324:). To his first point above, I have now removed the quote from the reference as the support for the statement is very clear in the chapter in the source - in fact the actual supporting quote is written out in the second paragraph of the article. The "common characteristics" section is a topic considered in detail by Bergmann and Engel, and it simply follows their works. Even the list of definitions is something a number of scholars have written on, such as Klier and Bergmann - the section just follows them and adds to it. Same with the List of Usage Disputes, which follows Miller and Klier. The sourcing throughout the article is of the highest quality and every care has been taken to avoid any kind of wp:or. What is needed here is some collaboration, rather than sweeping generalizations and rushed attempts to undermine.
1891:
making the synth allegation against specific sentences, instead the allegation is being made against the article as a whole. Which means to show that it is not synth i can only point to the overall sentiment and content of sources which cover the topic in detail as a whole, which I have tried to do. But the comments in this discussion suggest that very few editors have the time to read these sources as a whole, but have concluded it must be synth anyway. So I am currently at a loss as to how to prove something i know to be true - that this article, both specific sentences and the overall tone etc, is based solely on reliable sources. If anyone has any suggestions as to what I can do to illustrate this more clearly, without requiring people to read the sources, I'd be grateful.
211:, but is sourced to quotation that says nothing at all like that - a quotation that, in fact, doesn't even mention the words "definition", "academics", "consensus", etc. The "Common Characteristics" and "Differences from similar terminology for collective violence" sections are built entirely by the editor who created this (rather than using reliable secondary sources that explicitly discuss "Common Characteristics" or "Differences from similar terminology"). The "List of scholarly and encyclopedic definitions for the term pogrom" is a random set of items found on Google books, as is the "List of usage disputes and disagreements". This reads like an essay.
747:
the day, rather than destroying a good topic. By now in 2013, not all varieties and definitions of the word "Pogrom" are the same since that term was first introduced from
Eastern European origins when the Czars of Russia incited Cossacks to kill Jews for no reasons, actually because of antisemitism. Today the word "pogrom" like the word "holocaust" has broadened in usage and in its definitions to include a variety of fatal attacks against any type of ethnic or religious groups singled out for discrimination and attack.
1116:
taking a side here. I have already indicated on Once's talk page that, in my own opinion, probably bloody near anything and everything most of us can think of regarding religion, society, and so on, given the amount of reliable sources out there, could well be found to be ultimately notable. However, there seem to be serious questions, as yet apparently unanswered, as to whether the sources provided to date are sufficient to establish the notability of this specific topic, and as per
809:
can always tell the reader what happened and what the motivations were, use the common moniker for the event in the article title, and let the reader decide how to characterize what happened - a pogrom, a series of murders, a minor kerfuffle, or a birthday party that got out of hand. I particularly enjoyed how 1918 Lwow is not a pogrom because xyz, while 1919 Pinsk is not a pogrom because abc "unlike
Lemberg" - that gave me a chuckle. Is this kind of crap covered under
1315:—extreme case of WP:SYNTH to the point that the entire article, not just an individual section, is an inappropriate synthesis. Also, while I assume good faith and point this out just as one possibility, the article appears to have been created as a WP:POINT to argue that certain events weren't pogroms, so there's no reason to keep it as it probably wouldn't have been written if this was not under dispute in other articles. —
249:" for instance, is still an ongoing concern, and it might, maybe, be notable enough in enough sources for a separate article. Maybe. The evidence for this article, however, does not even remotely rise to the standard of that potential article, and I cannot see that the lack of clear notability and reliable sourcing for this page is ever likely to be improved enough to make the article meet policies and guidelines.
764:. Initially I was thinking this may need to be deleted, but on second thought, a section on definition is useful for some articles, and if properly developed, can be seen as requiring a dedicated article. This seems well researched and useful, so I am not convinced it should be deleted. The only danger I see here is if this was a POV fork of some kind, but I see no indications this is the case. --
688:, but by doing so you are indeed acknowledging that this and those other articles do not actually follow the rules. It is fine for you to advocate for a change in Knowledge (XXG)'s policies to accomodate articles like these, but that probably shouldn't be done through a specific article's AFD !vote, consider pursuing this at one of the Knowledge (XXG)-wide policy discussion venues.
