definition

• From the article hat-note: This article appears to be a dictionary definition. Please rewrite it to present the subject from an encyclopedic point of view. If it cannot be turned into a full encyclopedia article in the near future, consider moving it to Wiktionary.

Can anyone who wishes to keep this hat-note banner in article space please please explain their concerns in more detail. -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-free material

• From the article hat-note: This article may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material. (February 2014)

I have edited the article since that banner was put in place does the article sill contain "excessive or improper use of non-free material" if so which quote? -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion at the top of this page, and the one here: [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw both. I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Copyright concerns at Definitions of pogrom and made edits to the article. Now that those edits have been made what specific parts of this article do you still consider to be in violation of Wikipedia:NFC#Text? -- PBS (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that the article still consists almost entirely of quotations, I do not see that the issues have yet been properly addressed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there or is there not copyright material in this article that does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:NFC#Text? If there is material that does not then please specify so that it can be rectified. Once that the issue of "improper use of non-free material" is addressed, we can then address the other point of "excessive non free material". -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be asking me to make a definitive assertion regarding the limits of Wikipedia policy. I am not qualified to do so - and have never suggested that I am. Which is why I raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. If you want a more definitive answer, I suggest that you ask User:Moonriddengirl, who has considerable experience in this field. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already made edits, and given an opinion there, so unless you have specific objections I do not see that the "improper use of non-free material" is any longer an issue. If you still think it is then please raise it here on the talk page with the examples of what concerns you. Now to the other point do you consider there to be any "excessive use non free material"? If so how do you propose that we fix it? -- PBS (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that it be fixed in the manner that Moonriddengirl suggested: "To conform with our internal policy and guideline, the longer quotes should be truncated with a combination of spotlighted quotation as needed and paraphrase and context material should be added". Wikipedia content is supposed to be written by contributors, not copy-pasted wholesale from other sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia content is supposed to be written by contributors, not copy-pasted wholesale from other sources." this is an old debate for which there are lots of archived pages of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism if you think that some of the current text is in breach of the plagiarism guideline please identify them so the plagiarism can be fixed.-- PBS (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The longer quotes have already been removed. Which of those quotes that remain do you think volatiles Wikipedia:NFC#Text? The definitions can not be paraphrased (or else they are not definitions -- this a a point that both DGG and I have made at Copyright concerns). As to context material I look forward to you writing a larger lead but please take account of the concerns raised during this AfD in March 2013. I moved context information out of the definition into a footnote for the Piłsudski definition. Perhaps we could use that as a template. Which other definitions do you think need context? -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Embedded lists

• From the article hat-note: This article contains embedded lists that may be poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate. (February 2014)

Can anyone who wishes to keep this hat-note banner in article space please explain precisely what it is that is poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate, and how the article can be altered to accommodate their concerns. -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Original research

• From the article hat-note: This article possibly contains original research. (February 2014)

Can anyone who wishes to keep this hat-note banner in article space please explain precisely what it is that is original research, and how the article can be altered to accommodate their concerns. -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Undue

• From the article hat-note: This article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (February 2014)

Can anyone who wishes to keep this hat-note banner in article space please explain precisely what gives undue weight to certain ideas, and how the article can be altered to accommodate their concerns. -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Dal definition

Vladimir Dal 1903.

(Russian) According to Klier, the 1903 version "still associated the word with general destruction by human or natural forces, even though the term was now widely used in the press for anti-Jewish riots

• From Klier page 35

I suggest that it is removed because it is an appraisal by Klier of a definition and not the definition. -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is an appraisal and not a definition itself, but I don't see that as a reason not to keep it.

I believe this is the word in Dal's 1903 dictionary:

Russian (Cyrillic): ПОГРОХОТАЛА гроза, порядком. Погрохотить, позаняться просевкой зернового хлеба в грохоты. Погрох м. новг. сполох, тревога, взбуд; | смуты, беспокойство.

Russian (Latin transcribed): POGROKHOTALA groza, poryadkom. Pogrokhotit', pozanyat'sya prosevkoy zernovogo khleba v grokhoty. Pogrokh m. novg.spolokh, trevoga, vzbud; | smuty, bespokoystvo.

I doubt a google translate or similar would do this justice, so it would be Klier or nothing. But I do think that given the importance of Dal's dictionary, and how early it is in the timeline, it has real weight and a reader benefits from the context.

