Talk:Alexandrian riots (38 CE)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion

this needs to be deleted. it's about a bible story as if it was fact, for petes sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I've restored the article's longstanding name, per WP:COMMONNAME. As the sources in the article itself show, "Alexandrian pogrom" is the name commonly used by university and other academic publishers. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wp:commonname googlebooks analysis is below:
Summary - "Alexandrian riots" is more than four times more common than "Alexandrian pogrom".

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, I should draw attention to a previous RFC thread: Talk:Pogrom/Archive_2#What_does_the_word_pogrom_imply.3F_.28RFC.29. In the RFC,
  • Some editors (Gatoclass, Plotspoiler, and Jayjg) proposed that all that matters when discussing article titles is the policy WP:COMMONNAME
  • Other editors (Oncenawhile, Nishidani, Softlavender and Greyshark09) proposed that the issue is more complex and extra care should be taken when using the word pogrom in article titles. To quote other editors:
    • "I think, especially for the titling of articles, the definition should be very very narrow. Yes to 19th- and (early) 20th-century organized group attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire. All others must display multiple reliable sources that the title used on the article is the accepted scholarly name, or if none available, at least the only common name, for the event the article covers. It's not a term that should be lightly used in an article title, any more than "Lynching" in an article title" (Softlavender)
    • "Pogrom sounds as retrospective implementation of originally Russian term for much earlier events in a different location. The same way Alexandrian riots were nicknamed pogroms by some user, but i'm not sure it is a correct term per WP:COMMONNAME, even though those indeed were genocidal massacres of the 1st century CE." (Greyshark09)
    • "This is a complex issue, and the use of 'pogrom' (even in the instance of the Egyptian riot mentioned by Pliny in this article), is contested by many scholars" (Nishidani)
This input is not needed for any discussion of this article, as the WP:COMMONNAME analysis is crystal clear, but is provided as hopefully helpful context. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A final point on this. The first source Jayjg added to support the usage of the word pogrom in the article title was a 2005 essay by Sandra Gambetti. Ms. Gambetti subsequently wrote a book in 2009 titled: "The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction", in which she writes in the introduction (p11-12):

"A final note on the use of terminology related to anti-Semitism. Scholars have frequently labeled the Alexandrian events of 38 C.E. as the first pogrom in history and have often explained them in terms of an ante litteram explosion of anti-Semitism. This work deliberately avoids any words or expressions that in any way connect, explicitly or implicitly, the Alexandrian events of 38 C.E. to later events in modern or contemporary Jewish experience, for which that terminology was created. The reason for this choice is not ideological but concrete. The reconstruction offered here, with institutional roles and responsibilities attributed differently from those other scholars have so far recognized, casts a different light on the entire historical scenario. To decide whether a word like pogrom, for example, is an appropriate term to describe the events that are studied here, requires a comparative re-discussion of two historical frames—the Alexandria of 38 C.E. and the Russia of the end of the nineteenth century. That wide and delicate topic cannot be addressed here and will be the subject of future research."

Ms. Gambetti says it much better than I can. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the original name, there is no consensus for the rename, per WP:COMMONNAME we go with what the preponderance of the sources say. Zad68 16:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zad, could you kindly explain to me why you are pretending that the original name of this article was "Alexandrian pogrom"? One look at the history shows that the original (going back to 2009[1]) was "Alexandrian riots". First changed in December by Jayg and reverted in January by Oncenawhile. This proposed move to Pogrom (made originally by Jayg in December 2012) is clearly contentions. Making a case for your proposed change would be more productive than trying to revert the change into the article without consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dlv999, actually this article was indeed originally named Alexandrian pogrom, see the diff of its creation with that name on 15 December 2005: diff. It kept that name for almost 6 1/2 years until it was changed 14 April 2012 by Once, and since then it's undergone (at least as of the time I'm typing this) five more moves, and it's back to its original name Alexandrian pogrom. Regardless, I agree with you that the important thing is that we're now having the appropriate discussion now regarding WP:COMMONNAME.

