Talk:Holodomor/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

History by researcher and not contributors!

Wikipedia has to present the most shared conclusion on history AMONG REAL researchers, and not OR , political or nationalist point of view from a majority or minority of contributors !

Here are conclusion of a french researcher, working for one of the most serious researcher center in France, CNRS, Nicolas Werth (who is neither russian nor ukrainian) (published on april 2008)

Two fundamental issues need to be considered in defining the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 as a genocide, along lines set by the December 1948 United Nations Convention: intention and the ethnic-national targeting of a group (Article II of the Convention recognizes only national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups, not social or political). In the case of Ukraine, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate intention. A crucial document on this point is the resolution of January 22, 1933 signed by Stalin, ordering the blockade of Ukraine and the Kuban, a region of the Caucasus with a majority-Ukrainian population. The blockade intentionally worsened the famine in Ukrainian-populated areas and in these areas alone. On the question of target group, i.e. whether Stalin viewed the peasants of Ukraine and the Kuban as peasants or as Ukrainians, which is key to justifying use of the term genocide, scholars disagree. For some historians (Martin, Penner), the famine’s primary objective was to break peasant rather than national resistance. Others (Serbyn, Shapoval, Kulchytsky, Vasilev) argue that the peasants of Ukraine and the Kuban were targeted first as Ukrainians: For Stalin, the Ukrainian peasant question was “in essence, a national question, the peasants constituting the principal force of the national movement” (Stalin, 1954: 71). By crushing the peasantry, one was breaking the most powerful national movement capable of opposing the process of the construction of the USSR. As the famine decimated the Ukrainian peasantry, the regime condemned the entire policy of Ukrainization underway since the early 1920s: The Ukrainian elites were rounded up and arrested.

This specifically anti-Ukrainian assault makes it possible to define the totality of intentional political actions taken from late summer 1932 by the Stalinist regime against the Ukrainian peasantry as genocide. With hunger as its deadly arm, the regime sought to punish and terrorize the peasants, resulting in fatalities exceeding four million people in Ukraine and the northern Caucasus. That being said, the Holodomor was very different from the Holocaust. It did not seek to exterminate the Ukrainian nation in its entirety, and it did not involve the direct murder of its victims. The Holodomor was conceived and fashioned on the basis of political reasoning and not of ethnic or racial ideology. However, by the sheer number of its victims, the Holodomor, seen again in its historical context, is the only European event of the 20th century that can be compared to the two other genocides, the Armenian and the Holocaust.

I assume french researcher not familiar with historical facts for 1925-34 as for Ukrainian SRR as for USSR - so actually what he research? Retype the "works" of Conquest and Mace?Jo0doe (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just better that you... and more qualified than you ... and more "neutral" : he is not involved in anti russian or anti ukrainian edit war as you are ...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.45.117 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, please sign your contributions. Everybody makes mistakes, but if you are logged out because of time, just log in and sign your edits. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, where is this information from? where was it published? And, very importantly, is it available on-line in English? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thanks, I found it here: [[1]]. I have included it into the lead.

Nicholas Werth is a historian working with the CNRS, the largest governmental research organization in France. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

is he notable historians which published many works on Holdomor, is he familiar with 1925-1935 history of Ukrainian SRR. Is his work on Holdomor was assessed by rest known in this field scientist. Or he simply retype words which appeared many time in propagandistic works?Jo0doe (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jo0doe: Please, don`t be so stupid Stalinloverboy!

here are all his published work :

Ouvrages

Etre communiste en URSS sous Staline (Paris, Gallimard, 1981)

La vie quotidienne des paysans russes de la Révolution à la collectivisation, 1917- 1939 (Paris, Hachette, 1984)

Les procès de Moscou, 1936-1938 (Bruxelles, Complexe, 1987)

Histoire de l’Union Soviétique. De l’Empire russe à la CEI, 1900-1991 Paris, PUF, 1990 ; (2ème éd : 1992 ; 3ème : 1997 ; 4ème : 1998 ; 5ème,refondue et complétée : 2001)

Rapports secrets soviétiques. La société russe dans les rapports confidentiels, 1921-1991 ( en coll. avec G. Moullec) (Paris, Gallimard, 1995)

Histoire de l’Union Soviétique. De Lénine à Staline (Paris, PUF, coll : « Que Sais-je ? », 1997)

Histoire de l’Union Soviétique. De Khrouchtchev à Gorbatchev (Paris, PUF, coll : « Que Sais-je ? », 1998)

La Russie en Révolution (Paris, Gallimard, coll : Découvertes, 1998)

Direction d’ouvrages ou de numéros spéciaux de revue

"Pour une nouvelle historiographie de l’URSS", Cahiers de l’IHTP, n° 35, 1996.

"Les Archives. La nouvelle histoire de l’URSS", Communisme, numéro spécial n°42/43/44), 1995 (en collaboration avec V.P.Danilov, A.Berelowitch),

Sovetskaia Derevnia glazami VCK-OGPU-NKVD, vol 1 (1918-1922) et vol 2 1923-1929), Moscou, 1998 et 2000.

Participation à des ouvrages collectifs

« Un Etat contre son peuple. Violences, répressions, terreurs en Union Soviétique » in S.Courtois, N.Werth & al, Le Livre Noir du Communisme, Paris, R.Laffont, 1997), p. 41-296.

« Staline en son système dans les années 1930 » ; « Logiques de violence dans l’URSS stalinienne » ; « Les formes d’autonomie de la société socialiste », in H.Rousso (dir.), Stalinisme et Nazisme. Histoire et mémoire comparées (Bruxelles, Complexe, 1999),pp. 39-79 ; 99-129 ;145-185.

« Soviétologie et archives soviétiques : confrontation ou confirmation ? », in Y.Beauvois &C.Blondel, Qu’est-ce qu’on ne sait pas en histoire ? (Lille, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 1998), pp. 37-47.

« L’aveu dans les grands procès politiques staliniens », in R.Dulong, L’Aveu, Paris, PUF, 2001),pp. 155-175.

« Comparer nazisme et stalinisme aujourd’hui », in N.Tchoubarian, B.Künhardt (dir.), Russland und Deutschland auf dem Weg zum Antitotalitären Konsens (Bonn, Nomos Verl., 1999), pp. 143-155.

« Leningrad : une ville d’opposition ? », in E.Bérard (dir.), Saint-Petersbourg : une fenêtre sur la Russie, 1900-1935 (Paris, EHESS, 2000), pp. 161-180.

Articles : « Stalinisme », « Phénomène concentrationnaire », in J-P.Azéma, F.Bédarida, 1938-1948. Les années de tourmente.Dictionnaire Critique (Paris, Flammarion, 1995),pp. 1061-1072 ; 1005-1018.

Articles : « Union Soviétique », « Révolution Russe », « Stalinisme », « Goulag » dans l’Encyclopedia Universalis.

Articles : « Biélorussie », « Ukraine », « Moldavie » in M.Ferro(dir), L’Etat de toutes les Russies (Paris, La Découverte, 1993), pp.218-253.

« Le phénomène concentrationnaire soviétique au XXème siècle », in J.Vanwelkenhuyzen, Les Tumultes d’un siècle (Bruxelles, Complexe, 2000), pp. 157-175.

« Cher Kalinouchka... Lettres paysannes à Kalinine, 1930 », in De Russie et d’Ailleurs. Mélanges Marc Ferro(Paris, Institut d’Etudes Slaves, 1995), pp. 233-243.

« Des hommes, des chiffres et des classes : Moscou au recensement de 1926 », in C.Gousseff ( dir.), Moscou, 1918-1941 (Paris, Ed. « Autrement », 1993),pp.42-61.

Articles principaux ( par revues)

Cahiers du Monde Russe :

« Structure sociale du parti communiste de Biélorussie sous la NEP », CMR, 1977, octobre-décembre, pp.456-474

« Qui étaient les premiers tchékistes ? », CMR, XXXII(4),octobre-décembre 1991, pp. 501-512

Revue des Etudes Slave :

« Une source inédite : les svodki de la Tcheka-OGPU », RES, LXVI/1,pp.17-27. Revue des Etudes Comparatives Est-Ouest :

« Le pouvoir soviétique et l’Eglise orthodoxe dans les années 1930 », RECEO, 1993, n°3-4, pp.41-106.

« L’Historiographie de l’URSS dans la période post-communiste », RECEO, 1999,n°1,pp.81-104.

Communisme

« L’amnistie du 27 mars 1953.La première grande sortie du Goulag », Communisme, 1995,n°42/43/44,pp. 211-225

« Totalitarisme ou révisionnisme ?L’histoire soviétique,une histoire en chantier », Communisme, 1996,n°47-48,pp.57-71.

« Six lettres de Boukharine », Communisme, 2000, n°61, pp. 7-42.

Le Débat

« Révolution dans la sociologie soviétique : la naissance des sondages d’opinion », Le Débat, 1989,n°55, pp.103-112.

« Renaissance et dilemmes du mouvement ouvrier en Union Soviétique », Le Débat, 1991,n°67, pp.57-77.

« De la soviétologie en général et des archives russes en particulier » , Le Débat, 1993, n°77, pp.127-144.

« Lettre de Boukharine à Staline, 10 décembre 1937 » , Le Débat, 1999, n°107,pp.155-161.

XXème Siècle. Revue d’Histoire

« Alphabétisation et idéologie en Russie soviétique » , XXème Siècle, avril-juin 1986, pp. 19-36.

« La transparence et la mémoire.Les Soviétiques à la recherche de leur passé » , XXème Siècle, 1989,n°21, pp.5-27

« L’ensemble concentrationnaire de Norilsk en 1951 », XXème Siècle, 1994, n° 46, pp.88-99

« Déplacés spéciaux et colons de travail dans la société stalinienne », XXème Siècle, 1997,n°54,pp. 34-50

« L’appel au petit peuple selon Staline », XXème Siècle,1997, n°56, pp. 132-141.

« Le stalinisme au pouvoir. Une mise en perspective historiographique », XXème Siècle, 2001, n° 69, pp.125-136.

L’Histoire

« Etre communiste en URSS sous Staline », L’Histoire,1981,n°30, pp. 113-121

« De l’amour libre à l’ordre moral », L’Histoire, 1984, n°72, pp.74-80

« Felix Dzerjinski et les origines de la police politique », L’Histoire, 1992,n°158, pp. 30-42.

« Goulag:les vrais chiffres », L’Histoire,1993,n°169,pp.38-51.

« La vraie guerre des partisans russes, 1941-1945 », L’Histoire, 1993,n°171,pp. 26-34

« Comment Staline a affamé l’Ukraine », L’Histoire, 1995,n°188, pp. 78-86.

« URSS : les ruines de l’Empire », L’Histoire, 1996,n°201, pp. 88-94

« La prise du pouvoir par les bolcheviks », L’Histoire, 1997,n°206, pp. 24-35.