On a separate point related to early references, I think excerpts from these articles - Talk:Pogrom#The_Times_articles - should be added, particularly given how important journalists were in increasing the currency of the word in English.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Currently the column definition contains:

(Russian) According to Klier, the 1903 version "still associated the word with general destruction by human or natural forces, even though the term was now widely used in the press for anti-Jewish riots

This is not a definition this is an observation on a definition. The second half of the sentence has nothing to do with the definition, and even though Google fails to translate the entry miserably, it is clear that Klier is giving an appraisal.

Either this column is for definitions or it is not because at the moment this is not a definition. If later you can find a full translation then it can be added, but there are reasons why even then it is not desirable.

The reason why it is not desirable is that the word had already entered English usage, and words often have different meanings as it skips across different languages. Initially "pogrom" entered English as a load word the earliest entry in the OED for "pogrom" is 1881 (it had been assimilated by 1921 -- indicated by the loss of quotes or italics). But according to the OED it did not enter English from Russian but from Yiddish, which is not surprising given the hostility at the time between Russian and Britain and the large East European Jewish immigrant community in London. The evidence the OED gives for this is:

Compare the following quot., which apparently shows an earlier isolated attestation of the Yiddish plural form in an English context:

1882 Times 17 Mar. 3/6 That the ‘Pogromen’ (riots against the Jews) must be stopped.

So I do not see that a Russian definition from 1903 is so important in the usage or meaning of the word in English that an appraisal of the word's meaning in Russian from 1903 is needed. -- PBS (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

1882

1903

Two articles from The Times.

Ok, fair enough. FYI here are the Times articles I linked to above. I'll add in the relevant quotes if you agree. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have made an edit to increase the size of the lead that involves quotes from the OED. These newspaper articles are not of much use because they use the word they do not define its use in English, so I do not think that they should be included. -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Work column

I see no intrinsic value in the Work column. The author has to be a notable reliable source for the definition to be worth including. But the source for the definition may span several different works. If the specific work is of interest then it can be found through the citation, therefore I propose that the "Work" column be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I also see no intrinsic value in it, although I don't see any intrinsic negative impact of keeping it either. I have no concerns with it being removed if you feel strongly. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation style

I think that the article would benefit from a change of citation styles so that there is a list of long citations in alphabetic order in the References section and those are coupled to short inline citations in the body of the text. -- PBS (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to be a dictionary definition

In the case of Genocide definitions and definitions of terrorism, there are substantive differences in the definition used.

In the case of Genocide definitions it is the difference between the international legal definition and the number of academic definitions that are available. As the article says

Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that for various reasons, none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support.

Most academic definitions of genocide, like the legal definition, include "intent to destroy the targeted group", but for example Tony Barta argues in the Australian genocide debate that deliberate intent is not of primary importance in deciding if a genocide has taken place because "for the victim group it matters little if they were wiped out as part of a planned attack. If a group is decimated as a result of smallpox introduced to Australia by British settlers, or introduced European farming methods causing a group of Aborigines to starve to death, the result is in his opinion genocide." Hence for someone wishing to understand the Australian genocide debate Barta's and his opponents definitions of genocide help a reader to understand the debate. Similarly in other areas the definition used can help to explain the academic debate.

In the case of definitions of terrorism there are two political concerns the first is it use as a prerogative term where it is use as a moral/propaganda label rather than an academic or legal definition. The second concerns legal definitions. States very often define terrorism as acts carried out by violent non-state actors (VNSAs), and exclude state terrorism. This leads to the situation were an act that would be labelled as terrorist carried out by a VNSA is not terrorism when carried out by an entity of a state eg the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, so the differences in definition make large differences to whether an event is a terrorist attack.

Because of the differences in the definitions of genocide and terrorism, I think that those differences warrant these definition articles in this encyclopaedia.

From what I can see from the content of this article there is no large difference in the definitions. Ie the OED definitions are not contradicted by an of the others in such a way that any event defined as a pogrom would not be defined as a pogrom using one of the other definitions. So as it stands at the moment I do not see why the contents of this article should not be used to expand moved to Wiktionary and then deleted or redirected to pogrom#Usage. -- PBS (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There are three major differences between the definitions:

1. Whether or not the term applies only to events against Jews
2. Whether for an event to be a pogrom requires government support / acquiescence
3. Whether it can be applied without any other criteria so long as anti-semitism is involved (for this one see e.g. Klier and Abramson)

These three areas underpin numerous disputes over whether or not various events can be properly named pogroms. In particular the second and third have been the root of significant semantic debates, whilst the first has divided people equally if less passionately.

