The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pogrom. First off, there's not enough WP:TROUT in the ocean to handle this AfD properly. Basically, what this comes down to is can Pogrom cover this material adequately, or do we need a separate list article (and if we do, what should that be called). I don't know if this is a POVFORK or not, but regardless, a distinct list doesn't seem to be required. Merge the material into Pogrom, and leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of events named pogrom[edit]

List of events named pogrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointy POVFORK based on Original research. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom and Talk:Pogrom for this editor's history. See also related AFD from same editor Zargulon (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not especially useful seeing as no reasons were given. Zerotalk 23:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean, if anything? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT, WP:POVFORK and WP:OR are links to Wikipedia pages. They are not arguments. Explain why it violates WP:POINT (what point is being made and why is it disruptive?). Say which article covering similar material this is a WP:POVFORK of and explain why this one and not the other one deserves the "POV" description. Specify what WP:OR is involved in writing the article, and why that can't be corrected by editing instead of deleting. You can't expect to be able to nominate articles for deletion without doing any work. Zerotalk 00:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, I think you getting distracted by focusing on me - what "work" I should do, or what I can or can't "expect" - rather than whether the article should be deleted. Violation of WP:POINT, WP:POVFORK and WP:OR are grounds to delete an article. If these were being violated very subtly I might feel I needed to go into detail. However, in this case I feel they are being violated blatantly, and I don't feel the need to go into detail. Some other editors agree; you apparently don't. Suit yourself. But if you are going to edit this page, please focus on the merits of the article rather than my work ethic. Zargulon (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your nomination focussed on a particular user, I find your response unacceptable. Zerotalk 07:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction Zero, my nomination focussed on deleting the article "List of events named pogrom". Please try to stay on topic. Zargulon (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please, understand that people here can read. You wrote "related AFD from same editor" and "this editor's history" (linking to WP:POINTY). Those are about the editor and the last one is a clear accusation. You can't even tell the truth about words of your own right in front of our noses. Zerotalk 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your interpretation of my remarks, they "focussed" on explaining why the article should be deleted. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks in advance Zargulon (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - it's your link which is "entirely irrelevant" - the link in my nomination points elsewhere. Zargulon (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to a deletion discussion of another article and called it "original deletion discussion" as if that discussion was about an article like this one. It wasn't. I linked to a copy of the deleted article as a courtesy to readers so they can look for themselves instead of being misled by you. I am struggling to see a good-faith explanation for your behavior. Maybe you can provide one. Zerotalk 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your new objection actually makes sense and I have changed the nomination accordingly. Zargulon (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction Well, no, and I'm happy to be "investigated" but this is not the place to make such requests. Please stop using diversionary tactics, it just wastes everyone's time. Zargulon (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just be clear about this. I've been an administrator for almost 10 years and I take the rules about administrative action very seriously. That's why I decided, on the basis that I sometimes edit on subjects related to pogroms, that I shouldn't immediately block you. If I was "uninvolved", I would not have hesitated. Canvassing is the curse of the AfD board and must be treated severely. I still might file charges against you. Zerotalk 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, please save your posturing and try to come up with some sort of opinion on whether the article should be deleted. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest this editor be investigated: He has a very suspicious editing history. 77 edits in 7 years. Yet suddenly pops up to participate here and in another deletion discussion by the same nominator here. Something is very fishy. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once, could you try to explain what argument you are making against the deletion of the article with this statement? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet investigations are right here, bud. I commented on both entries because they are right next to each other in today's AFD log. So unless you feel you have enough evidence to ask for an investigation, I'd ask that you withdraw your completely uncalled for personal attack. Wieno (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that would be acceptable to the article creator, since it would entail removing exactly the items from the list which he is trying to make the WP:POINT that they have been called pogroms by someone sometime. It is usually better to delete POVFORKs which are unlikely to be made compliant. We can then see if he or anyone else wants to create an article according to your suggestion. Zargulon (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once, please review WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OR, it will save a lot of time. Thanks in advance.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a fork of Pogrom, with clarification. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't be nominating this article if it was a list of pogroms. However, it is a list of "events named" pogrom, the aim being to circumvent WP:RS, WP:V, WP:DICDEF and most of all WP:UNDUE by creating an article with a highly ambiguous title specially designed for material that doesn't satisfy these guidelines. If I haven't explained clearly, I recommend you take a look through the Talk:Pogrom to find out more about this guy's WP:POINT. Zargulon (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would repeat the argument we had at Talk:Pogrom, with Once trying to adduce his favourite, originally-researched "definitions" of pogrom to get the list to contain events which validate his political opinions, and everybody else trying to restrict the list to what reliable sources describe as pogroms. Not that I'm a crytal ball or anything, it's just an educated guess. Zargulon (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's assume for the sake of argument that he's the worst editor ever. How would that be relevant to this AFD? We don't delete content to deal with problems with editors or on the notion that content is prone to editor problems. See WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. If there are persistent problems with one editor ignoring consensus, then you deal with it by discussing, and if that doesn't work then by reverting, and if that doesn't work then by administrator intervention by request at the edit warring noticeboard or ANI. postdlf (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AFD nomination is based on WP:POVFORK. POVFORKs are created by editors, so you could say they all involve 'problems with editors', but that doesn't mean we shouldn't delete them. Once's editing history is relevant only because it helps substantiate that this is a POVFORK. Zargulon (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That really just seems like a WP:VAGUEWAVE. You haven't made the claim that the mere act of listing pogroms is inherently POV, and there is no list at pogrom so this isn't a POV duplicate spin on content that already exists. So the solution to me still seems to fix the list, as is the case with most POV problems. Particularly given that you claim this is one lone editor's work and there is a strong consensus of multiple editors who disagree with his approach...so fix it. Remove anything from the list that you would not put into Category:Pogroms and add anything in that category structure that's not already in this list. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The List of events named pogrom isn't a fixable List of pogroms article with the wrong name, it is a different article. It sounds to me like it would be more consistent with your perspective to recommend delete without prejudice to creating List of Pogroms. Zargulon (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So for you it comes down to a WP:TNT argument? You should've led with that. Could you elaborate as to why this page is unfixable (without saying "this one editor will interfere")?postdlf (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually said exactly the opposite - I don't want to blow something up and start again on the same thing. I want to blow this thing up, while allowing something different that people apparently want, List of pogroms, to exist. Zargulon (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if there's literally anything in that list that will make it to the final page, then it's probably best to keep the page history, no? Wieno (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may not be a "final" page. A page should be created by someone who intends to edit it, not by someone who merely believes it should exist. I don't think there is such an editor for a putative List of pogroms page at this moment. I am not really interested in editing a List of Pogroms (except to make sure it is WP:RS/WP:OR/WP:DICDEF compliant, and Oncenawhile apparently isn't either. Oncenawhile has been keen on storing deleted material in his userspace in the past, and that seems to me to be an adequate and appropriate way of preserving the current contents of this article, particularly seeing that it is mostly his work. Zargulon (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart, please could you explain your perspective in more detail? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pointy because pogrom is a poorly-defined loan word laced with geo-political loading and connotation; it appears to be used primarily in political mud-slinging matches. It's a fork because of the existence of List of genocides, List of events named massacres, etc. Note that genocide and massacre both have settled, fixed, widely understood meanings which don't vary between national variants of english as pogrom does. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a sourced version your first sentence should be included in the Pogrom article, allowing this article to flow from it. This article should not consider that point though, but rather act as a wholly uncontroversial sub-article of Pogrom listing all those events where the pogrom tag has been commonly used. It's also worth noting that a number of the events in the list are exclusively known in English using the word pogrom - e.g. those that occurred in Tsarist Russia between 1880 and 1906. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In some national varieties of English, maybe. The official NZ encyclopedia doesn't use the term, calling it persecution in Tsarist Russia from the 1880s.[8] Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though it does appear to here. Wieno (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion for entry in to list is based on WP:weasel wording, a clear WP:REDFLAG that this is a WP:POVFORK for those who do not have time to look at Talk:Pogrom. Useful, reliably sourced, encyclopedic lists don't contain subjective criteria such as "one of the commonly accepted names includes the word pogrom" whose sole purpose is to circumvent WP:RS and WP:OR Zargulon (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you say so before?! If that's your problem then change it in the article. That wording just comes from List of events named massacres. Noone is stopping you from changing it. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once, I've now said this several times, but it would really help if you took a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. It would save you so much time in making arguments which are explicitly refuted by major WP guidelines. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cirt, please could you explain your perspective in more detail? Zargulon (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like an ideal compromise to me. Zargulon (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting idea but needs wide discussion as it would imply wikipedia consensus that the only events that should use the name pogrom are "events in Russia between 1800 and 1914" (to quote from Peterkingiron). Such consensus would mean a full overhaul of the article Pogrom (which currently applies a much more open policy for events named in the lead), and would mean renaming more than 30 articles which use pogrom in the title but don't qualify under this definition (many of these are linked in this list article).