« La Russie soviétique : révolution, socialisme et dictature », L’Histoire, 1998,n°223,pp. 8-21.

« Etre femme au Goulag », L’Histoire, 2000, n° 245, pp.60-66

« L’URSS stalinienne : la question du niveau des répressions », L’Histoire, 2000, n°247,pp.54-59. Publications récentes ( 2001-2006)

Ouvrages de recherche

Ein Staat gegen sein Volk , Munchen/ Zürich, Ed.Piper Verlag, février 2002, 275p.

Massovye Repressii v SSSR ( Les politiques répressives de masse en URSS), Moskva, Rosspen , 2004, 756 p. ( en russe)

L’Ile aux cannibales, Paris, Perrin , 2006 , 210 p.

Ouvrages de synthèse

Histoire de l’Union soviétique.De l’Empire russe à la CEI, 1900-1991, 5ème édition, remise à jour, Paris, PUF, 2001, 590 pages.

Direction ( ou co-direction) d’ouvrages ou de revues.

Sovetskaia derevnia glazami VCK-OGPU-NKVD, tome 3, 1930-1931 (Les campagnes soviétiques vues par la Tcheka, OGPU, NKVD, tome 3, 1930-1931), Moscou, Rosspen, 2002, 980 p. (en collaboration avec V.P.Danilov, Alexis Berelowitch, V.Vinogradov, E.Tiourina).

Sovetskaia derevnia glazami VCK-OGPU-NKVD, tome 4, 1932-1934 (Les campagnes soviétiques vues par la Tchéka,OGPU, NKVD, tome 4, 1932-1934), Moscou, Rosspen, 2005, 1020 p ; (en collaboration avec V.P.Danilov, Alexis Berelowitch, V.Vinogradov, L.Dvoinykh)

"Histoire soviétique : nouvelles archives et renouveau historiographique", numéro spécial de Communisme, 2002/ n°71/72 ( co-direction avec Stéphane Courtois)

"Le pouvoir soviétique et la paysannerie dans les rapports de la police politique, 1918-1929",Bulletin de l’IHTP, n° 78 (second semestre 2001), 200 p.

"Le pouvoir soviétique et la paysannerie dans les rapports de la police politique", 1930-1934, Bulletin de l’IHTP, n° 81-82 ( 2003), 340 p.

Articles de recherche et contributions à des ouvrages de recherche

« L’aveu dans les grands procès staliniens », in Robert Dulong (dir.), L’Aveu (Paris, PUF, 2001), p. 155-175

« Le stalinisme au pouvoir : une mise en perspective historiographique », XXème Siècle. Revue d’Histoire, n° 69 ( 2001), p. 125-135.

« Rumeurs défaitistes et apocalyptiques dans l’URSS des années 1920-1930 », XXème Siècle. Revue d’Histoire, n°71 ( 2001) p. 25-37.

« L’OGPU en 1924 : radiographie d’une institution à son niveau d’étiage », Cahiers du Monde russe, n° 42/ 2-3-4 ( 2001), p. 397-422

« Les bolcheviks et la restauration de l’État, 1917-1922 », in S.Courtois (dir.), Origines et émergence des régimes totalitaires en Europe, Paris, L’Age d’Homme, 2001, p. 112-137

« Histoire d’un pré-rapport secret. Silences et omissions de la Commission Pospelov », Communisme, n° 67-68 ( 2001), p. 9-38

« Le pouvoir soviétique et la paysannerie dans les rapports de la police politique, 1918-1919 », Bulletin de l’IHTP, n° 78, p. 11-52

« Violence de guerre, violence révolutionnaire :le cas des déserteurs en Russie, 1917-1921 », in Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Annette Becker, Henry Rousso, Christian Ingrao (dir.), La violence de guerre. Approches comparées des deux guerres mondiales, Bruxelles, Complexe/IHTP, 2002, p. 99-116.

« Les procès politiques en URSS » in Emmanuel Leroy-Ladurie (dir.), Les grands procès politiques (Paris, Ed. du Rocher, 2002), p. 60-80

« Repenser la Grande Terreur en URSS, 1937-1938 », Le Débat, novembre 2002, p.118-139.

« Tragedia kollektivizatsii v informatsionnyx svodkax OGPU » ( La tragédie de la collectivisation dans les rapports d’information de l’OGPU), en collaboration avec V.P.Danilov et A.Berelowitch, in Derevnia glazami VCK-OGPU-NKVD, tom 3, 1930-1931, Moscou, Rosspen, 2002, p. 7-50.

« Les rebelles primitifs en URSS », Communisme, 2002, n°71/72, p. 60-90

« De deux catégories d’exclusion dans l’URSS des années 1920-1930 : gens du passé et éléments socialement dangereux » in Stéphane Courtois ( dir) , L’Apogée des régimes totalitaires en Europe, 1935-1953, Paris, Ed.du Rocher, 2003, p. 51-75 + 473-478 (notes)

« Violences d’en-haut, violences d’en-bas dans les révolutions russes de 1917 », in J.Vigreux, S.Wolikow( dir), Cultures communistes au XXème siècle. Entre guerre et modernité, Paris, Ed. La Dispute, 2003, p. 31-50.

« The Mechanism of a Mass Crime : the Great Terror in Soviet Union, 1937-1938, in R.Gellately, Ben Kiernan (eds), The Specter of Genocide. Mass Murder in Historical Perspective, Cambridge U.P, 2003, p. 215-241.

« La famine kazakhe de 1931-1933 » et « Lettre de T.Ryskulov à Staline, 9 mars 1933 », Communisme, 2003, n°74-75, p. 9-38.

« Déplacements de population, ingéniérie sociale, excision ethno-historique dans les espaces russes et soviétiques, 1914-fin des années 1940 », Communisme, 2004/ 2-3, n°78-79, p. 15-52.

« La société et la guerre dans les espaces russe et soviétique, 1914-1916 », Histoire, Economie et Société, 2004/2, p. 191-215.

« Les résistances du social dans l’URSS d’après-guerre », Actes du colloque, Les résistances, miroirs des régimes d’oppression, Besançon, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2006, p. 60-84

« Les petits procès publics exemplaires en URSS durant la Grande Terreur », Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’Histoire, n° 86 ( avril-juin 2005), p. 3-25.

« Les enjeux politiques et sociaux du dégel : libérations massives du Goulag et fin des peuplements spéciaux, 1953-1957 », Actes du colloque, L’héritage du totalitarisme en Europe , Paris, Ed.du Rocher, 2005, p. 121-150.

Articles de synthèse et contributions à des ouvrages de synthèse

« Une guerre de huit ans : le cataclysme politique et social d’un second temps des troubles » ; « Le stalinisme comme guerre civile permanente » ; « La société soviétique dans la Grande guerre patriotique », in D.Barjot ( dir), Les sociétés, la guerre, la paix, 1911-1946, Paris, SEDES, 2003, p. 75-94, 182-195, 266-287.

« La société russe et soviétique et la guerre, 1914-1946 », in O.Bartov, P.Burrin, J-J.Becker, J.Horne, N.Werth & al, Les sociétés en guerre, 1911-1946, Paris, A.Colin, 2003, p. 113-150.

« Petrograd-Leningrad, 1917-1953, l’épreuve du siècle », in Collectif, Histoire de Saint-Petersbourg, Paris, R.Laffont, 2003, p. 79-116.

« Réfugiés et déplacés dans l’Empire russe en guerre » ; « Paysans-soldats et sortie de guerre de la Russie en 1917-1918 » ; « Les enjeux de la guerre et de la paix dans les révolutions russes de 1917 », in S.Audoin-Rouzeau, J-J.Becker ( dir), Encyclopédie de la Grande guerre, 1914-1918, Paris, Bayard, 2004, p. 813-825 ; 826-839 ; 951-965. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.22.134 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sovietologist – pity no Holodomor work or even Ukraine – so – may be better to use his work in French WP and only concerning his direction - i.s. Sovietology?Jo0doe (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He is not considered as a sovietologist in France and anywhere else. Please provide argumentation for your POV. Your RACIST comment has been noted.

As for his worked about holodomor, please read :

La vie quotidienne des paysans russes de la Révolution à la collectivisation, 1917- 1939 (Paris, Hachette, 1984) Rapports secrets soviétiques. La société russe dans les rapports confidentiels, 1921-1991 ( en coll. avec G. Moullec) (Paris, Gallimard, 1995) "Les Archives. La nouvelle histoire de l’URSS", Communisme, numéro spécial n°42/43/44), 1995 (en collaboration avec V.P.Danilov, A.Berelowitch), « Un Etat contre son peuple. Violences, répressions, terreurs en Union Soviétique » in S.Courtois, N.Werth & al, Le Livre Noir du Communisme, Paris, R.Laffont, 1997), p. 41-296. L'Histoire « Comment Staline a affamé l’Ukraine », L’Histoire, 1995,n°188, pp. 78-86.

Ein Staat gegen sein Volk , Munchen/ Zürich, Ed.Piper Verlag, février 2002, 275p. Massovye Repressii v SSSR ( Les politiques répressives de masse en URSS), Moskva, Rosspen , 2004, 756 p. ( en russe)

Sovetskaia derevnia glazami VCK-OGPU-NKVD, tome 4, 1932-1934 (Les campagnes soviétiques vues par la Tchéka,OGPU, NKVD, tome 4, 1932-1934), Moscou, Rosspen, 2005, 1020 p ; (en collaboration avec V.P.Danilov, Alexis Berelowitch, V.Vinogradov, L.Dvoinykh)

"Le pouvoir soviétique et la paysannerie dans les rapports de la police politique", 1930-1934, Bulletin de l’IHTP, n° 81-82 ( 2003), 340 p.

and about the famine in Kahakhstan « La famine kazakhe de 1931-1933 » et « Lettre de T.Ryskulov à Staline, 9 mars 1933 », Communisme, 2003, n°74-75, p. 9-38. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.47.130 (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Map of Countries that have recognized the Holodomor as Genocide

I propose that we include the map from this section [[2]] into the article. It it very well done, and as mentioned, is easier than words. During the discussion, there was some issue with Canada, but now that it has come to its senses and recognized the Holodomor as a Genocide, the map should be OK.

Opinions? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Against, this seems to be nothing, but WP:POINT moreover today OSCE refused to recognise it as genocide, because it was not a genocide, so why the map? --Kuban Cossack 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Selective citation

Here a perfect example of selective citation from source and even interesting omission. Despite the usage of

• Kulchytskyi, S. V., 1990, Holod 1932-1933 rokiv na Ukraïni: Ochyma istorykiv, movoiu dokumentiv, Kyiv: Nauka
• Kulchytskyi, S. V., 1993b, Kolektyvizatsia i holod na Ukraïni, 1929-1933, Kyiv:Nauka.

