Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom

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 delete. I would be happy to userfy the page if anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of Pogrom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL;

The article violates WP:DICDEF, and consists entirely of original research. As a simple example of the latter, the first sentence states There is no academic consensus regarding the definition of the term "pogrom", 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yikes. What a silly exercise in WP:Synth. 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. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In theory, I could see a few articles regarding "definitions" of some sort. The "definition of new religious movement" 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. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- For similar articles, see Category:Definitions, which includes Genocide definitions, Militant (word) and Definitions of terrorism. All comply with Wikipedia:Dicdef#When_word_or_phrase_itself_may_be_an_encyclopedic_subject
- 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 Definitions_of_Pogrom#Further_reading.
- The proposer is "involved" here - he and I have been debating edits at Talk:Pogrom for a year. A few months ago he wrote about the article Pogrom: "Please don't turn this article into a "definition of pogrom" article, which it is not. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)". So it's not surprising that now such an article has been created, he is not a fan.
- 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 Talk:Pogrom). 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.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~merge into Pogrom~~ struck "merge" as it's already there per WP:DICDEF 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 WP:POVFORK and has WP:COPYVIO 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 WP:OTHERSTUFF.
Per WP:DICDEF, 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 term, enough to fill out a real independent encyclopedia article. Specifically WP:DICDEF 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 Pogrom), followed by a huge list of dictionary definitions and hand-picked quotes, which are, of course, WP:SYNTH. The observations that the article is made up almost entirely of WP:SYNTH and other WP:OR 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 WP:OR, 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.
Once raises a parallel between this article and, for example Definitions of terrorism. Putting WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, the difference between the topic of that article and this one is that the definition of terrorism itself is the subject of notable academic coverage. Whether something is or is not terrorism and is therefore covered by international crime law or the Geneva Convention or would make the testimony obtained with "enhanced interrogation techniques" 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.
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 Pogrom article, but shouldn't be an article in itself. Zad68 03:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because (a) this is truly encyclopedic, (b) WP:NOTPAPER and (c) it cites WP:RS and is WP:V, while (d) the main Pogrom 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, (e) this is a good addition to the Category:Definitions and its growing list of "Definitions of ____" articles on WP, such as Definitions of Palestine; Definitions of fascism; Definitions of science fiction; Definitions of Japanese war crimes, 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, IZAK (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's doubting WP:RS and WP:V are cited, but what's cited doesn't demonstrate the notability of the definitions of pogrom itself as an encyclopedic topic. And after a quick look at Definitions of science fiction... 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 WP:NOT several times over, I'm not seeing support in policy for it... Zad68 04:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zad: You can't deny that the genre of "Definitions of ____" now exists on WP as per all the examples in Category:Definitions (and please do not cite "other stuff exists", because in this case all the other stuff does exist!), so while you may feel uncomfortable 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 WP:BEBOLD, and even WP:IGNORE if need be, so that many articles were quite awkward and unpolished for a long time, but of obvious interest to a general reader (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. IZAK (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, I agree that those other things exist. Whether they follow the WP:RULES is another question. I understand that you are making a case to keep this article based on WP:IAR, 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia-wide policy discussion venues. Zad68 14:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, i don't think this is an accuarate summary of IZAK's comments above. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While editors may disagree with the contents 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 WP:NPOV 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 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. IZAK (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. 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. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article reveals to be mostly an essay utilizing the synthesis of sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 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 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 WP:SYNTH 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 WP:FORK of Pogrom. (And no, do not merge into Pogrom because the usage of the term is already adequately covered in that article. -- Y not? 16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNTH and cherry picking various sources to create WP:NPOV violation--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an article like this to pass WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE there would need to be at least one significant scholarly work entirely devoted to the question of "definitions of pogrom". 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. Zargulon (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are four scholarly essays devoted entirely to this subject:

PS -Zargulon, you may remember that you indirectly suggested this article in this comment in May last year. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zad68 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 otherwise and use it to establish notability of an article on the specific topic of definition 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 is also a different topic than the definition 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 really 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 the encyclopedia entity of the WF really qualifes as, well, encyclopedic. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zargulon (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Talk:Pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once, please answer my question, it would really help. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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). Please stop wasting time and just read the essays. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once, please cooperate and try to answer my question. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 WP:BURDEN 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 existing policies and guidelines regarding notability be addressed by those who seek to keep the article in its current state. John Carter (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 more notable than any other article in Category:Definitions, so without a model I'm not sure how I can illustrate it. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 pogroms 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 not incorporate all the characteristics ascribed to the as-yet-unnamed set, the definition of the set itself need not become an issue. As long as it is possible to identify a set of incidents that do 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, pogrom 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, etc.
Klier is similar to Engel but he spends even less time worrying over an exact definition of pogrom in this 400+ page book. Klier uses the discussion as a framework to discuss pogroms in various societies and locations. There is no discussion that the definition of pogrom itself is independently notable, which is what would be required to support this article beyond WP:DICDEF.
The particular Brass essay provided is very lightweight and once again no argument is made that the topic of the definition of pogrom itself is independently notable from the general topic of pogrom.
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 once again there is no indication that the definition of pogrom is independently notable from the general topic of pogrom.

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 Pogrom. Zad68 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zad, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Bergmann and Engel are both standalone essays, contributed to larger works edited by others.

And the points you've raised about what these essays say is exactly the way they have been characterized in this article!

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—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. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 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 the interests of integrity to actually read the article and sources before jumping to vote in support of Jayjg. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zargulon (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once, this is a personal attack 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 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. Zad68 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy up and merge it into pogrom. 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. Victor Yus (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Looks like a SYNTH of sources into a distinct topic, but a selective merge into Pogrom looks like it would keep the useful content, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK and WP:SYNTH. Before reading this article, I read through Pogrom, 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 Definitions of Pogrom 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 Definitions of Pogrom 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 fascism and terrorism, 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 Holocaust studies in Hebrew, I wonder if the Israelis debate the definition of the word "pogrom" as vociferously as the Americans. Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is based on what you read at the wikipedia article Pogrom?! The reason why that article doesn't make that statement is because that article is WP:OWNed 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 articles before concluding next time. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once hi, can you give an example of any edit diff which supports your assertion that the article Pogrom is WP:OWNed by the nominator User:Jayjg? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN 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 [1], but that proves nothing on its own. I would point to examples such as [2] 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. [3] and [4]). Then since i've been involved there has been a consistent attempt to fight change, with the worst offence being [5] 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.

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. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check: At pogrom, 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 this diff as proof of WP:OWN; those interested should step through the entire May 2007 nine-edit exchange, which lasted under one hour. The other examples given are normal article development that nobody was challenging, and then Oncenawhile's own interactions with Jayjg. Zad68 05:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 I said "WP:OWN 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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? Zargulon (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zargulon (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the biggest issue at Pogrom 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 User:Jayjg has not? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight - you are saying that the sources contain information about whether or not User:Jayjg has read the sources? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zargulon (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. epzik8 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Synth and perhaps WP:Soap 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. Drsmoo (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re suggestions of synth 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 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once, can you please explain why a proposed article cannot be both "based on reliable sources" and also WP:SYNTH? Thanks in advance Zargulon (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

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 RS.

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.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zargulon (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zargulon (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Pogrom per WP:DICDEF, WP:FORK and particularly WP:SYNTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2013 (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.