1643:
Zad, you left out the fact that you have made 42 edits in the last 10 months. "Fact checking" should acknowledge involvement where relevant, so as not to mislead. Anyway, you are misrepresenting my comments. None of the examples I gave are intended to be proof on their own - they can't be, because as
1243:
Bergmann actually comments on some other work by Brass, noting that Brass concluded "it is quite fruitless in such situations to seek to define a situation precisely as either a riot or pogrom". In his chapter, Bergmann spends 3 pages of the introduction of his chapter talking about definitions, and
995:
of pogrom. "What was a Pogrom?" might well come closer to the mark, given the title - like I said, I've haven't read it. "On the study of riots, pogroms, and genocide" seems as per the title to be about what might be called the "history of study of pogroms" or maybe "historiography of pogroms," which
1389:
I won't strike it out - I am entitled to make observations, and I am entitled to question whether "voters" who simply repeat others' comments have actually read the article or sources. Note that my comment is not suggesting that their political views (whether right wing or left wing) should have any
1053:
Zargulon, you've been filibustering on this topic for months - please stop. If you have time to support your statement with analysis of the sources, please do, otherwise don't waste everyone's time. You've used this same tactic of making baseless rhetorical questions time and time again - it appears
1004:
easy to do around here, and while neither I nor anyone else necessarily objects to content on some SYNTH topic somewhere in the wikimedia entities, I hope people can understand that given the number of such entities already extant and being created some of us are trying to ensure that the content in
746:
should be part of improving it rather than blowing it out of the water entirely. WP articles are not born "perfect" and quite often articles are created by editors from one POV, that then draws in editors from an opposing POV, and together they can hopefully create a truly NPOV article at the end of
1516:
by the nom here. But the sources do make the statement you refer to. No comment here has challenged the veracity of the sources in this article, because they are simply too robust (or because so few people have bothered reading them). I suggest you read the actual sources in preference to wikipedia
1327:
It may be a coincidence, but the four shortest delete comments (all of which are wholly repetitious) have come from editors who are well known on one side of the debate in the Israel / Palestine space in wikipedia. Their comments count as much as anyone else of course, but I would encourage them in
1120:
it is more or less the onus of those who seek to add or keep information to provide information as to how it meets policies and guidelines. There does not seem to me to be any sort of clear inherent assertion of notability regarding this specific topic, so it is not unreasonable to request that the
808:
The author of this amazing article spent an inordinate amount of time grinding a very large axe, selectively adducing various sources in order to try to support how this, that or the other is not a "pogrom" in some sense. The point of this is utterly unclear - after all, for each given incident we
1365:
as you are questioning the integrity of four individually identifiable editors for no reason other than your perception that they are "well known on one side of the debate in the Israel / Palestine space in wikipedia", to use your own wording. Should one investigate which "side of the debate" you
1792:
No, I'm saying that since you ignore every single fact I provide, the only way for this conversation to progress is for you to actually read the sources. Once you know what's in them, you can reassess all the facts. PS, your comment was another rhetorical question which misrepresented my comment.
1890:
Irrespective of my belief that there are a number of tenuous "votes" here, I note that a number of comments have mentioned synth as a core allegation. The only way to effectively show why this argument is wrong is to point to specific statements of proof in reliable sources. However no editor is
1115:
I regret that it seems I have to agree with these now repeated requests that Once directly indicate exactly how and why these sources, which others apparently have reviewed and found to not be substantive support for the notability of this specific topic, the definition of pogrom. I am in no way
1927:
If I assume good faith in your continued misrepresentative comments - this is the fourth time on this page alone that you have misrepresented my post in a follow up rhetorical question - then I must also assume that you have reading problems. On the other hand, your comments may be a deliberate
1086:
Your question is rhetorical. Three of those sources are standalone scholarly essays in their own right. Only Klier's is technically not standalone, but it actually forms the heart of his work (which, by the way is an extremely well respected piece of work, published four years after his death).
666:(not just to professors in ivory towers) and over time, sometimes a few years, with additional editing, polishing, trimming and even re-writing, some very informative and comprehensive articles, containing stacks of information presented in new ways came to be, and this is such a case in point.
990:
Interesting points, but a few comments, from someone who admittedly hasn't read the sources. "What's in a Pogrom" would apparently be as per the title about "things" which are found in a pogrom, not necessarily about the definition of pogrom per se. It might potentially violate OR/SYNTH to say
319:
Every single one of the criticisms raised in the proposing post are incorrect, and simply a function of the fact that the proposer has not read the sources (despite the fact that we have been "debating" the topic for a year - hard to believe I know, but borne out multiple times by evidence on
448:
says, "While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability." Now, take a look at what's in this article: A brief discussion of the scholarly use of the term (could easily be in
1463:, which is a well-organized presentation of 1) the etymology of the word "pogrom", 2) the use of the word to describe violence against Jews, with a list of incidents in different times and places, 3) the expansion of the term to apply to violence against non-Jews. Nowhere do I see, as
1209:
has no rigorously specific definition, but it doesn't matter because that's not what's important." The rest of his essay, and the rest of the book, discuss the important stuff - the actual pogroms, their relevance to society and government, their dynamics, their causes, their impact,
1807:
If you are not saying that the sources contain information about whether Jayjg has read the sources, could you please explain how an editor would be able to conclude, from "reading all the sources himself", that "Jayjg has shown no evidence of reading the sources"? Thanks in advance.
581:, etc etc etc. True, this article can use much polishing and improvement as it does show some sort of bias to de-emphasize a Jewish historical POV, but fair and knowledgeable editors, including the nominator, could easily fix that with some skillful NPOV editing. Thank you,
1727:
is that Jayjg has shown no evidence of having read the sources under discussion. The statements being made appear to be counter to his point of view, but he has provided no sources to support his alternative view so he simply claims that certain information is undue.