“Researcher” wrights: [3]

• Chubar asked for emergency assistance - These requests met with no response.

So author forgot to cite Kulchytskyi, about 7 million of pood provided by July 1932.

[4]

• First Five Year Plan, which depended largely on a program of agricultural exports

Look like this “researcher” never seen First Five Year Plan – may be he should use WP first

• Hundreds of detachments consisting on “activists” and “plenipotentiaries” with vague mandates, supported by agents of the OGPU, were sent into the countryside to “take the grain”.

Look like he did not seen November 18, 1932 Decree – were mentioned as high as 600 persons from cities for whole Ukraine

• The most “rebellious” towns were “placed on the blackboard” signifying the removal of all products, both manufactured goods and food

Look like he never knew what towns was never placed on the blackboard since them does not has plan for grain collection. As regards food – it’s author fantasy – countryside was not supplied by food through Central sources – excluding candies and sweets.

• condemning tens of millions of Ukrainian peasants to starvation.

Big figures – Big Lie approach – 22-24 Million of rural population in Ukraine as of end 1932 not all of them are Ukrainians.

Of cause researchers forgot to cite Kulchytskyi what by mid of January 1933 collection plan for Ukraine was lowered 3 times And By that time 5 out of 7 region accomplished lowered plan.

http://www.massviolence.org/The-1932-1933-Great-Famine-in-Ukraine?artpage=3-5

• between January-June 1933 … Assistance rose to about 320 000 tons… doubt only a small portion actually reached the villages

What about 576.400 tons only to Kolkhozes ? “Researcher” …

• cities, which were inhabited by a strong minority of non-Ukrainians (Russians, Poles, Jews);

forgot to cite Kulchytskyi and don’t know what almost all of 0.4 million of Poles in Ukraine was a rural citizen, while many Jews reside in countryside as same as Russians.

So another one historical cherry picking.

Jo0doe (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Britanica vs UN affiliated institution

May be most of visitors don’t know but INED if affiliated with UN institution which conducted researches and produce publication for UN SD in demographic (and not only) matters. So the words of: The Great Famine (Holodomor) of 1932–33—a man-made demographic catastrophe unprecedented in peacetime. Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians." Contradict with fact prepared by INED specialists and many historians researches. Moreover by the time statistics has not breakdown by nationality for registered deaths. So should we limit WP to this nonscientific (no history no demography) sentence which not supported nor by fact, nor by distinct majority of historians and scientists.Jo0doe (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to remove "soviet-wide" and "many" from lead

Hello,

The term soviet-wide means that it happened everywhere in the Soviet Union. However, it did not. There were a few isolated incidents of famine outside Ukraine and Kuban (where there was a very large Ukrainian population), but they were A) in no way connected; and B) in no way everywhere.

Many grain producing areas of the Soviet Union were not affected - only Ukraine. Siberia is not a grain-producing region, nor is Kazakhstan. The only real grain-producing region that was affected was Ukraine, and possibly the area around the Volga. However, please see the first paragraph about inter-connectedness to see how that word does not apply.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Many grain producing areas of the Soviet Union were not affected - only Ukraine. Siberia is not a grain-producing region, nor is Kazakhstan.

Library visiting highly reccomended. Othervise it's look "funny"Jo0doe (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that many grain producing regions of the USSR were not affected, and it was not a "Soviet wide" famine. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

fact that many grain producing regions of the USSR were not affected - names please and origin of "fact" i.e. source, authorJo0doe (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think that if an editor includes a word like "many", the onus is on the including editor to explain why that word was used. If said editor cannot explain why, I think that it becomes a weasel word: a word which tries to evoke an emotion. I

In this case, we are discussing the Holodomor - a famine which was deliberately aimed at Ukrainians by the Stalinist regime. If somebody tries to add soviet-wide, they need to explain exactly why that context applies. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all Kuban did not have a large Ukrainian population please see the relevant section @ Ukrainians in Russia to see why. Second of all the only regions not affected by the famine were: Central and northwestern Russia, Belarus, Transcaucasia southern Central Asia. Don, Kuban, Northern Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Urals, Volga. That is more than half of all grain producing regions in the USSR. Well Russian famine of 1921 was also not nationwide in covering the whole of Russia, yet its enough to call it the Russian famine not the famine in Volga or Central Russia. Also Horlo, please put your personal beliefs aside a famine which was deliberately aimed at Ukrainians is a statement that holds no evidence, as the declassified documents show NO mention that this was engineerred deliberately at Ukrainians. --Kuban Cossack 10:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A famine which was deliberately aimed at Ukrainians is major point of view - your logic that absense of any data in released archives proves nothing. Remember during World War II a lot of material which would be found in the archives was destroyed. Ukraine claims to have released all famine data from archives. I have not found that Russia has has made a similar statement. Bobanni (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Bobanni since you have no evidence to back your point of view however major or minor it is, it is still a POV, and unless you can WP:Verify it, pass the message to Horlo to stop pushing that POV across. --Kuban Cossack 12:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine claims to have released all famine data from archives. Yuschenko oppose to your statement - serching still continued. You expect what Russia will released the number of drowned barges and soldiers which shooted - May be if Ukrainian Canadian Diaspora provide them more exacts details - as them has suchJo0doe (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1932

There are very respectable sources that consider the spring-summer 1932 famine as a separate famine from the Holodomor (a spring-summer 1933 famine). Defining the Holodomor as 1932-1933 famine in the very first sentence gives an undue weight to this POV.

These are just few of the sources by scholars of utmost respectability in the field who consider the 1933

• Stanislav Kulchytsky, "How many of us perished in Holodomor in 1933", Zerkalo Nedeli, November 23-29, 2002 (see title, source linked from an article)
• Stalislav Kulchytsky, "Reasons of the 1933 famine in Ukraine. Through the pages of one almost forgotten book" Zerkalo Nedeli, August 16-22, 2003 (see title, source linked from an article)
• Stanislav Kulchytsky, "Reasons of the 1933 famine in Ukraine-2", Zerkalo Nedeli, October 4-10, 2003 (see title, source linked from an article)
• С. Кульчицький, Голодомор-33: сталінський задум та його виконання (pdf), Проблеми Історіїї України факти, судження, пошуки, №15, 2006, сс. 190-264 (see title, source linked from an article)
• Stanislav Kulchytsky, Hennadiy Yefimenko. Демографічні наслідки голодомору 1933 р. в Україні. Всесоюзний перепис 1937 р. в Україні: документи та матеріали (Demographic consequence of Holodomor of 1933 in Ukraine. The all-Union census of 1937 in Ukraine), Kiev, Institute of History, 2003. pp. 42-63
• Jacques Vallin, France Mesle, Serguei Adamets, Serhii Pyrozhkov, A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s, Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3. (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264
  • Access to full version requires subscription or a library visit but the abstract is avaliable from a link above and also speaks about 1933 famine.

There are plenty of other sources. These I just remember from the top of my head. --Irpen 20:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just would like to cite Kulchitskyy: Голод 1932 та Голодомор 1933 – це якісно різні явища. So a short history lesson: Hunger 1932 Almost fantastical collection plan for 1931 and similar procurement. Procurement quota for county level decided directly from Moscow Narkomzem – so some counties got 150-250% increase. All over collectivization plan accomplished for 70-90%, grain storages and kolkhoz stables/farms constructions plan 5-40%. Meet procurement plan overfull filled by 150-250% - for meat storages – 5-15%. Export plan more then in largest ever since soviet times 1930

• Drought 1931…

1931/32 Famine in Siberia and Kazakhstan, 1932 malnutrition and hunger in some areas in Ukraine – but no changes in procurement planning till March – since on paper was not so bad. Grain produced areas asked for providing assistance to affected by drought areas… In order to prevent similar situation in the next year in Kolkhozes - order to create a “emergency funds” for seeds and food in kolkhozes. So this actions in fact has an adverse effect – since “emergency funds” were created from payment in kind for Kolkhoz members. Government too late partially realize the situation too late – so the import and reverting of planned for exported grains started only by mid-end of March. So here the reason of Hunger 1931/32 – drought, inadequate planning, too late plans adjustments and no close control over situation in agriculture: extensive but not effective export and in same time no control over collection and storage of available grain. Holodomor 1933 Significant loss of winter tillage – not re sewn for summer crops (no seeds nor horses nor peoples to do this – most travel for bread). Summer seeding campaign delayed and in fact failed. Peasants expecting the similar to 1930/31 and 1931/32 payment in kind practice simple steal the harvest were it was exist. Rest expect to go somewhere to got bread. But there no bread outside – note Drought 1931 and remember the fact what in 1927 Ukraine and Kuban provides more then 50% of total Soviet grain procurements. Winter tillage provides more yield then summer – so acreage significantly increased – please for seeds rejected. Almost winter 1932/33 – 39% of plan completion, rationing for urban citizens and livestock shortened or cancelled (for some categories of urban citizens). No grain, but the reporting and projection for harvest was optimistic - so were is the grain – 1-st answer - stolen, - so sharp methods got some results – but does not change the facts – peasants and state storage was almost empty for long winter 1933. So, in fact fault in agriculture in grain producing areas of Ukraine and Russia was the reason of 1933 Soviet Hunger and Ukrainian Holodomor 1933. So see the Stalin’s aftermath actions – Planning and control authorities was dramatically reformatted, kolkhozes were under direct party control, no counter plan. So – does the hunger in USSR 1932-33 was planned or misplaned? Jo0doe (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers of victims in the lead

Sources in the lead

Hello,

The numbers 2.2 million and 3.5 million are listed in the lead - and all of them have references. However, none of the references provided actually give any numbers. If there are no actual sources with numbers, I suggest that they be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are sources with numbers (check the rest of the article) but they mostly give bigger numbers. You might want to put correct sources and change numbers in accordance. --windyhead (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, your claim that "none of the references provided actually give any numbers" just shows that you have not read the references. Both authors cited in the lead, Vallin et al. [5] [6] [7] and Kulchytsky [8] [9] [10] give numbers for the estimated casualties and show how they are obtained.

Jacques Vallin is a very respected demographer who works in Institut national d'études démographiques (INED) one of the world leading institutions in the field. His work is coauthored by Serhii Pyrozhkov from the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science. Kulchitsky is the leading Ukrainian scholar in the field from the Ukrainian Academy of Science working on the Famine reserach for many years. They both published extensively in books and peer-reviewed journals of the highest ranking. If you don't have access to the articles in Population Studies, a leading demographic peer-reviewed journal, you may order a copy for a small fee from their web-site, order it through inter-library loan or ask someone with access to provide you with a copy. From the sources currently used in the article these two are the only scholarly studies of the number of victims specifically in Ukraine made after the opening of the archives allowed to do such studies. If there are other such studies that I am unaware of, please bring them by all means.