The issue with the proposal to rename this article to Alexandrian riots is that what's important is not just counting Google hits, see the explanation for this at WP:GOOGLE. The quality of the sources being examined matters. There's 11 of the best-quality sources in the article right now supporting pogrom. I see Sandra Gambetti quoted above in support of riots, what's actualy relevant is that she admits scholars do indeed frequently refer to the events as the Alexandrian pogrom, and that she herself is an outlier in her view - I agree with her on that point. Ms. Gambetti's own work actually supports pogrom. Zad68 18:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zad, please see my message at Talk:Persecutions of 1096. We are going to have to escalate this - this is utterly ridiculous. The facts above are crystal clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Zad68 points out, the article was originally called "Alexandrian pogrom", and has been called that for the vast majority of its 6 1/2 year history. In addition, there are 11 very high-quality sources in the article supporting the name "Alexandrian pogrom", but none in the article supporting the proposed name "Alexandrian riots". Also, the source quoted (Gambetti) itself notes that "Alexandrian pogrom" is the name commonly used by scholars. As well, WP:GOOGLE points out the problems with making arguments based on raw Google hits. And finally, when one actually clicks on the Google search link provided for "Alexandrian riots" and Jews and looks at the results, it turns out that a number are spurious (for example, references to "Alexandrian riots" of 356). Based on these points, there don't seem to be any compelling reasons for changing the name to "Alexandrian riots". Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These arguments have no substance:
  • The "11 very high-quality sources in the article supporting the name "Alexandrian pogrom"" which you added a few weeks ago when you changed the name are exactly the same as the first few articles which come up if you hit the googlebooks link I added above. Therefore as a random selection they can be assumed to be exactly the same quality as those in the other googlebooks link. The only difference is that there are 4 times more supporting the term "riots".
  • Gambetti does not state that pogrom is "the name commonly used by scholars". She uses the word "frequently". There is no suggestion as to which term is more frequent. The quote is pasted above.
  • If you click on the pogrom googlebooks link you'll see that there are also references to "Alexandrian pogrom" of 356. Take a random sample and you'll see that references to the events of 356 make up less that 10% in either sample, so cannot meaningfully affect the 4:1 ratio
The facts are crystal clear. Please do not ignore them. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Clicking on the link above produces ten sources on the first results page, including Classica Et Mediaevalia: Revue Danoise de Philologie Et D'Histoire (1993), Philonis Alexandrini Legatio Ad Gaium (1970), Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents (1998), That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (2004), and Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (1997), all of which use the phrase "Alexandrian pogrom", and none of which are used as the eleven sources in this article. Clearly, then, the claim that they "are exactly the same as the first few articles which come up if you hit the googlebooks link" is incorrect.
  2. Gambetti does indeed state the name is "frequently" used by scholars. The first definition given by thesaurus.com for "frequently" is "commonly". The words are clearly synonymous. What is not synonymous with the word "frequently", however, is the word "some".
  3. When one clicks on the "pogrom googlebooks link", one does not see any references to the "Alexandrian pogrom of 356". If there are such references, please name the book and the page number.
  4. When one goes to the last page of the links, one quickly realizes that "Alexandrian riots" and Jews produces 67 actual results (including references to other Alexandrian riots), while "Alexandrian pogrom" and Jews produces 49 results (inluding no references to other Alexandrian pogroms). Rather than a "4:1 ratio", the ratio is at best 1.3 to 1, a virtual tie, and that's without even examining the quality of the sources.
The facts are indeed "crystal clear". In the future, please make accurate statements and policy-based arguments. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be another case of a WP:GOOGLE problem with the initial argument for making the title change, which, once corrected, doesn't provide a convincing case. Zad68 04:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.3x is still more common than 1x. We can also add some hits from "Alexandrian riot" and Jews.
But stats aside, comments above suggest we should be focusing on quality not quantity. Here are a couple of sources which focus explicitly on this subject, using the fully capitalised name in the title of their works:
  • The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews, isbn=9004138463, Sandra Gambetti – 2009
  • Greek and Jew: Philo and the Alexandrian Riots of 38-41 CE, Schwartz, Matthew B., March 2000
Does anyone have anything similar for the pogrom name? None of the sources Jayjg added focus explicitly on this subject.
Oncenawhile (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.3 to 1 is not a significant difference here, and the "hits from "Alexandrian riot" and Jews" include references to the Alexandrian riot of 412, for example. And while we must indeed focus on quality, not just quantity, writing a book with the phrase in its title is not an indication that a source is of "higher quality", or that its usage of the phrase holds greater weight with WP:COMMONNAME. Moreover, regarding works that focus explicitly on the subject, the first author cited, Gambetti, also wrote an article that "focused explicitly on this subject" titled "Alexandrian Pogrom" for Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, and she herself explicitly states that the name "Alexandrian Pogrom" is frequently used by historians. Unsurprisingly, it actually is one of the sources I added. In addition, John M. G. Barclay (1996), in Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) writes a whole chapter that "focuses explicitly on this subject", titled "The Alexandrian Pogrom and Its Aftermath" - two dozen pages on the subject. Unsurprisingly, it is also one of the sources I added. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already covered Gambetti, not sure why she's coming up again? I'm also wondering why we're still spending time and energy on the article title, when it's clear there's no consensus or compelling argument to move. Agree the energy should be being spent on actually using the best-quality sources to expand article content. Zad68 01:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.3 to 1 is still more common. The references to other events are negligible and do not change the balance.