1204:
share the attributes enumerated, the only question that need be discussed is to what extent thinking about those incidents together, as part of a single analytical category, offers insight into matters of concern...." (emphasis mine) So Engel is saying "Yes,
1931:
My reference to "both specific sentences and the overall tone etc" are the key words above to your point. Since synth means putting A and B together to imply C through tone or otherwise, whereby C is unsupported by RS, my point is that even C is supported by
1137:
Hi John, I'll do my best to meet your challenge. Just so I understand what I'm aiming for, could you help me by trying to describe what in your mind a notable "definition of" topic would look like? The sources underpinning this article already make it
963:
Once, if you are actually saying, based on that diff, that
Zargulon in any way "suggested" that this article be created... well, all I can say is, skills demonstrating proficiency in reading the source for its intended meaning were not in evidence.
1191:
and discussing the lack of rigorous specificity in the use of the word, and then he says something very interesting: "Moreover, even if additional research should reveal that one or another of the incidents mentioned in the previous paragraphs did
1023:
John, thanks for your admission that you haven't read the sources (I wish some others would admit the same!). I have linked them above - a cursory glance should illustrate that this article is trying follow them in tone, content and overall focus.
653:
with this "newish" type of presentation, it is more than a good beginning. No need to get stuck in crusty old ways of thinking. The way WP developed from the start was to be open to new types of articles that were introduced be editors following
1480:, deal with the nuances of philosophy and expression of the "ism", while this article just reads like a dictionary debate. The article is also limited to the point of view of English-language academic sources. Knowing the broader treatment of
1664:
Once, I presume you mean "disinterested" editors.. I doubt even you would intentionally direct your remarks towards uninterested (=bored) editors. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Zad is not a disinterested editor?
741:
of this article, and I am not saying I agree with all the content, but the objective of creating an article with this title should not be problematic and editors who feel it's contents need work or improvement or correction to adhere to
469:, which would leave the article just a few paragraphs. Once points to "all the very clear sources..." and the article is impressive in size and number of refs, but has almost zero encyclopedic content actually on the article's topic.
492:" admissable is a very notable topic. A careful examination of the number and depth of coverage of the sources in that article as compared to this one show the parallel proposed between the articles isn't supported by the sourcing.
1985:
An article can adopt the "overall tone" or "overall gist" of a scholarly source and yet be completely fraudulent. Can you please try to explain why either of these things is relevant and why you brought them up? Thanks in advance.
1928:
attempt to misrepresent my comments. Which is it? I have asked you before, "if you are going to insist on asking rhetorical questions please make sure they don't misrepresent my comments." You have failed to do that once again.
556:
article does not have enough room for this kind of research (which does not seem to be "original" as the nominator alleges --unless he can cite some good historical counter-arguments not based on WP rules alone.) Bottom line,
1872:
the article starts out stating an opinion, then provides a collection of sources supporting that opinion, ending with a list of why this, that and the other aren't pogroms. Not particularly encyclopedic, more of an essay.
1038:
Once, I asked for only one source devoted to the "definition of pogroms".. you provided four sources which are not devoted to the "definition of pogroms". Can you please try to explain why you did this? Thanks in advance.
168:
1648:
behaviour can only be clearly seen over the long term." More importantly, I wrote "I invite others to take a view for themselves, since I am interested here", which was directed at uninterested editors, not you.
882:. That there isn't, doesn't surprise me.. just because there may be some disagreement between people on what it applies to doesn't mean that any of them considers there to be an important question of definition.
1951:
Once, can you please explain what you meant by saying the proposed article's "overall tone" is "based on reliable sources" and why it is relevant to whether it should be retained or deleted? Thanks in advance.
1969:
I've continued to answer your questions, now you answer mine. If you think there's Synth in here, read the sources and then explain what "implied conclusion" (or C, in the A+B=C) is unsupported by the sources.
1467:
states, that "There is no academic consensus regarding the definition of the term 'pogrom'". This article appears to be a content fork that really isn't necessary, as I will soon explain. The whole tone of
1186:
Of these four sources, Engel is the strongest in support of this article. He spends about 6 pages of his introductory essay prefacing the content of this 200+ page book giving examples of incidents called
1390:
bearing on their views here (in fact I specifically do not think there is any read across), it is simply an observation that these editors all work alongside each other in a different area of wikipedia.
1935:
I've answered your question, now you answer mine. If you think there's Synth in here, read the sources and then explain what "implied conclusion" (or C, in the A+B=C) is unsupported by the sources.
1417:
In among the editorial commentary there is quite a bit of interesting and sourced information, but probably not so much that it needs to be separate from the article on the topic that it concerns.