The lead says further down that higher numbers are sometimes sited by the media and in the political debates. These numbers, btw, sometimes reach higher than 10 million, preferred by Holro and Bobanni for whatever reason. Viktor Yushchenko indeed used 10 million in his Wall Street Journal article [11] but he also said 20 million in his speech addressing the US Congress [12]. In yet another speech he said that if not Holodomor there would have been 80 million of Ukrainians. There are all sorts of inflated numbers and they are given in the politicization section. What you can't do is to cite the scholarly numbers along with the propaganda ones together giving them equal weight and creating some sort of a "range". This is like estimating the age of the Universe giving a range from astrophysical data on one end and from the Bible from another end. --Irpen 12:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, please look at the information you provide. None of the links provide any information. That is the point. There are no numbers. I can just as easily say that in those documents, the numbers are 10000 billion. You see, they are not verifiable. That's why they need to be taken out. What you can't do is assume that everybody will trust you when you say that the sources you allude to give those numbers. Your "scholarly" numbers don't exist in any of the links you gave. Therefore, they are not scholarly at all, and therefore out. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's remind me similar action of one of the editor in UPA article - he also unable to read figures and facts from source. Does it similar strategy Jo0doe (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Someone has problems with referenced figures of 100,000 UPA fighters or 250,00o arrested. But this doesn't have anything to do with Holodomor, so why bring it up?Faustian (talk)

Horlo, let's get this straight. I checked multiple times and assert that the numbers given in the lead cited to these specific references appear in these sources exactly as given in an article. You say they don't. I ask for the last time. Are you making this assertion having read that sources or you make stuff up without actually looking at them? I will quote from the sources to help those readers who can't read Ukrainian but I want to get this straight now. I want to know whether you are accusing me of lying out of your bad faith (that you read the source, saw the info and still make this all up) or you say this stuff because you are to lazy to look? --Irpen 21:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, let's keep this simple. The first two links provided on the page claim to support the "demographers' estimate", so ...

I click on the first link in the lead, and on that page, I see a masthead from INED, an introduction to a book, and then I see (in the abstract section): France and Ukraine would appear to be very far apart in terms of economics and history. Yet their demographic profiles were very similar for more than fifty years. France Meslé, Gilles Pison and Jacques Vallin investigate the long-term trends at work and tell us how that chance resemblance has given way to profound differences.

. (That's all.) Where are the numbers? Please give me a line number where I can find them.

Next,

I click on the next link (number 4), which takes me to an on-line newspaper. Personally, I love on-line newspapers, and have bought very much cheap property in Florida and Arizona through them. However, this one is in Russian, and when I click the "in English" link near the top right of the page, I was treated to a wonderful treatise about the "... failure of the training in our secondary schools", not exactly related to the Holodomor. More importantly, NO NUMBERS.

Next ...

I click on the next link (number 5), which supports sources by historians. However, that takes me to the Washington Post. For the first time, I actually find numbers - 2.5 to 3.5 million. Those which are not the ones that you claim are in the lead. However, this article was not written by a historian, it is not an editorial, nor a scholarly report, not even an op-ed piece: it was written by the Moscow correspondent who is describing Russia's reaction to more and more countries accepting the fact that the Holodomor was genocide. It is hardly anything scholarly which supports the claims in the lead.

That is what I found.

Please show me if there is anything that I missed, most importantly, numbers.

One more thing - DO NOT REMOVE OTHER EDITOR'S COMMENTS, like you did here: [[13]]If You are not Judge Judy and executioner, so don't do that again.

No accusations, just the pursuit of truth. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers about 2.2 here http://www.ined.fr/en/resources_documentation/publications/pop_soc/bdd/publication/47/ and similar info you can find at book at p. 28 line 18 from the bottom and please do not forget to read note 12 to that figure. sub-Chapter 3 also would be usefull. I assume you agree, what demography deal with deaths and statistics in more professional way, as compared with histroians - similar as Astronomy vs Astrology as regards the stars in scientific direction Jo0doe (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, I removed Kuban's comment because it was inappropriate. He did not complain, perhaps having realized his mistake. I do not see how you fit in this matter.

Now, let's start clicking together. None of my links above are to Washington Post or to a "Moscow correspondent". The links I gave are to works by scholars Jacques Vallin et al and Stanislav Kulchytsky at al. I elaborated on their backgrounds above. That you claim I linked to the "Moscow correspondent" and "Washington Post" just shows that you are not truthful in your assertions. From now on I will be extra careful with any source you use but let's get back to the sources I quoted.

On Vallin et al paper (and the numbers) we click on this link, I gave above. On the right-hand side of the page we see the link Printable version (PDF). We click on it and download the pdf file. On page 2 (second paragraph from the bottom) we read:

"In 1933, the famine which had occasioned unparalleled excess mortality of 2.2 million², cut the period life expectancy to a low of under 10 years."

where the note ² says: "2.6 million deaths in 1933 instead of the normal 433,000 to be expected from previous trends."

This is where Vallin's number is cited from.

Now, let's check the Kulchytsky's refs. Three are given above. Two of them is to one and the same article (in Russian and in Ukrainian). Here is what the article says:

"Однак, якщо заходить мова про загибель людей від голоду в Україні у 1933 році, слід називати тільки одну цифру — 3 238 тис. чоловік. Або, беручи до уваги неточність статистики, цифри в діапазоні від 3 до 3,5 млн. чоловік."

This same number is repeated in the book by Kulchytsky which (I also linked) where his sources are given in a much greater detail. The book "Демографічні наслідки голодомору 1933 р. в Україні" was published in 2003 by the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine where Dr. Sc. Kulchytsky is a deputy director. The link to the book was provided above. Let's click together and find a section 4. Аналіз демографічної статистики. Click and read page 51 as follows:

"При негативному сальдо офіційної статистики (1 343 тис.) втрати від голоду 1933 р. скоригуються до 3 238 тис. чоловік. Враховуючи можливі помилки демографічної статистики 30-х рр. при визначенн і природного і особливо механічного руху населення, істинні втрати коливатимуться в діапазоні від 3,0 до 3,5 млн. чоловік."

Further on page 53:

"Називаючи цифри від 7 до 10 і більше, ми не знайдемо тих, хто мав би загинути в таких вражаючих кількостях. Ці мільйони людей, слава Богу, зареєстровані обома переписами населення – 1926 і 1937 рр. Перепис 1926 р. був опублікований в 56 томах і у світовій демографічній науці вважається класичним. Перепис 1937 р. самою своєю долею, як і долями людей, що проводили його, доказав адекватність реальній демографічній ситуації."

On page 63 Kulchytsky cites Wheatcroft's article in "Трагедия советской деревни: Коллективизация и раскулачивание 1927-1939 гг.: Документы и материалы. Том 3. Конец 1930-1933 гг.", Российская политическая энциклопедия, 2001, ISBN 5-8243-0225-1, ISBN 5-8243-0006-2, p. 885:

“По одній лише Україні можна було б говорити про 3 – 3,5 млн. додаткових смертей, а по СРСР в цілому, мабуть, про 6-7 млн.”

As for the last source, while I do not doubt that the citation is exact, I am so interested that I will try to get my hand on this source for more info.

I am not sure how fluent you are with Ukrainian and Russian but if you have a difficulty reading the quotes I gave above, please feel free to ask. I will translate these quotes anyway for the article. But I won't be seriously discussing anything with you if you persist with you tactic of denial of what's in the plain view and filibustering. --Irpen 09:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, oh dear, Irpen, you seem to have misunderstood the reason for this discussion. The discussion here is about "Sources in the Lead". That means the sources that are at the beginning of the article, not sources that you have.

Please take a look at the sources IN THE LEAD, not the sources that you read. The reason that I showed all of those problems - no numbers, Moscow correspondent, not English, etc - are in the sources mentioned in the lead.

Having said that, let's take a look at the only scholarly source that you provide - the one by Vallin. When I looked at it, I was surprised to see that it was by no means a study of the Holodomor, nor did it even mention the Holodomor. It was, on the other hand, a study in similarities between French and Ukrainian demographics. It was indeed a very interesting read. I was even impressed by the author's optimism following the Orange Revolution, and how Ukraine has decided to resume its relations with Europe. However, there was no mention of the the Holodomor. The entire argument for the number of 2-2.5 million casualties of the greatest genocide ever perpetrated (historian's estimate) is one sentence in the second paragraph from the end of the second page of a four page article.

Sorry, that's not good enough. You need to provide actual scholarly studies in English about the Holodomor to validate your claim that those are what scholars estimate.

That brings us to the issue of removing other editor's comments: why do you think that this comment: Why do it so slowly why not just have a go all at once and rename it to How evil Moskal Russians deflowered the poor helpless virgin Ukraina? --Kuban Cossack 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) is inappropriate?

Even if you think it is, you have no right to remove it - just the same way that this comment: There are sources with numbers (check the rest of the article) but they mostly give bigger numbers. You might want to put correct sources and change numbers in accordance. --windyhead (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC) should not have been removed by Kuban Cossack. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do not remove other editors' comments, and either get some real sources for the numbers you claim in the lead, or they will be removed.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I still see no justification for your edit rather than personal comments to Irpen, you for noted WP:IDONTLIKEIT of the mention that Holodomor was part of a wider famine (which you replace), despite Irpen's, mine and Ostap's agreement to retaining the 1921 image you still remove it, no reasoning and you forget that WP:RS states that if a secondary source is already published it is not our responsiblity to Cherry pick it apart, moreover that does not imply the 2.2 million is right but its a lower bound of estimate. --Kuban Cossack 10:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have tried to be very clear in my explanation as to why the sources in the lead are not sufficient - they either present no numbers, or they are op-ed newspaper pieces. If you have any relevant scholarly pieces to add, please do. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Still that does not answer why removed the image, which was agreed by consensus, you have not explained why you removed the link to the general famine of 1932-33. --Kuban Cossack 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject - this is a place to talk about sources in the lead. None of the sources that are currently in the lead actually provide any of the numbers that you claim that they do. That is why they are always removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case, why did you include the removal of the 1921 image of the lead? and you reply on Please don't change the subject I interpret as oh no, they are pulling my attempt to add my POV to this article apart, I must ignore them, maybe, just maybe they wont notice. Tell you this Horlo, you are not the first one here with that approach. --Kuban Cossack 11:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Kuban kazak, perhaps you have not noticed, but this discussion can get quite heated at times. The simplest way to avoid comments like: Why do it so slowly why not just have a go all at once and rename it to How evil Moskal Russians deflowered the poor helpless virgin Ukraina? --Kuban Cossack 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) is to focus on one issue at a time. I have tried to separate the issues into discussable chunks - like numbers in the lead. If you try to solve every problem at once, it won't happen.