I will try to expand on this in more detail tomorrow, particularly as it compares to the terrorism and genocide examples you gave above.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile. The two first definitions are covered by the OED's two definitions. To look at the two others you mention. Klier:

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.

It seems to me that Klier's definition could be describing meaning one of the OED, and like the OED is stating that it is an historical usage.

Abramson:

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... 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.

I do not see that Abramson's definition is different from the OED other than (a) Abramson combines the two and in the details with which Abramson qualifies the definition eg "often [but not exclusively] urban".

The point is that if a researched were to use either of these definitions, would they conclude draw different conclusions about an event being or not being a pogrom? I don't see that these different definitions would (in the way the examples I have given above for the definitions of genocide and terrorism). Do you have any examples where there have been differences of opinion on whether an event was a pogrom based on definition, other than were they are using one of the two different definitions used by the OED? -- PBS (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:PBS, sorry I wasn't very clear (as usual). When I referred to Abramson and Klier I was referring to the last sentence of Abramson "In mainstream usage" and the first in Klier "By the twentieth century". This usage is not covered by the OED definition - and it is this "indiscriminate" but "mainstream" usage is the one that has caused much controversy. Klier says for example: "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."

To address your other points, just as for Genocide and Terrorism, the definition of the word has been disputed for specific events by politicians (see e.g.

Crown_Heights_riot#Use_of_the_term_.22pogrom.22, where the dispute centered around whether the word implied that the city government acquiesced, or the Morgenthau report which "consciously strove to limit usage of the word "pogrom" as an elastic and imprecise term applied indiscriminately to a broad range of actions"), and by scholars (see e.g. Limerick Boycott, which was widely called a pogrom in the press at the time but the only "characteristic" it fitted was antisemitism). The point here is made well by Neil Pease (underlining added):

"Blatant and brutal attacks against Jews emphatically did occur, but opinions differed then, and continue to differ now, about the applicability of the term "pogrom" to these incidents... [footnote] For example, Ezra Mendelsohn, The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars, describes these actions as pogroms, while Norman Davies says flatly that they were no such thing, God's Playground: A History of Poland, and Europe: A History. Jerzy Tomaszewski, ed. Najnowsze dziejow Zydow w Polsce, labels the Lwow riots of November 1918 a pogrom, but not the Pinsk affair. The disagreement does not so much concern the facts of what happened, but how to characterize them. For its part, the Morgenthau report consciously strove to limit usage of the word "pogrom" as an elastic and imprecise term applied indiscriminately to a broad range of actions, from individual muggings to concerted mob attacks, instead employing the more general, less emotive "excesses"."[5]

With respect to "use as a prerogative term where it is use[d] as a moral/propaganda label rather than an academic or legal definition", this is also widely attributed to the word pogrom:

• Alekseĭ I. Miller writes that "The diversity of phenomena hiding behind the word pogrom is one of the symptoms of the ideological engagement of historiography" and, referring to Zygmunt Bauman's comment on "anti-semitism" noted that "using the same name to denote phenomena separated by centuries hides as much as reveals... is true of the term “pogrom.”"[6]
• Rogers Brubaker writes that "Violence—and more generally, conflict—regularly occasions social struggles to label, interpret, and explain it",[7] which Donald L. Horowitz calls "conflict over the nature of the conflict".[8] Specifically, Brubaker writes that "To impose a label or prevailing interpretive frame—to cause an event to be seen as a "pogrom" or a "riot" or a "rebellion"—is no mere matter of external interpretation, but a constitutive and often consequential act of social definition".
• In "On the Study of Riots, Pogroms, and Genocide", University of Washington Professor Paul R Brass writes that once a scholar states whether in their view an event is "better labeled a pogrom than a riot, a massacre of innocents rather than a fair fight between groups, a genocide rather than a “mere” pogrom", scholars then "unavoidably, necessarily, become embroiled within and take a position upon the events we study."[9] Brass writes that "The study of the various forms of mass collective violence has been blighted by methodological deficiencies and ideological premises... Our work then becomes entangled—even through the very theories we articulate—in the diversionary tactics that are essential to the production and reproduction of violence. The diversionary process begins with the issue of labelling, which itself is part of the process of production and reproduction of violence, and the post-hoc search for causes"