1000:
of pogrom. The
Bergmann title doesn't give me anything to go on at all. This may well seem like nitpicking, and, honestly, I'm not going to say it necessarily isn't, but SYNTH is something that is
813:
or do I need a more precise policy justification? :) The author should seriously consider turning his or her considerable talents to some worthwhile goal, instead of this ineffective attempt at a
1575:
when after 3 months of consensus-building with other editors Jayjg returned to reverse it all without appropriate discussion. I'm sure you remember that one - that was when you made your u-turn.
430:
problems too. Any ongoing history between Once and other editors is irrelevant to an AFD discussion, and pointing to the status of other articles is of course no AFD argument at all per
1966:
How much more explanation do you need!? Because if the overall gist of the article wasn't based on reliable sources, then it would be synth. But it is, so it's not. Is that clear enough?
440:, sources need to be provided that show that the definition of the term itself can be an encyclopedic topic and can support a discussion of the social or historical significance of the
1601:, Jayjg has made 107 (5.26%) of the 2,035 total edits over all time. In past 12 months, Jayjg has made 39 of the 300 edits; Oncenawhile has made 58 (19 more than Jayjg). Once gives
1560:
behaviour can only be clearly seen over the long term. I invite others to take a view for themselves, since I am interested here. Jayjg is by far the article's most prolific editor
465:
wouldn't normally hold weight at an AFD discussion but they must be raised here because someone reviewing the article looking for support of its thesis needs to throw out all the
1182:
It is simply untrue to describe these four sources as "devoted entirely to this subject", and why you would describe them as such could be the subject of an interesting debate.
162:
1703:
It's not, nor did i say it was. Try reading my comment again. If you are going to insist on asking rhetorical questions please make sure they don't misrepresent my comments.
121:
1346:
Once, I am completely sure that everyone involved in this discussion who has had any dealings with you wants this AFD to be resolved strictly according to its own merits.
346:
386:
1366:
are on and question your integrity in creating this article based on that? This was very disappointing to see you say and in my opinion you should strike it out.
366:
1256:
If these are truly the best sources that can be provided in support, then clearly there's not enough to support an article on this subject outside of the article
1561:
422:
because the sources do not show the subject rises to the level of a word or phrase that itself may be an encyclopedic subject. The article is quite probably a
1742:
Once, can you please try to explain what kind of "evidence of reading the sources under discussion" other involved people, for instance you, have shown, which
1578:
Having said that, I really don't understand the motives here - it should just be about reflecting sources properly, but that has never been the issue raised.
1054:
intended solely to stop open minded editors from participating. I recognise this is not assuming good faith, but i have months of evidence to back that up on
297:
The notability of this topic is shown by the number of WP:RS that devote detailed scholarly debate - see all the very clear sources in the footnotes or read
128:
615:... really? Articles that are simply lists of definitions by this, that and the other author are something we're doing now? Seems like a serious case of
926:, Prepared for the Sawyer Seminar session on “Processes of Mass Killing,” at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, December 6–7, 2002
1566:
where a user says "Having learned that Jayjg is the local government", a number of examples of agressive deletion with minimal talk contribution (e.g.
908:
European Jews in the Age of
Violence, in "Anti-Jewish Violence: Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History", Indiana University Press, 26 Nov 2010
94:
89:
1472:
is wishy-washy and hair-splitting. What's the point? Every Jew knows exactly what a pogrom is. The other "Definitions of" articles, such as those on
98:
1689:
Once, can you try to explain why "fighting change" (I assume, specific changes which he didn't agree with) is an "offence"? Thanks in advance.
81:
228:. Please review that policy to save yourself a lot of time in the future. Reminds me a bit of Noleander's ill-fated "Jews and money" article.
1760:
Not in a fashion that will convince you. The only way you can find out whether my statement is true is by reading all the sources yourself.
930:
912:
578:
17:
1434:
Looks like a SYNTH of sources into a distinct topic, but a selective merge into Pogrom looks like it would keep the useful content,
489:
183:
1217:
in this 400+ page book. Klier uses the discussion as a framework to discuss pogroms in various societies and locations. There is
314:"Please don't turn this article into a "definition of pogrom" article, which it is not. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)"
150:
791:
1232:
The particular Brass essay provided is very lightweight and once again no argument is made that the topic of the definition of
1121:
existing policies and guidelines regarding notability be addressed by those who seek to keep the article in its current state.
1285:
Zad, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Bergmann and Engel are both standalone essays, contributed to larger works edited by others.
612:
574:
903:
495:
I do give Once credit for compiling this list of research, it's actually a very good list of sources to use to develop the
488:
and is therefore covered by international crime law or the Geneva
Convention or would make the testimony obtained with "
2059:
144:
40:
2040:
1995:
1980:
1961:
1946:
1922:
1900:
1882:
1856:
1817:
1802:
1787:
1769:
1755:
1737:
1712:
1698:
1674:
1658:
1634:
1587:
1552:
1526:
1497:
1443:
1426:
1399:
1383:
1355:
1337:
1319:
1303:
1277:
1154:
1130:
1110:
1096:
1081:
1067:
1048:
1033:
1018:
981:
954:
891:
862:
834:
800:
776:
756:
719:
705:
675:
636:
590:
516:
398:
378:
358:
338:
258:
237:
215:
63:
1572:). Then since i've been involved there has been a consistent attempt to fight change, with the worst offence being
85:
662:
if need be, so that many articles were quite awkward and unpolished for a long time, but of obvious interest to a
140:
1328:
the interests of integrity to actually read the article and sources before jumping to vote in support of Jayjg.