Now, do you have any scholarly sources that support any numbers you propose to add to the lead? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, have you any comments to figure at p. 28 line 18 from the bottom (note 12 to that figure) And sub-Chapter 3 from France Meslè et Jacques Vallin avec des contributions de Vladimir Shkolnikov, Serhii Pyrozhkov et Serguei Adamets, Mortalite et cause de dècès en Ukraine au XX siècle

This 396 pages work with data CD in highest details describe the Mortality and courses of Death in Ukraine in XX Century. So specially for Holodomor here designated a separate chapter under name “Crisis of 1930-s” If you’ve any comment or suggestion about estimations and calculations – I’ll give you a contact details to which you can submit your suggestion on methods and approaches used. Regards Jo0doe (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Round 2

Hello,

I think that if the lowest estimate (ie 2.5 million deliberately starved to death, simply because they were Ukrainian) is included in the lead, it is only fair that the highest estimate (ie. 20 million, with which I don't personally agree, but it is the highest bound stated) also be included. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An ipportant thing about the 2.5 million estimate is not that it is "lowest" but because it is taken from academic work. No academic work has 20, 10 or even 7 million, the numbers you are trying to push. These numbers are part of the political debate and they are given in that section anyway. --Irpen 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - ajusted estimated population as of January 1933 ~ 30 mln so 30-20 = 10? So a mistery - who submit to State in 1933 356 million of poods 3-4 Million of peasants as far as urban population was 6-7 Millions?Oops - I forgot what mathematics assumed as OR Jo0doe (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, please avoid weasel words like "you are trying to push". The number 2.5 is the lowest number regularly - the lowest number is ZERO, but that is discussed at Holodomor Denial.

This source [[14]] says 7 to 9 million killed, this source [[15]] says seven million. So I will go ahead and add those numbers. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, both these sources are off-topic and do not show where they are getting these numbers either. Show one source where 7, 9, 10, etc million is either obtained or referenced to where this is from and preferably, make it about the subject at hand, not an unrelated topic where the matter is touched passingly by a non-specialist on the subject. --Irpen 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, the only source in English that mentions 2.2 million is from a study comparing French and Ukrainian demographic history. It is not a study of the Holodomor. That source also does not show where the numbers are from.

The only English source that mentions 3.5 million is an op-ed piece from the Washington Post, and that also does not show where the numbers are from.

If you want to find out where the sources that give 7-11 million got their numbers, please read the texts.

And please do not remove sourced material. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The source with 2.2 million is devoted to the demography of Ukraine. While not showing where this number is from in this very paper, it gives a reference to where this data is taken from. There are three sources with 3-3.5 million. Two are from Kulchytsky, the top Ukrainian scholar of the subject who works in the institution of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the third one is from S. Wheatcroft, the Australian historian and demographer who thoroughly researched and published on the subject of this famine. That Kulchytsky's article is not in English, does not make it less reliable in any way. What matters are the academic standing of the sources and their authors, not the language they use. Sources you edit are entirely off topic, they are not even about history. The numbers are mentioned passingly as the authors talk about different subjects and the author neither show how they obtain the number, no refer to a work where they found it. --Irpen 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, the source with 2.2 million does not show that number anywhere. It is an introduction to a study, and does not show it. Nor does it show where the info is from - it merely states "Taking into account all existing sources of registered data and estimates" (which should be a tipoff - any scholar claiming to have seen ALL EXISTING sources about something usually hasn't); the second is called "France-Ukraine: Demographic Twins Separated by History" - not at all "devoted to the demography of Ukraine"

There is only one editor here who is calling sources dubious- I have never said that, nor have I ever even suggested not using non-English sources. What I am saying, on the other hand, is that every study source should be considered. The sources I included are about European integration, and trauma studies, and the US government.

Again, just because you don't agree with them, please don't remove them. They are just as valid as the others. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Detailed review of academic sources

Horlo, as in the section above, you are blatantly lying.

you wrote:

1. "the source with 2.2 million does not show that number anywhere
2. Nor does it show where the info is from - it merely states

You are lying. The source both shows the number (on page 2, second paragraph from the bottom) and gives a reference to where it is obtained: This is what the source (accessible here) says:

In 1933, the famine which had occasioned unparalleled excess mortality of 2.2 million,^(footnote) cut the period life expectancy to a low of under 10 years.^reference

where the ^(footnote) says: 2.6 million deaths in 1933 instead of the normal 433,000 to be expected from previous trends and the ^reference points to the work were the number is derived: France MESLÉ and Jacques VALLIN - Mortalité et causes de décès en Ukraine au XXe siècle, Les Cahiers de l’Ined, no. 152, Ined, 2003, 396 p.

The latter book is the most detailed demographic study of 20th century Ukraine ever written. This study, as well as the page number, is referenced in the article. So, yes, it is devoted specifically to the demography of Ukraine and written by scholars who specialize in the field and work in INED (Institut national d’études démographiques) one of the world's leading demographic institutions.

If this book is inaccessible to you because it's French, too expensive and you have no access to libraries, they reproduce a sufficiently detailed summary of their calculation in the work titled: "A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s" published in Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3. (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264. The Population Studies is the world leading scholarly journal on the field of demographics. The abstract to this article is available here. Again, if you have no access to electronic subscription to Population Studies or library, you can pay a modest fee and download the article from the publisher and read it. Or you may try to find someone who has such access to provide you with a copy as a personal favor. I have read this article and verified the numbers. We discussed it even onwiki with several other Wikipedians who also read it. You may find the discussion somewhere in the history of the Faustian's talk.

The next source is by Kulchytsky, a Deputy Director of the leading academic institution in the country, the Institute of History of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine. His book is wholy dedicated to the subject of Holodomor and entitled "Demographic consequence of Holodomor of 1933 in Ukraine", published in Kiev by the Institute of History in 2003. This book (in Ukrainian) is available online here (see chapter 4 entitled "The analysis of the demographic statistics")

The conclusion of the calculation is:

"При негативному сальдо офіційної статистики (1 343 тис.) втрати від голоду 1933 р. скоригуються до 3 238 тис. чоловік. Враховуючи можливі помилки демографічної статистики 30-х рр. при визначенн і природного і особливо механічного руху населення, істинні втрати коливатимуться в діапазоні від 3,0 до 3,5 млн. чоловік."

translation: "With the [migration] balance being negative, according to the official statistics, (1,343 thousand), the losses from the 1933 famine are corrected to 3,238 thousand). Taking into account the possible errors from the 1930s thirties demographic statistics of the natural, and especially physical, movement of population, the true losses would be somewhere between 3.0 and 3.5 million"

I reproduced a very detailed calculation from this book in the article at the "death toll" section, specifically for the readers who can't read Ukrainian (can you?)

The next source is the work of Stephen G. Wheatcroft who was one of the main editors of the major monumental 5-volume publication of archival materials entitled "Трагедия советской деревни: Коллективизация и раскулачивание 1927-1939 гг.: Документы и материалы.". This collection of the fundamental importance is now being translated into English and the Yale University Press published the first volume: "The War Against the Peasantry, 1927-1930. The Tragedy of the Soviet Countryside, Volume one". The article used here as a reference was published in not yet translated volume three (p. 885.)

Do you remember me promissing above to get my hands on it? Well I did. Finding it was more difficult than your google booking to fish for any number of victims that is high enough to your taste. Here is the full version of the volume. Wheatcroft's work under discussion is Appendix 2, "О демографических свидетельствах трагедии советской деревни в 1931—1933 гг." (translation: "On demographic evidence of the tragedy of the Soviet village in 1931-1933). Now quoting:

По одной лишь Украине можно было бы говорить о 3 — 3,5 млн дополнительных смертей, а по СССР в целом видимо, о 6 —7 млн.

translation: In Ukraine alone, we could speak about 3 - 3.5 millions of additional deaths, and USSR-wide apparently, 6-7 million

Now, these are the sources of the highest quality. Dedicated works on the subject written by top scholars in the field who actually show their sources and calculations" If you have anything to contradict them or even to widen the range of the victims' estimate, your sources better have the same standing. As I said before, you can neither bring in the Bible to the Wikipedia as a source to argue with the sources used in articles on Cosmology nor synthesize an estimate for Universe' age by putting the results from the Astrophysics books on one end and from the Bible on another end. --Irpen 06:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For analysis of your sources, see below

Analysis of Horlo's new sources

Now, let's look at what you managed to google-book. Your first source (John Gillingham) is a book whose subject is post war European integration. The Holodomor is only mentioned passingly (and wrongly) in the book. The author gives the number as 7-9 million but not only he does not show a calculation (the book is off-topic), he does not even give a reference to where this number is from. He also means some mysterious 1931 (!) Holodomor and calls this 1931 Holodomor "the worst of Ukraine's catastrophes". The author probably has heard about the WW2, whose death toll for Ukraine was about 2.5 to 3 times that of the Holodomor and whose destruction wiped away about a half of the republic's total wealth. In any case, whatever knowledge the author has on the topic of Holodomor, we can't figure it out from one passing mention in an off-topic book with such goofs, no visible calculation and no reference. Neither it is clear from his credentials.

Your next "source" (Boris Drozdek) is a book whose subject is psychology. Its publisher's description says that this work offers "synthesizing insights from psychiatry, social psychology, and anthropology sets out a framework for therapy that is as culturally informed as it is productive." I would not even look at such books as a source of Holodomor info. The Holodomor there is also mentioned passingly, off topic and with no reference (why would it be in an off-topic book?).

Your last source is "MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL PARKS BILLS." Of course it won't provide either a calculation, or a reference for it.

Now, Horlo, this is your final warning. Next time you will be caught lying and falsifying sources, you will be reported. I simply did not want to go through the hassle of compiling the evidence of your gross tendentiousness and dishonesty but I notice that it takes even more time for me to debunk your lies and misrepresentations. So, this was the last time I did it. --Irpen 06:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think these claims of "lying and falsifying sources" are completely inappropriate. First, Irpen sidelined all good academic sources, such as book by Robert Conquest. Then, he blames others of using poor sources.Biophys (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, wow, Irpen, you must really be confused about the discussion here. The links that I am talking about are the ones in the lead. In this article. I don't know what you are talking about, so let's see if we can't figure this out together:

If you look at the lead, after the part that says "demographers' estimate", you see a little number two. Click on it, and you go down to the bottom of the page. At the bottom of the page, you will see a link to this: [[16]]. Where on that page does it discuss numbers?

Now, if you click on the number five, it takes you again to the bottom of the page - and again to an external link, this one: [[17]]. This is a study comparing historical Ukrainian and French demographics. The Holodomor is mentioned in passing, and incorrectly.

This takes us to the sources about the historians' estimates. There are three. When I try to click on the first one (reference number 6), strange characters appear - like webdings. Perhaps this is a coding problem, as not every computer can read every character coding set. However, the only numbers that I can see are 1933 and 1937.

When I try to click on the next one, (reference number 7), it takes me to a newspaper. What an incredible, scholarly work.