On Gambetti, a footnote to her introduction in her book "Alexandrian riots" is clear on Jayjg's point - she acknowledged that was contradicting her previous work by disavowing use of the term "pogrom". The fact that she was willing to make a public u-turn after further research suggests she must have felt pretty strongly.
The reason we are still debating this is because currently Greyshark, Nishidani and I all disagree with the article title as it is. There is no consensus for the change of the title to Alexandrian pogrom, and it must therefore be changed back. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure the actual facts are stated here:
  1. The article was created at the name Alexandrian pogrom in December 2005, and spent the first six and a half years of its existence there, until you first moved it in April 2012.
  2. There has never been a consensus to move it to another name.
  3. The only editor who "disagrees" in the current discussion is Oncenawhile. An archived RFC from ten months ago is not "current".
  4. The WP:GOOGLE argument does not support the claim that "Alexandrian riots" is more common.
  5. The only reliably sourced name currently in the article is "Alexandrian pogrom".
  6. Gambetti states clearly that the name "Alexandrian pogrom" is frequently used by scholars.
  7. Gambetti did not make any "public u-turn after further research" regarding the name; rather, she says she avoided using the term "pogrom" in a specific work because complex historiographical work still had to be done.
Given the continuing lack of any compelling argument to change the longstanding and original name "Alexandrian pogrom", all future discussion and effort should be devoted to generating content about the pogrom itself, not campaigning against its name. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure that the actual facts are stated here, I am compelled to respond:
1. It spent 8 months with the wp:commonname Alexandrian riots, until you changed it. The original name had no real consensus since this article had almost no eyes on it until this current debate began (see [2])
2. Ironically, you gave the "riot" name implicit WP:SILENT consensus with this edit
3. For your point to be valid, please point me to wikipedia rules which suggest that editors' comments go "out of date". I am not aware of this.
4. [Let's continue this discussion separately, as this is the heart of the debate]
5. This is because you copied in sources from a bunch of random googlebooks hits, including one author who no longer supports usage of the term "pogrom" and only a single author who uses the term as a title - and even then only for a chapter
6. Yes. I suggest you consider the meaning of the word frequently. For example, New York is frequently called the Big Apple, but it's not its most common name.
7. She says that she "deliberately avoids" the terminology Alexandrian pogrom because it "was created" to connect the events to "later events in modern or contemporary Jewish experience". She then writes "I am aware that this contradicts my contributions to the Encyclopedia for Anti-Semitism". She contradicted her previous position. That is a u-turn.
Oncenawhile (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure the actual facts are re-stated here:
  1. The article was created at the name Alexandrian pogrom in December 2005, and spent the first six and a half years of its existence there, until you first moved it in April 2012. You have no idea how many "eyes" were on the article during those six and a half years.
  2. There has never been a consensus to move it to another name, including a "silent consensus" you falsely attribute to me. The claim that when an article stays at one name for 6 and half years it is "no real consensus" but when it stays at a new name for 7 months it has "silent consensus" is, at best, highly inconsistent, and in any event is obviously false.
  3. The only editor who "disagrees" in the current discussion is Oncenawhile. An archived RFC from ten months ago is not "current".
  4. The WP:GOOGLE argument still does not support the claim that "Alexandrian riots" is more common.
  5. Your argument that my use of sources was "random" or "the first hits on the search" has already been disproved; in reality, the sources were carefully chosen. Please do not continue making false statements on this Talk: page.
  6. Gambetti states clearly that the name "Alexandrian pogrom" is frequently used by scholars, and, as already pointed out, frequently and commonly are synonyms."commonly"
  7. Gambetti did not make any "public u-turn after further research" regarding the name; rather, she says she avoided using the term "pogrom" in a specific work because complex historiographical work still had to be done. She does not state she changed her mind or repudiates the term "after further research"; she simply states she will does not use it in the current work, because she believes further research must be done.
Given the continuing lack of any compelling argument to change the longstanding and original name "Alexandrian pogrom", all future discussion and effort should be devoted to generating content about the pogrom itself, not campaigning against its name. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is in agreement of those who believe the article should be titled "Alexandria Pogrom". I believe the point of the heading is to state what the event was about.