566:
473:
287:
190:
641:
Hi Zad: You can't deny that the genre of "Definitions of ____" now exists on WP as per all the examples in
477:
431:
2036:
570:
246:
233:
2055:
1976:
1942:
1909:
Once, can you please explain why a proposed article cannot be both "based on reliable sources" and also
1896:
1798:
1765:
1733:
1708:
1654:
1583:
1522:
1488:, I wonder if the Israelis debate the definition of the word "pogrom" as vociferously as the Americans.
1469:
1464:
1395:
1333:
1299:
1150:
1126:
1092:
1063:
1029:
1014:
950:
715:
334:
298:
254:
77:
69:
36:
1774:
So let me get this straight - you are saying that the sources contain information about whether or not
533:
1422:
1418:
1141:
796:
642:
562:
275:
270:
427:
423:
1439:
453:), followed by a huge list of dictionary definitions and hand-picked quotes, which are, of course,
176:
156:
2020:
1226:
1117:
875:
659:
655:
445:
437:
419:
292:
200:
1991:
1957:
1918:
1874:
1813:
1783:
1751:
1694:
1670:
1548:
1531:
Once hi, can you give an example of any edit diff which supports your assertion that the article
1351:
1106:
1077:
1044:
887:
710:
For the avoidance of doubt, i don't think this is an accuarate summary of IZAK's comments above.
245:- In theory, I could see a few articles regarding "definitions" of some sort. The "definition of
2028:
1910:
1865:
1456:
1225:
itself is independently notable, which is what would be required to support this article beyond
871:
843:
810:
681:
458:
454:
225:
2032:
1617:
development that nobody was challenging, and then
Oncenawhile's own interactions with Jayjg.
1493:
1485:
770:
394:
374:
354:
229:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2054:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2024:
1869:
1452:
847:
814:
743:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1972:
1938:
1892:
1878:
1794:
1761:
1729:
1704:
1650:
1579:
1518:
1391:
1329:
1295:
1213:
Klier is similar to Engel but he spends even less time worrying over an exact definition of
1146:
1122:
1088:
1059:
1025:
1010:
946:
917:, in "Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882", Cambridge University Press, 31 Mar 2011
855:
711:
684:
is another question. I understand that you are making a case to keep this article based on
330:
250:
1645:
1606:
1557:
1536:
1513:
1362:
685:
616:
204:
1626:
1375:
1269:
973:
786:
697:
628:
508:
281:
859:
600:
541:
466:
462:
1435:
752:
671:
645:(and please do not cite "other stuff exists", because in this case all the other stuff
586:
58:
1512:?! The reason why that article doesn't make that statement is because that article is
604:
545:
1987:
1953:
1914:
1809:
1779:
1747:
1690:
1666:
1544:
1481:
1347:
1316:
1102:
1073:
1040:
883:
991:
otherwise and use it to establish notability of an article on the specific topic of
484:
itself is the subject of notable academic coverage. Whether something is or is not
316:. So it's not surprising that now such an article has been created, he is not a fan.
1489:
766:
390:
370:
350:
921:
115:
1844:
1055:
851:
830:
825:
because the usage of the term is already adequately covered in that article. --
784:
The article reveals to be mostly an essay utilizing the synthesis of sources. --
321:
305:
293:
Knowledge (XXG):Dicdef#When_word_or_phrase_itself_may_be_an_encyclopedic_subject
1775:
1743:
1619:
1540:
1368:
1262:
966:
690:
621:
501:
212:
941:
PS -Zargulon, you may remember that you indirectly suggested this article in
480:
aside, the difference between the topic of that article and this one is that
1477:
1196:
incorporate all the characteristics ascribed to the as-yet-unnamed set, the
748:
667:
582:
444:, enough to fill out a real independent encyclopedia article. Specifically
209:
There is no academic consensus regarding the definition of the term "pogrom"
54:
935:, in International handbook of violence research, Volume 1 (Springer, 2005)
1072:
Once, please answer my question, it would really help. Thanks in advance.
52:. I would be happy to userfy the page if anyone wants to merge any of it.
1101:
Once, please cooperate and try to answer my question. Thanks in advance.
1563:, but that proves nothing on its own. I would point to examples such as
1473:
304:
The proposer is "involved" here - he and I have been debating edits at
680:
IZAK, I agree that those other things exist. Whether they follow the
607:
are cited, but what's cited doesn't demonstrate the notability of the
565:
and its growing list of "Definitions of ____" articles on WP, such as
2016:
1724:
1598:
1532:
1509:
1460:
1412:
1257:
827:
822:
818:
553:
496:
450:
411:
309:
457:. The observations that the article is made up almost entirely of
1508:
Your argument is based on what you read at the wikipedia article
900:
Here are four scholarly essays devoted entirely to this subject:
2048:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
878:
there would need to be at least one significant scholarly work
619:
several times over, I'm not seeing support in policy for it...