When I try to click on the next one, number 8, it gives me a page load error.

Please take some time to look at these sources, and tell me exactly where the numbers are.

By the way, did you notice the Encyclopedia Britannica source (reference number three) that says "four to five million were Ukrainian"? Or do you just consider the EB not scholarly enough for your tastes?

I hope that helped - now you can see why I was so confused by your unfounded accusations of lying.

Please, no more accusations of lying, especially if they are so wrong. That's not very nice, and next time you will be reported.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to a request by Horlo that I participate in this discussion, it seems like Horlo's changes are contested by a number of editors, and I can see why since his changes are very much different than what the article has said for as long as I can remember and they're obviously controversial. The article should stay as it was before his edits until he can gain consensus for his changes, hence my revert. Krawndawg (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please note that the additions I made (I do not want to remove anything, nor keep anything out of the article) were supported by various editors. I am not changing anything, just adding sourced information. Please note that here [[18]] there was agreement to change the numbers. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I point your attention to similar stile of edits in other article [19] Should we vote about mentioned by Irpen sources -

• group of editor which able to see figures and
• group of editor which unable to see figures Jo0doe (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for pointing out other situations where some editors simply started reverting changes I made without any effort at discussion. By the way, when you click on link number two here [[20]], what do you see? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please everyone, support questionable numbers in article with extensive quotes from sources --windyhead (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Irpen already did it twice (or may be bore. Detailed, reliable, scientific, recognized by UN.Jo0doe (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean - add quotations to article refs - thanks --windyhead (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So may would be better to clarify voting procedure

• group of editor which able to see figures, because they read the source
• group of editor which unable to see figures, because they don’t read the source Jo0doe (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

during the 1932-1933 agricultural season

So actually it's incorrect statement - because what 1932-1933 agricultural season means here? If we use a reporting period used until 1930 in Soviet economy-such period actually look like agricultural season i.e. - from July till June year +1. But, if we looked more detailed at this period - July 1932-June 1933 - we actually can not proved trace any mass (end even starvation reports) from mid of July 1932 till beginning of January 1933 (so it's explain actually why Holodomor 1933). So why we not stick to history? Or, because, somewhere in Canada erected Holodomor monument which reflect Ukraine in 1957 borders – and it was assumed by tiny community as map of Ukraine starved from Holodomor - why we should also reflect this illiteracy in WP? Jo0doe (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers in the lead

Hello,

Hopefully a few days off has given everybody a chance to cool down. Let's continue this as a discussion/conversation.

Basically, the lead should provide a synopsis of all of the information in the article. This is, admittedly, a paraphrasing of the guideline.

So, The article provides information about the Holodomor, which was, admittedly arguably, a genocide.

Now, a thirty second google scholar search of "Holodomor" has come up with the UN resolution about the Holodomor, which states 7 to 10 million people were starved to death. Here [[21]]; and here, in French [[22]].

The article itself states that numbers up to 20 million are sometimes used. That statement is referenced.

Why is it so difficult to add these numbers to the lead?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction Horlo, Holodomor was not a genocide, today the UN refused to review it [23], and a week ago OSCE did not recognise the famine as a genocide. --Kuban Cossack 09:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your input, but you're slightly off topic.

The Holodomor was a genocide, but that's not the point of the discussion here. The point is - there numbers are referenced throughout the page, so why are they not in the lead? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No it was not. The numbers are as silly as they come, one source names 2 million whilst another 20. I mean what the hell is going on? Have the dead begun to multiply and breed? --Kuban Cossack 10:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! "Silly" is not a valid argument against UN resolution --windyhead (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please avoid a) phrases like 'what the hell', and b) making jokes about the victims of the Holodomor.

The point is exactly that there is a wide discrepancy about numbers - and that they should all be listed. Thanks for your support, Horlo (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So are there any arguments against including the numbers in the lead? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Per WP:NPOV Policy

• representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

As far as we deal with number of deaths - the science which deal with mortality called demography - so we must follow the WP policy and usedemography reliable source. As for present time we've a highest possibly grade publication -INED which directly deal with demographic crisis in Ukraine in 30-s. Unfortunately no other sources demographical sources publish information which related to Holodomor (mass deaths from starvation and desease coused by malnutrition) in Ukraine in 1933.Jo0doe (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, absolutely, all numbers must be published by reliable sources. How about the United Nations? [[24]].

Once again, the study by the INED does not show any numbers in the abstract.

However, this article deals with the Holodomor, not mortality. There are various sources cited throughout, and they should all be represented in the lead. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I highly reccomend you to find in talk archive Kulchitskyy detalied explanations about origin of this figures. I assume UN will not be happy

if knew that (so actually they was cheated). So you oppose to 4 time more then expected mortality in Holodomor? Varios sources is not match WP:RS criteria for mortality figures If you knew any new demographycal estimations - please give a link - I'll be order for my laibraryJo0doe (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure what you're saying there.

However, please note that I'm not saying keep any numbers out - I'm saying that there are many different sources, not only Kulchitsky, and they should also be presented. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So try this one http://www.dt.ua/3000/3050/42742/

У зверненні учасників згаданого вище «круглого столу» до Президента України і до українського народу, а також у зверненні VIII світового конгресу українців (Київ, 21 серпня 2003 року) до урядів і народів світу стверджується, що голод в Україні забрав життя від 7 до 10 млн. осіб. Я брав участь в роботі «круглого столу» і був свідком того, як «виводилася» ця цифра. У проекті звернення, зачитаного організаторами, називалася одна цифра — 10 млн. осіб. Микола Жулинський запротестував і запропонував назвати цифру, яка найчастіше фігурує у публіцистів, — 7 млн. осіб. Учасники «круглого столу» погодилися з ним (крім мене, бо я стверджую, що демографічна статистика виводить всіх нас на удвічі меншу цифру). Коли конгрес обговорював документ «круглого столу», вирішили назвати цифру жертв голодомору в діапазоні від 7 до 10 млн. осіб.

Апеляція до світової громадськості, у тому числі — до світової науки — це серйозна справа. Не можна розв’язувати питання про демографічні наслідки голодомору по-дитячому.

Note word - demography - so if you can find a reliable demographists estimations - wellcome. Otherwice put it politization sectionJo0doe (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is not a discussion of the demographers' estimates, we can discuss that later. This is a discussion of the numbers presented in the lead. The lead should present an overview of everything that the reader will find in the text - in the article, there are numbers as high as 20 million victims of this genocidal famine. The lead is an introduction, but realistically, it is often the only part of the article that a reader reads, and should therefore include all of the information in the article - not force the reader to look deeper into the article for numbers.

Please explain if you think that the UN and/or the BBC are dubious sources; otherwise, they, as well as works which do not rely on soviet sources, are an integral part of the information provided in the article and must therefore be presented in the lead. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• The lead should present an overview of everything that the reader will find in the text.

How you plan to do so? It will no lead – but article itself. Or if you plan to do it as you did earlier – it’s way to mislead the visitors or combining Earth and Flat_Earth in one fact – see WP:SYN – for more.

May I remind you what The commission (International_Commission_of_Inquiry_Into_the_1932–33_Famine_in_Ukraine)

majority (5 of 6) deems it plausible that the constituent elements of genocide were in existence at the time of the famine.

I not assume UN and BBC as dubious sources – but political statement based on disinformation (see citation above) and non-historical approach based on historical illiteracy. Since WP tend to be reliable source (as for this instance in history and demography matters) we must use highest level of scholars works but not politicians claims – which here (in article) represented in specially devoted to them section. By the way it’s article about Holodomor but not about Politics Speculations on Holodomor Jo0doe (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. The lead should provide an overview of what the reader will find in the passage - well, the reader will find 7, 10, and 20 million. The reasons for those numbers will be explained in the article, but they are introduced in the lead.

I think what you are trying to say is that WP should only use scholars' works and not politicians' works. However, WP should not "use" works - but should present everything evenly. Otherwise, it would be OR or POV. There is even an article about the Flat_earth. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point of views - what WP should not "use" works - but should present everything evenly. But we don’t discuss WP in general – we limited to article related to one historical event – namely Holdomor-1933. So may be you’ll be more lucky enough to create article named Holodomor – usage for propaganda and politics proposes. You can start from speech of Nazi Cleric at end of August 1933 continue with Holodomor 1934 and Holodomor-1935, so – after some climax -, you can add info from 1941-42 OUN edited newspapers officially published in Reichskommissariat Ukraine; continue film footage from about spring 1943 Nazi findings near Vinnitsa and some OUN leaflets and enrich them from post war Nazi-collaborationists publications. After some recession you’ll come to Empire of Evil times – so there a lot of “information” and “witnesses” "affidavits".

- so act per WP:IGNORE to illustrate your point of view – none care with such controversial and full of high graded and well prepared lie and information misuse stuff. Jo0doe (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not include the 7 million figure in the lead but properly label it as a number used by politicians rather than a number agreed upon by demographers? So, for example, in the first paragraph we could use:"...though much higher figures such as seven million are often quoted by the media and cited in political debates" That way the frequently cited number of seven million is addressed in the lead.Faustian (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• You again forgot add “scientifically groundless” to “seven and more millions”.
• Or may be we should go on a “better way” – which proposed by Faustians in other WP:Article – per WP:IGNORE - so we call the all non-English source as fringe (by this way we can eliminate “wrong scholars” with 2.2 and 2.6 as also 3-3.5) and will accept only Ukrainian Diaspora “well known historians” like Kuzio, Krawchenko and “well recognized” mainstream “researchers” like Mace and Conquest with their highly graded sources for frozen meat of kulaks and drowned barges with Ukrainian children. And of cause we will avoid “communists” propaganda like map of Ukrainian SRR as of mid of 1933 (we better use map from Diaspora monuments); aid in amount of 35.19 million poods (576,400) aid to Ukrainian peasantry only, like 2 consecutive yield shortfall, like mostly peasantry exterminated livestock by 1932 and removal from cherna doshka in September 1933 still existed village which not starved to death due the absence of matches and kerosene. Let’s “our job” beginsJo0doe (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, I was not aware that you were a Holodomor scientist. I'm sure that you understand why sources need to be checked in an article like this, and they need to be serious. However, you must also be aware that it is dangerous to rely on sources that were published by the government which denied the existence of the Holodomor and actually increased grain exports. Also, let's focus on the numbers in the lead, not on why the Holodomor took place. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Horlo – can’t found anywhere what you claimed for - denied the existence of the Holodomor and actually increased grain exports. May be you not so carefully read spring 1933 western press – so you can be found the info about Soviet import of grain. As regards denial – so what actually was denied – Nazi cleric speeches? May be you don’t know but the winter –spring 1933 situation in Ukrainian SRR specially noted many times in 1933-49 publication of USSR – even Big Soviet Encyclopedia 1-st edition noted fault in Ukr SSR agriculture. May be you don’t know but there no McD and KFC by the time in USSR – so sole major origin of food was an agriculture – if agriculture fault – no food – is it clear? While you attempt to include figures which, actually has not any scientific base – it’s not good idea. Moreover WP is not online version of Britanica Jo0doe (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I would also add ten million, which is cited in botht the UN resolution, and the BBC. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So why not 20 as cited by Yuschenko - Or may be 50 as he claim one time?Jo0doe (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

delete section

Wouldn't it be better to delete the section Comprehending the famine? Al the information provided there seems to be in the rest of the article and the rest looks like soapboxing to me Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However may be better to remove it into similar quality article – Denial of the Holodomor – together with Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite section – which information has no relation to Holodomor itself. Can we limit the article to causes and Holodomor itself?Jo0doe (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Me three here for MY and two for Jo0 --Kuban Cossack 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the people of Donesk will like me :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, any objections to removing the section?--Kuban Cossack 07:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