Not related to your question, but as an interesting aside, it is worth noting that like Genocide and Terrorism, the use of the word also causes great uncertainty throughout wikipedia (see e.g. Talk:1989 Bangladesh pogroms, Talk:Mława pogrom, Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots#Riots_or_Pogroms, Talk:Anti-Serb_riots_in_Sarajevo#Request_Move, Talk:Istanbul_pogrom/Archive_2#Requested_move). Many readers and editors seem to firmly believe that the term applies only to events against Jews, whereas our article pogrom says otherwise. The list of definitions at this article shows that both views are supported.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

In the examples you have given I still do not see that the list is necessary take for example the Morgenthau report, it is clear from that that the political issue was the difference between definition one and definition two given by the OED, and whatever the truth whether it was politically and diplomatically astute to use a word that could be interpreted as placing blame on the Polish regime (definition two). The debate in the Limerick Boycott is interesting but that is to do with extent and exactly the same arguments were presented in court for whether the Srebrenica massacre was a genocide not over the meaning of the term. Take for example your comments and quotes on Paul R Brass does not move the debate on as he is not defining anything but instead talking about the political/academic usage of various terms. Nothing you have produced above changes my opinion that the differences in definition are large enough to warrant an article list and not simply a dictionary definition that is as encompassing as the OED definition. -- PBS (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi PBS, I can provide more examples, but before I do can I clarify a couple of questions:

1) When you refer to the two OED definitions, can you confirm which definitions you mean? The two quotes in the article lead both include the word "organized" - that word is the core of the debate in my point 2

2) When you talk about "the difference between definition one and definition two given by the OED", could you clarify exactly what you think those key differences are? I think we are reading it differently - to my eye, definition one refers to specific geographies, times and peoples whereas definition two is broadly the same albeit expanded out of those spatial constraints whilst maintaining certain specific characteristics

3) Could you comment on my point 3 usage above - to my mind that is the heart of the Limerick boycott debate, but you seem to disagree?

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I must be reading it differently the former is its use in the historical context mentioned -- as to what is or is not Eastern Europe (I heard the Polish Ambassador in Britain the other night say Poland was a central European country not an eastern one) is debatable and is what late and early century means clearly after 1850 and before 1950 but 75-25 85-15 95-05? As to organised, that is a tricky one but at a minimum it does imply a conspiracy between two or more people. The second definition is more specific as it includes "officially tolerated". However without getting too tied down with the OED definitions, my point is that I do not think that these listed definitions show enough differences that they can not be summarised in a dictionary definition.

The Irish one is a particularity interesting one because of course what does authority mean in Ireland, particularly in a city such as Limerick with a long republican tradition (Who was seen as a legitimate authority in Limerick before partition would would have been based on one's religion/politics). Robert Graves describes Limerick in the last days of the union in "Goodbye to all that". Also the word Boycot has a specific historical connotation within Ireland the original being only 25 years before this incident, and as such is not without historical baggage. Also the editors who wrote the article do not seem to realise because it was a Unionist/British regime that locked the boy up "protesting that the teenager was innocent and that the sentence imposed was too harsh" falls under MRDA as expected Limerick politics of the time. -- PBS (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi PBS,

One key difference re the word pogrom vs genocide or terrorism is that there is an agreed set of archetypal pogroms: in 1881-84 and in 1903-06. Since it is undisputed that these event constitute the template, they are mentioned in the vast majority of definitions. This is the OED definition "one", which is simply acknowledging that these events are known as Pogroms. (as an aside the OED reference to Poland and other Eastern Europe countries is simply an anachronistic allusion to regions then on the Western frontier of the Russian Empire, i.e. the Pale of Settlement.)

The variability between definitions of the word pogrom relates to its broader usage outside of those specific template events. I think it is important to be very clear on this point. This complexity and variability is wholly analogous to the terms genocide or terrorism, which are also widely used with widely varying definitions. The OED's definition "two" is just one attempt at defining this second, much more disparate, generic usage.

Focusing solely on the generic usage, to your question of whether the "listed definitions show enough differences [compared to terrorism and genocide]", my interpretation is that the pogrom list has an even broader set of definitions than those of terrorism and genocide. This is on the basis that the various definitions have an even broader set of possible core characteristics than terrorism and genocide, therefore it has more degrees of freedom and therefore more possible combinations. We must be looking at the lists differently. I am not sure how to measure this in a scientific and objective fashion.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to measure this in a scientific and objective fashion. I have laid out my wares you have laid out yours over time a consensus will form one way or another. I suggest that the header template is left at the top of the article for a week or two and if this issue is not resolved then remove it. I for one will spend no more time discussing it with you until there is more participation in the discussion. -- PBS (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)