207:. As a simple example of the latter, the first sentence states
1200:
As long as it is possible to identify a set of incidents that
1613:, which lasted under one hour. The other examples given are
611:
itself as an encyclopedic topic. And after a quick look at
472:
Once raises a parallel between this article and, for example
1290:
exactly the way they have been characterized in this article
1288:
And the points you've raised about what these essays say is
1609:; those interested should step through the entire May 2007
1145:, so without a model I'm not sure how I can illustrate it.
880:
entirely devoted to the question of "definitions of pogrom"
1236:
itself is independently notable from the general topic of
1244:
once again there is no indication that the definition of
1009:
entity of the WF really qualifes as, well, encyclopedic.
308:
for a year. A few months ago he wrote about the article
1614:
1610:
1602:
1573:
1570:
1567:
1564:
942:
111:
107:
103:
1198:
definition of the set itself need not become an issue.
175:
1248:is independently notable from the general topic of
1087:Please stop wasting time and just read the essays.
189:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2062:). No further edits should be made to this page.
499:article, but shouldn't be an article in itself.
1459:. Before reading this article, I read through
846:and cherry picking various sources to create
347:list of Language-related deletion discussions
8:
924:On the Study of Riots, Pogroms, and Genocide
387:list of Judaism-related deletion discussions
385:Note: This debate has been included in the
365:Note: This debate has been included in the
345:Note: This debate has been included in the
384:
367:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
364:
344:
1778:has read the sources? Thanks in advance.
1140:more notable than any other article in
1517:articles before concluding next time.
737:: While editors may disagree with the
767:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
299:Definitions_of_Pogrom#Further_reading
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
416:struck "merge" as it's already there
996:is also a different topic than the
1221:discussion that the definition of
579:Definitions of Japanese war crimes
224:. Yikes. What a silly exercise in
24:
870:For an article like this to pass
490:enhanced interrogation techniques
1888:Comment re suggestions of synth
649:exist!), so while you may feel
561:this is a good addition to the
1723:Frankly, the biggest issue at
821:. (And no, do not merge into
613:Definitions of science fiction
575:Definitions of science fiction
1:
943:this comment in May last year
1746:has not? Thanks in advance.
529:this is truly encyclopedic,
482:the definition of terrorism
203:, and consists entirely of
2079:
2041:02:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1996:15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1981:14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1962:10:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1947:09:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1923:00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1901:00:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1818:10:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1803:09:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1788:00:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1675:10:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1659:10:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1635:05:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1411:Tidy up and merge it into
757:07:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
269:For similar articles, see
64:18:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1883:08:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1857:17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
1770:20:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1756:16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1738:15:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1713:15:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1699:13:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1588:12:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1553:00:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1527:00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1498:20:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1444:18:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1427:08:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1400:07:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1384:05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1356:23:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1338:22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1320:19:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1304:07:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1278:05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1155:08:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1131:02:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1111:23:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1097:23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1082:22:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1068:21:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1049:20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1034:20:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
1019:19:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
982:05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
955:19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
892:18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
863:17:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
835:16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
801:15:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
777:08:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
720:00:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
706:14:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
676:08:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
637:04:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
591:04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
517:03:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
399:02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
379:02:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
359:02:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
339:00:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
259:22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
238:22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
216:22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
2051:Please do not modify it.
567:Definitions of Palestine
474:Definitions of terrorism
288:Definitions of terrorism
32:Please do not modify it.
571:Definitions of fascism
247:new religious movement
1543:? Thanks in advance.
1470:Definitions of Pogrom
1465:Definitions of Pogrom
609:definitions of pogrom
199:The article violates
78:Definitions of Pogrom
70:Definitions of Pogrom
1913:? Thanks in advance
1142:Category:Definitions
643:Category:Definitions
563:Category:Definitions
276:Genocide definitions
271:Category:Definitions
906:What's in a Pogrom?
842:Clear violation of
2013:Merge and redirect
1611:nine-edit exchange
915:What was a Pogrom?