DISAGREE - the Holodomor article needs to address two aspects of the famine; HOW and WHY. The HOW arguement is covered but the WHY is only partially addressed in the sections that you are proposing to delete. Bobanni (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok what do the elimination of Ukrainian Cultural elite have to do with how and why? I meant needless to say its OR to suggest the two policies (if there were there) had any relation? Moreover as Mariah-Yulia said the information covered in those sections is repeated elsewhere in the article. --Kuban Cossack 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Some will argue that elimination of Ukrainian Cultural elite is one of the WHYs of the Holodomor. Your OR rebuttal is premature - there are reliable sources to back this up.Bobanni (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no single original source that links the two, only speculation. None of the declassified documents show a tandem. --Kuban Cossack 08:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this quote acceptable: “I remain convinced that for Stalin to have complete centralized power in his hands, he found it necessary to physically destroy the second-largest Soviet republic, meaning the annihilation of the Ukrainian peasantry, Ukrainian intelligentsia,Ukrainian language, and history as understood by the people; to do away with Ukraine and things Ukrainian as such. The calculation was very simple, very primitive: no people, therefore, no separate country, and thus no problem. Such a policy is Genocide in the classic sense of the word”. James Mace Bobanni (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As a POV of Mr.Mace yes, but have noticed we do not have a category:genocide on the article for a reason. --Kuban Cossack 09:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can Mariah-Yulia provide examples of information that is repeated. We should try to avoid a SOAPBOX vs WHITEWASHING debate. Bobanni (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors shouldn't offer their own opinions of WHY. However, the opinion of scholars as to WHY seems appropriate. Counteropinions, also by scholars, should also be included for balance. But a section on possible reasons why seems appropriate. Consider the article on the Irish potato famine as an example.Faustian (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So which relation above mentioned two chapters has to event itself? So Fasustians once again you spoke about Austria in 1939, but in fact such state does not exist in mentioned period of time. So can we ajorn with 3 against 2 or we wait for Horlo and rest Jo0doe (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hello, I think the question here is what is this section trying to accomplish? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

References in the lead

Hello,

Does this article really need four references stating that the Holodomor was the worst natural catastrophe to happen to Ukraine in the 20th century?

Second, I think it is important to keep the references current.

Reference number 2 in no way mentions the numbers that it claims to support.

Reference number 5 just mentions the Holodomor in passing, in the second paragraph of the second column in a two page article. These two points hardly represent the "demographers' estimate", or at least any verifiable source.

Reference number 6 comes up as unreadable, and the only numbers there are 1933 and 1937. Most likely a coding error.

Reference number 7 is from a weekly on-line newspaper, hardly a scholarly work.

Reference number 8 is from a website that appears put together by my children. I can understand a bit of Russian, but while the information in the article claims to be from the Russian academy of science, the website is from something called streamclub. Hardly a scholarly source.

Please update any sources, thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do not read the mentioned book and works -

So once again - should start a voting procedure

• group of editor which able to see figures, because they read the source
• group of editor which unable to see figures, because they don’t read the source

So es regards rest figures which so beloved by group of genocide proponents. - None of them referenced to the estimations/ culculations how such was get - instead of Kulchitskyy and Vallin.

• In Kulchitsku and Vallin mentioned - how they reached/get mentioned figures - while in other - not - so per WP policy we should stick with sources which "enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question" - instead of empty wording about millions - demography - is a scienceJo0doe (talk)

Hello, JoOdoe, please try to keep your sentences short, then they will be easy to understand. Here is the link to reference number two: [[25]]. Please give me a line reference that shows the number 2.2 million.

This link, [[26]], the first to Kulchytsky, does not work on some computers. This link, [[27]], the second to Kulchytsky, is to an on-line newspaper. No mention of supporting documents. This link, [[28]] the third, is entitled "THE TRAGEDY OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE Collectivization and Dekulakization". Not the Holodomor.

Where is the science? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Link work at working time at Ukraine - since server based on PC at Institute of history - you can easily get it from google cash.

May be you've missed my post

Numbers about 2.2 here http://www.ined.fr/en/resources_documentation/publications/pop_soc/bdd/publication/47/ and similar info you can find at book at p. 28 line 18 from the bottom and please do not forget to read note 12 to that figure. sub-Chapter 3 also would be usefull. I assume you agree, what demography deal with deaths and statistics in more professional way, as compared with histroians - similar as Astronomy vs Astrology as regards the stars in scientific direction Jo0doe (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, I guess this really is a problem with language - you don't understand the discussion here. We are discussing the sources in the lead of this article. The source you provided is NOT in the lead in this article, nor does it have 28 pages. There are 4 pages, and the Holodomor is only mentioned in passing on the second half of page 2.

However, could you please answer my question - where is the number 2.2 million in this link: [[29]]. If you - or anybody else - cannot provide that information, I submit that the link should be removed.

Please do not engage in RV wars in the article - if you have something constructive to add, please do. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already did this - but it was removed - So you claim what you got book and did not see a figures? If not - see above detailed Irpen explanationsJo0doe (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - please provide here or in article reference an extended quote from source confirming 2.2 mln., or please provide a diff where such a quote was provided - Thanks! --windyhead (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Sources_in_the_lead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Round_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Detailed_review_of_academic_sources and at least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor/Archive_9#Strange_science_DEMOGRAPHY_or_new_lessons_for_group_of_editorsJo0doe (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, I think that again the issue of language may be rearing its ugly head here. NONE of the sources that you linked to show 2.2 million. Also, the sources that were discussed there ARE NOT IN THE LEAD. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, JoOdoe, you did not answer my question. Here is the link to the first "2.2 million" reference. [[30]] Either show me where the number is, or do not re-insert the source. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you to supply article refs with broad quotes from sources confirming the info in the article --windyhead (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So –do it by yourself – all details were provided by Irpen (I’ve give you a link). If you simply don’t want to see – it’s not an argument to exclude high-quality reliable sources Jo0doe (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So, Horlo, could you be so kind to spell numbers of refs in the LEAD of article, which you are concerned for (only numbers please). ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, I think that I have spelt it out enough. I have provided the actual link to the supposed reference more than three times. No more semantic games, please. I will take from your answer that you cannot provide a number, so I will remove the reference. If you can provide another, great. Otherwise, please do not revert the change. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Never seen "spell" - just link. As far as I can see you simply don't like to read Irpen explantions and my info given above. So removing of INED sources will be treated as vandalism - and reported - ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, please report this page - nobody has provided the information that I have asked for. The number is not there. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So - you can't see Irpen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Sources_in_the_lead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Round_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Detailed_review_of_academic_sources, my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor/Archive_9#Strange_science_DEMOGRAPHY_or_new_lessons_for_group_of_editors. And you've book and read from page 28 till page 30 and can't see table 6 with row 1933 and figure in last column were appeared '"-2172"'?. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, here is a very simple request: Here is the link, which you keep re-inserting. [[31]].Please show me where on this page you see the number 2.2 million. Please don't try to teach me about Wikipedia, just show me the number. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to book which you can get at libraries - you can get number on mentioned by me table at listed page. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia numbers removal

Hi, there were several reverts removing # of causalities supported by Encyclopedia Britannica. I can't find any discussion regarding this removal here. People who do this please explain. --windyhead (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• As here there no dicussion about removal of well referenced and related info from 3 sections - I can't see similar efforts. So - I can't find the text that supports the article content in question - or more detailed - there no info provided about how they get 4-5 Mln - as for instance - like Kuljitskyy and Vallin. Moreover wording - contradict with historians accepted facts - about duration, procurement - etc. As WP is not Mirror of Britanica - it should be better (more reliable) then it.Jo0doe (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just provide a ref to reliable calculation or estimation process for mentioned figures - and all issues will be solvedJo0doe (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - the text that supports the article content in question is provided right inside the reference, which cites the source: Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians. Regarding your request for info about "how they get 4-5 Mln" - are there any support for such a request in wikipedia rules? --windyhead (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the text that supports the article content in question - how they get mentioned figures - simply factless claim. And see belowJo0doe (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So you are again requesting broad explanation for 4 - 5 Mln. from Britannica. But the question is - are there any support for such a request in wikipedia rules? --windyhead (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES - The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. So –once again we provide information which are exclusively related demography, so, in order to preserve WP reliability and verifiability – per WP:policy – we must present as much as possible verifiable information – so we’ve a more then 3 high-quality reliable sources. I assume you agree with statement what sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources. So – passed through claim supported through non-reliable sentences vs scientifically proved process – sorry last will win anyway. I suppose you agreed, what WP reliability is a must?Jo0doe (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OKAY, JoOdoe, just to see if I understand you correctly, you think that the Encyclopedia Brittanica is a Dubious source? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, - simply not match with WP:Policy - sources should be appropriate to the claims made. I assume you agreed what claim for 4-5 million deaths of humans is exceptional? So INED book vs one line of groundless wordsJo0doe (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DiasporiTanica or McHistory

• Nevertheless, Soviet authorities set requisition quotas for Ukraine at an impossibly high level
• Brigades of special agents were dispatched to Ukraine to assist in procurement
• leading to scenes in which peasants faced the firing squad for stealing as little as a sack of wheat from state storehouses
• The ensuing starvation grew to a massive scale by the spring of 1933, but Moscow refused to provide relief
• The ensuing starvation grew to a massive scale by the spring of 1933, but Moscow refused to provide relief
• The famine subsided only after the 1933 harvest had been completed. The traditional Ukrainian village had been essentially destroyed, and settlers from Russia were brought in to repopulate the devastated countryside

So mentioned above spoke badly about accuracy checking and sources choosing Jo0doe (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well given Britannica fits well as a reliable source - all you can do is to provide another source as much reliable as Britannica which disputes those - and to put the info into article as another opinion (btw. there are different opinions already presented). --windyhead (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:REDLAG – I’m not sure is Britanica 10 lines passed through article is good source for history article. Moreover – bad level of neutrality noted – (Soviet authorities set requisition quotas for Ukraine) together with facts (if you read an article) what it actually disinformation. You can use google to detect author of above mentioned wording. So Reliability of WP here is prevail to Britanica. I suppose you agreed, what reliability is a must?Jo0doe (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What is that WP:REDLAG? What's wrong with requisition quotas info? There are many sources about it on the internet. There is some info about it in the article as well, as well as within some other. --windyhead (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Soviet authorities never set requisition quotas for Ukraine in 1932. See image of decree at article. Great - Internet is WP:RS - so any other same stile WP:RS - may be some "Ukrainian" newspapers from October 1941-42 Jo0doe (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Civility Bandurist (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• So you are not happy what Britanica used tiny minority version vs history? What's wrong with McHistory?Jo0doe (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. So now you are accusing Britannicaof using a fringe theory or "minority version"?Faustian (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality

Nicholas Werth a well known historian writes: “The question of whether the 1932-33 famine constitutes a genocide is a matter of disagreement among historians studying the calamity, whether Russians, Ukrainians, or their Western counterparts. There are basically two schools of thought.