Numbers of "hits" are unimportant as is the age of the term “pogrom”. If the age of the term was the deciding factor then we would, for example, not be able to use the word “genocide” for any ancient event.

The important question is; was the event a riot or a pogrom?

According to the Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, a pogrom is “an organized massacre for the annihilation of anybody or class, especially with Government collusion, more specifically, one directed against Jews”. The word itself is Russian and means “destruction”, first being used in English after the anti-Jewish occurrences of 1905. However, the term is generally used nowadays to classify historic incidents as well.

The word “riot,” on the other hand, comes from the late 14th century, and means, "behave in a dissolute manner, engage in loose revelry." According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the origin of “riot” is possibly from the Latin word, “rugire,” meaning "to roar." The meaning "public disturbance" is first recorded in the late 14th century. The word Riote, means "take part in a public disturbance" and dates back to 1755.

So the use or disuse of both riot and pogrom should not be based on the date when the term came into use but rather as a word which accurately describes the action.

In Philo, Vol X, The Embassy to Gaius, published by The Loeb Classical Library, the editor, G P Goold, refers to the event as a pogrom when he makes this observation: “In the Flaccus, the violation of the synagogues precedes the pogrom and nothing is heard of the wholesale destruction by fire or demolition or of the effective resistance by the Jews in neighbourhoods where they were in considerable force.”

Also, “The Alexandrians knew his resentment of this, and made it an opportunity for the great pogrom of AD 38 which is described in 120-131.”

From Philo’s account, it appears pretty clear to me that this was an organized event.

Consider this: How was it possible for the Greeks to organize themselves so quickly yet the Jews were unable to make any arrangements, ie, collect weapons and stockpile water and food to protect themselves unless they were taken completely by surprise. Considered from this angle I believe this action was planned in advance. Flaccus, who could have prevented the action, did nothing to stop it. Therefore, he must have supported it. We know he hated the Jews and he was desperate to suck up to Gaius who, incidentally, also despised the Jews.

So we can clearly see that the event was organized, there was a massacre, the elimination of Jews was the objective, and the government supported the action.