599:Nobody's doubting
291:. All comply with
48:The result was
2027:and particularly
1661:
1637:
1605:diff as proof of
1539:by the nominator
931:Werner Bergmann,
417:
401:
381:
361:
273:, which includes
205:original research
2070:
2053:
1854:
1849:
1642:
1633:
1631:
1624:
1597:Fact check: At
1596:
1382:
1380:
1373:
1361:Once, this is a
1276:
1274:
1267:
980:
978:
971:
794:
789:
773:
704:
702:
695:
635:
633:
626:
515:
513:
506:
415:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
62:
34:
2078:
2077:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2060:deletion review
2049:
1850:
1845:
1627:
1620:
1618:
1376:
1369:
1367:
1363:personal attack
1270:
1263:
1261:
974:
967:
965:
792:
787:
775:
771:
698:
691:
689:
629:
622:
620:
509:
502:
500:
282:Militant (word)
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
53:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2076:
2074:
2065:
2064:
2044:
2043:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1970:
1967:
1936:
1933:
1929:
1904:
1903:
1885:
1859:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1615:normal article
1576:
1501:
1500:
1446:
1429:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1358:
1341:
1340:
1322:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1293:
1286:
1254:
1253:
1241:
1230:
1211:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
939:
938:
937:
928:
922:Paul R Brass,
919:
910:
895:
894:
865:
837:
803:
779:
765:
759:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
664:general reader
594:
593:
520:
403:
402:
382:
362:
328:
327:
326:
325:
317:
302:
295:
261:
240:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2075:
2063:
2061:
2057:
2052:
2046:
2045:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2011:
2010:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1971:
1968:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1937:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1886:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1860:
1858:
1855:
1853:
1848:
1842:
1839:
1838:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1726:
1722:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1663:
1662:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1647:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1636:
1632:
1630:
1625:
1623:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1565:
1562:
1559:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1430:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1414:
1409:
1408:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1379:
1374:
1372:
1364:
1359:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1273:
1268:
1266:
1259:
1251:
1247:
1242:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1003:
999:
994:
989:
983:
979:
977:
972:
970:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
934:
929:
927:
925:
920:
918:
916:
911:
909:
907:
904:David Engel,
902:
901:
899:
898:
897:
896:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
866:
864:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
838:
836:
833:
832:
829:
824:
820:
816:
812:
807:
804:
802:
799:
798:
795:
790:
783:
780:
778:
774:
768:
763:
760:
758:
754:
750:
745:
740:
736:
733:
732:
721:
717:
713:
709:
708:
707:
703:
701:
696:
694:
687:
683:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
652:
651:uncomfortable
648:
644:
640:
639:
638:
634:
632:
627:
625:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
595:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
528:
524:
521:
519:
518:
514:
512:
507:
505:
498:
493:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:WP:OTHERSTUFF
475:
470:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
447:
443:
439:
433:
432:WP:OTHERSTUFF
429:
425:
421:
414:
413:
408:
405:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
363:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
323:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:
296:
294:
290:
289:
284:
283:
278:
277:
272:
268:
267:
265:
262:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
241:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2050:
2047:
2033:Stuartyeates
2012:
1887:
1868:and perhaps
1861:
1851:
1846:
1840:
1628:
1621:
1448:
1431:
1410:
1377:
1370:
1360:
1324:
1312:
1289:
1271:
1264:
1255:
1249:
1245:
1237:
1233:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1206:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1181:
1139:
1007:encyclopedia
1006:
1001:
997:
992:
975:
968:
932:
923:
914:
913:John Klier,
905:
879:
867:
839:
826:
805:
797:(yada, yada)
785:
781:
761:
738:
734:
699:
692:
663:
650:
646:
630:
623:
608:
558:
549:
537:
530:
526:
522:
510:
503:
494:
485:
481:
471:
441:
435:
409:
406:
329:
313:
286:
280:
274:
263:
242:
230:Plot Spoiler
221:
208:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1973:Oncenawhile
1939:Oncenawhile
1893:Oncenawhile
1795:Oncenawhile
1762:Oncenawhile
1730:Oncenawhile
1705:Oncenawhile
1651:Oncenawhile
1580:Oncenawhile
1519:Oncenawhile
1484:studies in
1392:Oncenawhile
1330:Oncenawhile
1296:Oncenawhile
1147:Oncenawhile
1123:John Carter
1089:Oncenawhile
1060:Oncenawhile
1056:Talk:Pogrom
1026:Oncenawhile
1011:John Carter
947:Oncenawhile
850:violation--
712:Oncenawhile
658:, and even
534:WP:NOTPAPER
476:. Putting
410:merge into
331:Oncenawhile
322:Talk:Pogrom
306:Talk:Pogrom
251:John Carter
163:free images
1776:User:Jayjg
1744:User:Jayjg
1541:User:Jayjg
1419:Victor Yus
998:definition
993:definition
772:reply here
461:and other
428:WP:COPYVIO
424:WP:POVFORK
2056:talk page
2021:WP:DICDEF
1843:per nom.
