Talk:Kishinev pogrom

message: The following piece removed from History of the Jews in Bessarabia. Please merge.
A young Christian Russian boy, Michael Ribalenko, was found murdered in the town of Dabossary (Dubasari in Romanian), about 25 miles north-east of Kishinev; the town is situated on the left bank of the river Dnister, and formally was not a part of Bessarabia. Although it was clear that the boy had been killed by a relative (who was later found), the government chose to call it a ritual murder plot by the Jews. The mobs were incited by Pavolachi Krusheven, the editor of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Bessarabetz", and the vice-governor Ustrugov. They used the age-old calumny against the Jews (that the boy had been killed to use his blood in preparation of matzo). Viacheslav Plehve, the Minister of Interior, supposedly gave orders not to stop the rioters. During three days of rioting, the government-organized Kishinev pogrom against the Jews took place. Forty seven (some say 49) Jews were killed, 92 severely wounded, 500 slightly wounded and over 700 houses destroyed. This pogrom is considered the first state-inspired action against Jews in the 20th century. Despite a world outcry, only two men were sentenced to seven and five years and twenty-two were sentenced for one or two years. This pogrom was instrumental in convincing tens of thousands of Russian Jews to leave to the West and to Palestine.
Mikkalai 21:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge or share

message: I've recently reverted this anonymous edit. I can find no other online mention of a "Jaacov ben Menachem HaLevi" and no source was cited. If this is legitimate, please restore with a citation. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: I reverted the recent page move to Chisinau pogrom. The most commonly known English-language term is "Kishinev pogrom". If someone disagrees, please present your arguments.Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In most if not all research I have come across in reference to this pogrom, it has always been referred to as Kishinev(or Kishineff).Coffeegirlyme (talk)·   20:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent page move 

message: It is not made clear in the article whether the dates are referenced to the old or new calendar dates (October 17 O.S. = October 30).  That has important bearing on whether the following statement is accurate:
:"This Pogrom was part of a much larger movement of 600 pogroms that swept the Russian Empire after the October Manifesto of 1905."  
If the dates of the pogrom are O.S. dates, the statement is (barely) accurate.  If the dates are under the current calendar system, they are not.  My understanding is that the October Manifesto was a response to, not the cause of, the 1905 uprising.  If someone interpreted the October 19-20 dates of the pogrom as O.S. dates, that could explain the impression that they occurred after the October Manifesto.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.11.42 (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old or new calendar dates? 

message: And quoting it verbatim without WP:RS social, political, economic context is UNDUE.
First thing first, this NYT piece got the number of the victims wrong (understandably so, see the dates). 
See
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23877915
and more for details. 
I have added this caveat. Zezen (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times report is referred to by later sources, for example the one you added. The text added was a perversion of the source that writes: "On April 28, 1903, the Times reprinted from the Yiddish Daily News a report smuggled out of Russia which stated that "the anti-Jewish riots in Kishinev, Bessarabia, are worse than the censor will permit to publish."--Astral Leap (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary NYT is WP:PRIMARY 

message: There's no discussion nor consensus for the change in article's title. The overwhelming majority of sources refer to the "Kishinev pogrom", back then the town was an integral part of the Russian empire. Somebody please revert the unilateral move. I don't know how to do it properly.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , please start a move request. If the result is to move back to "Kishinev pogrom", I'll respect it. But note that there were two in Chișinău. The name "Kishinev pogrom" is ambiguous. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you make a move request before changing the article's title? Because I think there was no previous discussion in talk page, not even a basic explanation.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave a short edit summary. I still don't see a reason to use the Russian name of the article instead of the native Romanian/Moldovan one which is used anywhere else in Wikipedia. No other articles apart from this one used "Kishinev" in their titles, not even historic ones (with the exception of the Jassy–Kishinev Offensives). Super Ψ Dro 17:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but maybe you should have opened a discussion before moving. An edit summary is not necessarily enough.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was a rather controversial action. That's why I am not opposing a move request now. Super Ψ Dro 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, all the other Wikipedias use the name "Kishinev" for this pogrom (Pogroms de Kichinev, Pogromo de Kishinev, פרעות קישינב), because that's how sources name this event, both contemporary and present. Could you please consider moving it back to 'Kishinev'?--Watchlonly (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all Wikipedias use this name, there are some others that use Chișinău (Pogrom de Chișinău, Chisinau-pogromen, Pogrom di Chișinău, Pogrom Chisinau, Chisinau-pogromen). Also, Kishinev pogrom has more than one edit in its history meaning that my edit perms don't allow me to move it again. That a name is more used does not always justify a move. This can be seen for example in Kyiv, named "Kyiv" although "Kiev" is still more common . Super Ψ Dro 17:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you are right. Sorry for overreacting at the beginning. Please clean up the mess that I left when I tried to move the article's name back.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, it is fixed already. Thanks for understanding. Super Ψ Dro 17:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Undiscussed move
 

message: :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: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Chișinău pogrom (1903) →  – Overwhelming COMMONNAME; the name "Chișinău pogrom" doesn't even register on Google NGRAMS (see below). Likewise, the overwhelming primary topic of this name is the 1903 pogrom rather than the 1905 one, which could be a hatnote if an article existed (Google Scholar results below, the 1905 pogrom is not mentioned in the first three pages of results). Although I respect User:Super Dromaeosaurus as an editor, they should be trouted for making this undiscussed move which has no basis in Article titles policy and has caused unnecessary work for other editors. (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, I assume responsability over this so I am not going to oppose it, but I think that the "(1903)" should be kept. Although most sources refer to the 1903 pogrom, "Kishinev pogrom" is still an ambiguous name. To put an example (I can't think of a more international and well-known one), there were three Battles of Oituz, but the vast majority of sources talk about the third and most important one. Still, its article isn't just titled "Battle of Oituz", but "Third Battle of Oituz". Super Ψ Dro 14:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no separate article on the 1905 pogrom and consequently nothing to disambiguate. Even if there were, I believe WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would still apply. (t · c) buidhe 14:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Jewish_history&diff=prev&oldid=1004456223, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Jewish_history&diff=prev&oldid=1004456223, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Korolenko&diff=prev&oldid=1004456253, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Aliyah&diff=prev&oldid=1004456328, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Evans-Gordon&diff=prev&oldid=1004456587, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaim_Zhitlowsky&diff=prev&oldid=1004456647, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Territorial_Organization&oldid=1004456773, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephraim_Moses_Lilien&diff=prev&oldid=1004456857, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=1004457894, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1004456973. Don't just directly revert them, I did some fixes on the pages (such as removing "Kishineff", which is an invention, or disambiguating between the 1903 and the 1905 pogroms). You should do this once this RM ends anyway. Super Ψ Dro 15:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if the article about the 1905 pogrom existed, the disambiguation page would have been kept and this page would have been renamed to "Kishinev pogrom (1903)"? Super Ψ Dro 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , It's not clear to me if the 1905 event meets WP:NEVENT. Assuming that it does, then  the 1903 pogrom would be the primary topic, and "Kishinev pogrom" would either be that article or redirect there. There would be a hatnote to "1905 Kishinev pogrom". (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still doubting whether PT would apply on these historical events (as I stated with the example with battles I gave above), but since the 1905 pogrom does not have an article (and after looking rapidly about it in Google Scholar, might not even be that notable), I have nothing to complain about. Thanks for the clarification. Super Ψ Dro 22:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 February 2021