This was not simply a “riot” but a full-blown pogrom and therefore the article must be headed as the Alexandria Pogrom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaboodilski (talk • contribs) 09:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaboodilski, Wikipedia article titles should be based solely on the guidance provided in Wikipedia:Article titles. Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE issues

Currently the majority of the article is devoted to a statement by Sandra Gambetti that in her 2009 book, she "deliberately avoids any words or expressions that in any way connect, explicitly or implicitly, the Alexandrian events of 38 C.E. to later events in modern... Jewish experience". Considering that the entire description of the actual events in question consist of exactly two sentences, and that Gambetti doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, it would seem WP:UNDUE to devote this much (or indeed any) article space to a discussion of the terminology Gambetti uses in her book. Does anyone else here agree with this insertion? Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem very strange to have the entire article consist two brief sentences stating what it was, kind of, and then a whole paragraph devoted to quoting the not very well-known and not very well-published college associate professor Sandra Gambetti, when we have, for example, a work by Erich S. Gruen, PhD from Harvard and who held a named chair at the very well-respected U.C. Berkeley, among many other sources. I think the article would be better off if we upgraded the sourcing from Gambetti and the energies were spent on actually developing relevant article content instead of on this quibble over the article title. Zad68 04:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gambetti's book was published by Brill Publishers. This is one of the world's most prestigious academic publishers. She must have discussed the title and introduction in detail with the publishers - from the quote above it was clearly a very conscious decision.
Separately, your preference for the respectable Mr Gruen is self defeating - he doesn't use the term "Alexandrian pogrom" in any title or prose - only in the index! Noone here is disputing that scholars use the term pogrom to describe this event, only the title.
Oncenawhile (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's no justification then for having more than half of this article devoted to some statements an apparently not very well-known and not very well-published college associate professor makes about the terminology she uses in a book? Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gambetti is "very well-published" - Brill Publishers is one of the world's most prestigious academic publishers. What are your qualifications to suggest otherwise? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She has written one book, and apparently co-authored a second. Brill publishers is a good publishing house, but not as prestigious as, for example, a university press. Rather than making bald assertions, can you quantify what you mean by "very well-published"? Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we're looking at the quality and not just the quantity of source (at least here we seem to be doing that). If Gambetti is the strongest source that can be brought in support of changing the title, and there are so many other, stronger sources that support the current title, it sure seems like we should keep the current title unless and until better sources can be brought in support of a change. Zad68 21:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOVTITLE

Gambetti states clearly that she believes that the use of the term pogrom for the Alexandrian events of 38CE "was created" to connect the events to "later events in modern or contemporary Jewish experience".

Our article should not be connecting anything to anything without evidence, and since Gambetti states that the "wide and delicate topic" needs "future research", we can assume that there is no evidence at this stage. This is assuming that other editors are unable to provide evidence of scholars stating the opposite case - i have looked and have not seen anyone disagreeing on this. And even then, Wikipedia should not be endorsing one side of an issue, unless that view is in the clear majority.

WP:NPOVTITLE is clear that for a non-neutral name to be used as a title it must be the "significant majority" name. The best that editors editors supporting usage of "pogrom" here have been able to come up with is a 1 vs 1.3 minority.

The article name must be changed bask unless those editors can show that the non-neutral name is in a "significant majority".

I will wait a few days before changing it back, to allow evidence to be provided. If the responses are simply hot air and no substance, the article title will be changed back.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oncenawhile, as several editors have already explained, there are issues with your WP:GOOGLE methodology, high-quality reliable sources support the current name, and there is no consensus to change the article's name. In addition, as has also been explained, Gambetti is just an associate professor, she herself uses the term, and she does not in any way state that it is "non-neutral". Given that policy does not back the move, nor consensus, any further attempts to change the name will be disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the WP:GOOGLE and source quality problems that have been already pointed out, no strong argument has been brought to support a change. I'm sorry you feel that having this pointed out sounds like "hot air and no substance" to you, but that doesn't make an argument based on faulty assumptions or research strong enough to support a change. Zad68 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These arguments don't look any better than your arguments at Talk:Pogroms of 1096. Actually, they look even weaker. The article has been at this name for many years, the name is used by lots of reliable sources, and the arguments to move it to a new name are weak. Your OR at Talk:Pogroms of 1096 shows that you have an issue with the word pogrom, but Wikipedia is not the place to campaign against it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I have no issue with the word pogrom - it is a word used to describe some of the worst events in modern human history. My efforts on these articles are because I see a trend where certain editors are trying to use the word as widely as possible, even if the event may not be commonly referred to as that. Gambetti saw that in the scholarly world too - her comment quoted above is very clear. Pogrom is such a powerful word it can be misleading if not used carefully. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again the arguments here have no substance. They are simply "we don't agree with googlebooks" and "we agree with the Alexandrian pogrom title", plus a conscious ignoring of Gambetti's statement that the use of the term pogrom suggests an inherent POV. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My alarm bells went off at NEARLY THIRTY CITATIONS in the first ten words that this is an NPOV laden article. One way to settle this is - were the people targeted because they were Jewish, or would the same outcome result if they were Tongans or any other people replaced into the equation and all parties acted according to the historic events? Their Jewishness was irelevant, their actions and the clash of culture in general is what kicked it all off. If they were, as I suggested earlier, Tongans, it would have led to the same thing if the Tongans behaved in the same way, and the Greeks and Egyptians and Romans all acted as recorded. This is, without doubt, a subtle agenda being peddled. But, that said; this is very, very common on Wikipedia and any attempts to reach neutrality will be met with a hostile mob and a stacked vote. So trying to call it out is redundant at this point. Wikipedia's neutrality and use as an effective encyclopedic notation of history ceased about seven years ago. I admire your willingness to try though OP. Agendabender (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about whether "pogrom" or "riots" would be better, but the page should definitely be moved from "riots (38)". We should probably get rid of the "(38)" for now, then decide whether to have the title be "pogrom" or "riots". Like, the "riots of 68" doesn't even have a page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title and the lead