It opens the question of how we could achieve a real wikipedia consensus on how to use the word pogrom throughout the encyclopedia. It would be a valuable achievement if we could do it.
For the moment, the way this list article is written (and its name "events named") reflects the breath of the way the word pogrom is used throughout wikipedia in more than 50 articles.
Oncenawhile (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's restrict this discussion to whether or not List of events named pogrom should be deleted, Once. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. How about List of anti-Jewish pogroms? I don't think there's much controversy, for example, that the Kielce pogrom constitutes a pogrom. Wieno (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is ok by me too, although I'm not sure there's any demand for such an article. Zargulon (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well as I understood it, your main objection to the article is not that a list of pogroms shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but that including events targeting non-Jews would allow the article to POV fork away from the accepted definition of pogrom at the main article Pogrom. Presumably if anti-Jewish was in the title, then it would make it very, very difficult to fork the article away from consensus. And then we could add a redirect from List of pogroms to this article. It seems that by the consensus definition, while not every event targeting Jews is a pogrom, every pogrom targets Jews. So such a rename should presumably get rid of like 80% of the problem, no? And while we're at it, does Oncenawhile have any objection to this proposal? Wieno (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article "pogrom" which you link to states in the lead that "The word is now also sometimes used to describe publicly sanctioned purgative attacks against non-Jewish ethnic or religious groups", and then mentions a number of non-Jewish pogroms. This list article simply follows that usage. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an 'objection', Once, and if so, what exactly is it? Zargulon (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is indentifying factual inaccuracies in Wieno's description of the article Pogrom. These inaccuracies invalidate Wieno's proposal.
If you are asking for my view here, it is that "pogrom" does not have an accepted definition (per many scholars who confirm the same that I can provide on request). So across wikipedia we have two options: (1) Agree via consensus a specific definition for the word and apply such usage across all articles, or (2) Follow RS for each usage across wikipedia (ie so if a reasonable number of RS use the word for an event, so do we). This list article follows (2), which is currently what is implemented wiki-wide. If Wieno wants to move to option (1), we need to gain consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so be it, Wieno. Thanks for trying. Zargulon (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article isn't a list of Pogroms, and my objections have nothing to do with who is the target of one event or another. I advise against a rename because of a lack of demand, and I certainly wouldn't accept a rename without a complete purge. While some of the events might find their way back into a putative List of pogroms or even List of anti-Jewish pogroms, the structure and basis for the page would have to be completely different. Zargulon (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zargulon, no other editor here has any idea what specifically you object to in the article. Even Wieno seems to have the wrong end of the stick, which is very surprising... We know what your objections are not, so perhaps you could now tell us what your objections are - in detail. What do you think a list of pogroms should look like? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once, what are you talking about? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you a question. To rephrase: If wikipedia is to include a list of pogroms, what format would be appropriate in your view? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once, it would include only things that all reliable sources which list the pogroms include in their lists. I hope this is clear enough for you to now answer Wieno's question. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you propose we would ignore WP:RS referring to selected events as pogroms if we couldn't find a list of pogroms including said event? I read WP:LSC differently.
Can you show me examples of other lists in wikipedia which would qualify under the criteria you propose?
Oncenawhile (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once, I really have no idea what you are talking about. Now please either make on-topic contributions for this AFD page or desist entirely. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me simplify for you. Above you proposed your preferred criteria for the list: "include only things that all reliable sources... include in their lists". My question is can you point to other wikipedia lists which apply similarly stringent criteria? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me simplify for you. This is the WP:AFD page for List of events named pogrom. Edits on this page should address the question of whether or not Lists of events named pogrom should be deleted. Please do not stray from this topic to make your WP:POINT, it is an abuse. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I see you've worked out that your suggestion to change the criteria in the list undermined your suggestion to delete the list.
Perhaps we could refocus on my earlier point focused on the AFD: "no other editor here has any idea what specifically you object to in the article". In other words, why delete when we can just change the criteria through discussion at talk?
Oncenawhile (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once, could you please indicate where you believe I made a "suggestion to change the criteria in the list", whatever that means. Or perhaps we could focus on whether this article should be deleted. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More