1482:Holocaust
1478:terrorism
1436:IRWolfie-
1227:WP:DICDEF
1118:WP:BURDEN
876:WP:FRINGE
762:Weak keep
660:WP:IGNORE
656:WP:BEBOLD
552:the main
540:it cites
486:terrorism
446:WP:DICDEF
438:WP:DICDEF
420:WP:DICDEF
391:• Gene93k
371:• Gene93k
351:• Gene93k
201:WP:DICDEF
59:talk page
37:talk page
2058:or in a
2029:WP:SYNTH
1988:Zargulon
1954:Zargulon
1915:Zargulon
1911:WP:SYNTH
1866:WP:Synth
1810:Zargulon
1780:Zargulon
1748:Zargulon
1691:Zargulon
1667:Zargulon
1644:I said "
1545:Zargulon
1537:WP:OWNed
1514:WP:OWNed
1457:WP:SYNTH
1348:Zargulon
1317:Ynhockey
1103:Zargulon
1074:Zargulon
1041:Zargulon
884:Zargulon
872:WP:SYNTH
844:WP:SYNTH
811:WP:SYNTH
739:contents
682:WP:RULES
548:, while
525:because
459:WP:SYNTH
455:WP:SYNTH
426:and has
226:WP:Synth
122:View log
39:or in a
2025:WP:FORK
1870:WP:Soap
1490:Yoninah
1474:fascism
1453:WP:FORK
1325:Comment
1189:pogroms
933:Pogroms
848:WP:NPOV
815:WP:FORK
806:Delete.
782:Delete.
744:WP:NPOV
544:and is
169:WPÂ refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
2017:Pogrom
1875:Drsmoo
1862:Delete
1841:Delete
1725:Pogrom
1646:WP:OWN
1607:WP:OWN
1599:pogrom
1558:WP:OWN
1533:Pogrom
1510:Pogrom
1486:Hebrew
1461:Pogrom
1449:Delete
1413:pogrom
1313:Delete
1258:Pogrom
1250:pogrom
1246:pogrom
1238:pogrom
1234:pogrom
1223:pogrom
1215:pogrom
1207:pogrom
1002:really
868:Delete
852:Shrike
840:Delete
823:Pogrom
819:Pogrom
793:crewer
686:WP:IAR
617:WP:NOT
554:Pogrom
497:Pogrom
451:Pogrom
412:Pogrom
407:Delete
310:Pogrom
243:Delete
222:Delete
213:Jayjg
141:Google
99:delete
50:delete
2015:into
1847:epzik
1432:Merge
860:WP:RX
601:WP:RS
542:WP:RS
467:WP:OR
463:WP:OR
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
2037:talk
2019:per
1992:talk
1977:talk
1958:talk
1943:talk
1919:talk
1897:talk
1879:talk
1864:per
1814:talk
1799:talk
1784:talk
1766:talk
1752:talk
1734:talk
1709:talk
1695:talk
1671:talk
1655:talk
1603:this
1584:talk
1569:and
1549:talk
1523:talk
1494:talk
1476:and
1455:and
1451:per
1440:talk
1423:talk
1396:talk
1352:talk
1334:talk
1300:talk
1210:etc.
1151:talk
1127:talk
1107:talk
1093:talk
1078:talk
1064:talk
1045:talk
1030:talk
1015:talk
1005:the
951:talk
888:talk
874:and
856:talk
831:not?
788:brew
753:talk
749:IZAK
735:NOTE
716:talk
672:talk
668:IZAK
647:does
605:WP:V
603:and
587:talk
583:IZAK
546:WP:V
536:and
523:Keep
442:term
436:Per
418:per
395:talk
375:talk
355:talk
335:talk
285:and
264:Keep
255:talk
234:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
55:J04n
2031:.
1932:RS.
1622:Zad
1535:is
1371:Zad
1265:Zad
1260:.
1194:not
1058:.
969:Zad
817:of
693:Zad
624:Zad
559:(e)
550:(d)
538:(c)
531:(b)
527:(a)
504:Zad
191:TWL
120:– (
2039:)
2023:,
1994:)
1979:)
1960:)
1945:)
1921:)
1899:)
1881:)
1816:)
1801:)
1786:)
1768:)
1754:)
1736:)
1711:)
1697:)
1673:)
1657:)
1629:68
1586:)
1551:)
1525:)
1496:)
1442:)
1425:)
1398:)
1378:68
1354:)
1336:)
1302:)
1272:68
1219:no
1202:do
1153:)
1129:)
1109:)
1095:)
1080:)
1066:)
1047:)
1032:)
1017:)
976:68
953:)
945:.
890:)
858:)/
755:)
718:)
700:68
674:)
631:68
589:)
577:;
573:;
569:;
511:68
397:)
389:.
377:)
369:.
357:)
349:.
337:)
312::
279:,
266::
257:)
236:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
2035:(
1990:(
1975:(
1956:(
1941:(
1917:(
1895:(
1877:(
1852:8
1812:(
1797:(
1782:(
1764:(
1750:(
1732:(
1707:(
1693:(
1669:(
1653:(
1582:(
1547:(
1521:(
1492:(
1438:(
1421:(
1415:.
1394:(
1350:(
1332:(
1298:(
1292:!
1252:.
1240:.
1229:.
1149:(
1125:(
1105:(
1091:(
1076:(
1062:(
1043:(
1028:(
1013:(
949:(
886:(
854:(
828:Y
769:|
751:(
714:(
670:(
585:(
434:.
393:(
373:(
353:(
333:(
301:.
253:(
232:(
195:;
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.