First, few people who see the current title will immediately recognize that "38" is a year. I suggest qualifying it as "38 CE". Second, the appearance of 27 citations on the first few words is ridiculous. Please choose at most 2 or 3 of the most reliable sources for each word and remove the rest. Zerotalk 00:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against the proposed move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandrian riots (38 CE) → Alexandrian pogrom – Cleanup of Template:Disputed title, which is currently at WP:TfD. Long-standing disagreement that needs to be resolved about whether "pogrom" or "riots" is more appropriate. As a result of this disagreement, the first sentence of the article contains no fewer than 27 citations variously supporting the former or latter nomenclature. TompaDompa (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all the citations on the first sentence. That was an example of WP:POINT violation and can't be allowed. Zerotalk 11:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed title as severely anachronistic—the term "pogrom" is modern, and doesn't even appear in this particular context until the 1930's. I can understand someone calling it "the first pogrom in history" without necessarily giving it that name, or for that matter describing it as "a holocaust", lower-case, without making that a name either. There may be better titles, or a better formulation of the existing title, but "pogrom" just seems badly out of place. P Aculeius (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although "pogrom" occurs fairly often in the literature on this topic, "riots" is more common by a fair margin. Search for "riots in Alexandria" in particular. Even authors who use the word "pogrom" in the body of their text usually start by calling it "riots".[3] In addition, the more polemic the text, the more likely it is to use "pogrom" and polemic ain't us. Zerotalk 13:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Completely anachronistic. –Ploni (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: though I'm by no means convinced by the arguments for "Alexandrian pogrom" as a title, anachronism doesn't seem like a particularly strong reason against a particular title. If it really is the common name used by reliable sources, that's the name Wikipedia should use whether or not we think it anachronistic – as, for instance, in the case of Circassian genocide. (That said, the case that "Alexandrian pogrom" is the WP:COMMONNAME doesn't seem to be very convincingly made – the fact that Gambetti says that the term is frequently used does not make it the common name in the technical sense that WP:AT uses it in) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the fact that it's a jarring anachronism is the reason why it hasn't caught on. "Pogrom" usually applies specifically to campaigns of persecution against the Jews occurring in the Pale of Settlement under the Russian Empire; loosely to similar campaigns outside of Russia or following the Russian Revolution of 1917; only metaphorically in other contexts (organized persecution of the Jews at other times or places, as when a historian refers to the riots in Alexandria as "the first pogrom in history"—which still doesn't make it a proper name for them—or similar persecutions of other groups). Nero might have served ice cream at a notorious banquet, but it's unlikely that we would refer to the event as "Nero's Ice Cream Social", even though a historian or two might saucily call it that. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Alexandrian_riots_(38_CE)"