1. Some historians see the famine as an artificially organized phenomenon, planned since 1930 by the Stalinist regime to break the particularly strong resistance of Ukrainian peasants to the kolkhoz system. In addition, this plan sought to destroy the Ukrainian nation, at its “national-peasant” core, which constituted a serious obstacle to the transformation of the USSR into a new imperial state dominated by Russia. According to this view, the famine was a genocide.
2. At the other end of the analytical spectrum are scholars who recognize the criminal nature of the Stalinist policies, but believe that it is necessary to assess all of the famines that took place between 1931-33 (in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, western Siberia and Volga regions) as part of a complex phenomenon shaped by numerous factors, from the geopolitical context to the demands of an accelerated industrialization and modernization drive, in addition to Stalin’s “imperial objectives. From this perspective, the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine and the Kuban was not a genocide.”

Many Wikipedia editors for the Holodomor and related articles endorse the second POV however constantly delete or block well referenced material that supports the first POV. Neutrality tags are summarily remove often with uncivil comments. This editting clearly violates the NPOV policy for Wikipedia.Bobanni (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• You’ve mismatched history with kremlinology – se here examples [32] and facts with hoaxes.

So there no actually “schools of thought” – since there no historical school of Holodomor – there simply exist historical and political approach to historical event. In first case researchers simply provide as many as possible facts regarding related events. In second case – there only exploiting the historical events for “business” proposes – propaganda, distraction, deception. So your tag is irrelevant – as far as I assume you appeal to “non-neutrality” of science vs “neutrality” of politic or facts vs hoaxes Jo0doe (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Some historical facts for Holodomor- Britanica author

See below. Also for well known historian since he partially use this bookJo0doe (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Harvesting of 1932 yield

Document number № 118 http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Pyrig-1932.php

8 грудня 1932 р. По данным на 1 декабря, по Одесской области еще не обмолочено зерновых с площади 300 тыс. га, Днепропетровской - 85 тыс. га, Харьковской - 190 тыс. га и Донецкой - 150 тыс. га). –

• So bloody commies – predominantly Russians - encircled 0.725 millions hectares by NKVD troops and armored trains together with T-34 tanks to prevent grain collection on it? So actually – how many grain can be collected from 0.725 millions hectares. Mathematics engage – 0.725 * 10 centners per hectare ~ 0,725 million ton of grain.

So this amount will be allow to feed all Ukrainian peasantry for a several months. So why it was not collected in August - September 1932?Jo0doe (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

”Black boards” goods

Document number 104 http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Pyrig-1932.php

Goods which supply were cancelled and such goods were removed for/from ”Black boards” rural settlements and counties: именно: метровая и штучная мануфактура, обувь, фабричное готовое платье, галоши, валенки, кожухи, сахар, гвозди, эмалированная и оцинкованная посуда, трикотаж, махорка, папиросы, кондитерские изделия, хозяйственное мыло, оконное стекло, и сообщить о наличии указанных товаров облснабу.

• So bloody commies starved Ukrainian peasants by requisition of Valenki?

Jo0doe (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC) No. The Americans kept them fully supplied, and sent hem oranges injected with drugs from Florida. Bandurist (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

End of “Ukrainization – Decossacisation” decree at Kuban

http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Pyrig-1932.php Document number 121

ПОСТАНОВА ЦК ВКП(б) ТА РНК СРСР ПРО ХЛІБОЗАГОТІВЛІ НА УКРАЇНІ, ПІВНІЧНОМУ КАВКАЗІ ТА У ЗАХІДНИХ ОБЛАСТЯХ 14 грудня 1932 р. 6. ЦК и СНК отмечают, что вместо правильного большевистского проведения национальной политики в ряде районов Украины украинизация проводилась механически, без учета конкретных особенностей каждого района, без тщательного подбора большевистских украинских кадров, что облегчило буржуазно-националистическим элементам, петлюровцам и пр. создание своих легальных прикрытий, своих контрреволюционых ячеек и организаций. 7. В особенности ЦК и СНК указывают Северо-Кавказскому крайкому и крайисполкому, что легкомысленная, не вытекающая из культурных интересов населения, не большевистская "украинизация" почти половины районов Севкавказа при полном отсутствии контроля за украинизацией школы и печати со стороны краевых органов, дала легальную форму врагам Советской власти для организации сопротивления мероприятиям и заданиям Советской власти со стороны кулаков, офицерства, реэмигрантов-казаков, участников Кубанской рады и т. д.

д) Немедленно перевести на Северном Кавказе делопроизводство советских и кооперативных органов "украинизированных" районов, а также все издающиеся газеты и журналы с украинского языка на русский язык как более понятный для кубанцев, а также подготовить и к осени перевести преподавание в школах на русский язык. ЦК и СНК обязывают крайком и крайисполком срочно проверить и улучшить состав работников школ в "украинизированных" районах.

е) В отмену старого решения разрешить завоз товаров для украинской деревни и предоставить тт. Косиору и Чубарю право приостановить снабжение товарами особо отстающих районов впредь до окончания ими хлебозаготовительного плана.

So –if we read more carefully this decree – it’s easy to conclude what mechanical “ukrainization” has provided legal reasons for oppositions to soviets actions. So – clearly noted what such actions assumed by Cossacks as “docossakization”. Jo0doe (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey great refrence, I've seen it before, do you think we can use that as a basis to remove this nonsense from wikispace?--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not nonsence but article based on WP:QS - so we can shortened numbers of Ukrainians - per 1897 Census results, while noted about Decossakisation attempts by trotskistsJo0doe (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, if we read more carefully we see that this is the English Wikipedia. Why are you doing this? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello - if we read more book - we can find what it's a Ukrainian history article. Pitty - Soviets prefer to publish documents on Ukrainians or Russian Jo0doe (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wealth cities full of food encircled by NKVD troops

http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Pyrig-1933.php April 1933 Случаи опухания и голода обнаружены в Киеве и на фабрике им. Горького, заводе им. Артема, 6-м кожзаводе, ф-ке Смирнова, Ленкузне, заводе "Томского", 6-й типографии, Термосном заводе, Фанерном заводе, Водоканале, Электромоторном, Музфабрике, Червона Гута. Сведения о случаях голода имеются и в Одессе.[[User:Jo0doe|Jo0doe]] (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, again, I have to remind you that this is the English Wikipedia. What does that mean? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello - if we read more book - we can find what it's a Ukrainian history article. Pitty - Soviets prefer to publish documents on Ukrainians or Russian Jo0doe (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the decent thing to do would be to translate non-English, given that this is English wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe Please translate - or at least provide a summary Bobanni (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Charming novelty – as I remember what you’ve not experienced any difficulties with Cyrillic

• [33]

Use Russian or Ukrainian, it'll be easier to understand than your English in this case. Faustian (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• [[34]]

его. МАССОВЫЕ правок не пойду до конца. Bobanni (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Jo0doe (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting note

One example on the discourse on the war and the Soviet past among the some of the children of the members of the post war Galician Ukrainian emigration; or directly participated in the destruction of the Jews during German occupation. Through a victimized national narrative as well as presentation of the Great Famine of 1932/1933, they have tried to compete in order to obscure the “dark sides” of the Ukraine’s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with Germans.

p.59 ISBN 978-966-02-4679-9 and John-Paul Himka, A Central European Diaspora under the Shadow of World War II: The Galician Ukrainians in North America, in: Austrian History Yearbook 37 (2006), 17–31, here 30.

John-Paul Himka, Ukrainian Collaboration in the Extermination of the Jews During the Second World War. Sorting Out the Long-term and Conjunctural Factors, in: Jonathan Frankel (ed.), The Fate of the European Jews 1939–1945: Continuity or Contingency?, New York 1997, 170–189.

Dieter Pohl, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941–1944, Munchen 1996.

So here is editors attempt to ??? Jo0doe (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1897 vs 1926 Census results for Ukrainian SRR

1897 vs 1926 Census results for Ukrainian SRR (thousands persons)

Nationality	Total 1897/1926	1897 Rural/urban	1926 Rural/urban
Ukrainians	15825 22647	14975 850	20962 1685
Russians	2085 2318	1204 881	1468 850
Jews	1645 1566	929 715	627 938
Germans	378 376	351 27	352 23
Poles	268 461	188 80	393 68
Moldavians	186 258	175 10	250 8
Greeks	58 104	50 8	96 8

So – it’s about myths about Russians predominantly placed in cities and not affected by Holodomor. Same story for Germans, Poles, Moldavians and Greeks Also interesting natural increase for Russians vs Ukrainians - 220 thousands vs almost 7 millions. So –some Ukrainization applies ?Jo0doe (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're unfamiliar with the Ukrainization of the 1920's? Actually the statistics show that in 1926 36% of Russians were urban, 60% of Jews were urban, while only about 8% of Ukrainians were urban. Thus Ukrainians were hit much harder by the Famine than either of Ukraine's two significant minorities. In terms of urban population, of the ethnic groups listed on the graph Ukrainians made up only 47% of the urban population despite being about 81% of the Ukrainian SSR's overall population. Thanks posting the statistics that support the fact that Ukrainians suffered more, proportionately, than Russians as a result of the Famine. Faustian (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• You've stattistics on deaths by nationality. And I assume - it's explain your "difficulties" with facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Wealth_cities_full_of_food_encircled_by_NKVD_troops

Thus "Ukrainians proportionately were hit much harder" - your ORJo0doe (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See Moldavian, Germans and Poles – as regards ratio – and see which areas (oblasts) were listed as worst affected . While you knowledge in scientific matters is well known – through your “thousands lienes” of Krochmalyuk 1973 and Armstrong 1963. Jo0doe (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as we see Ukrainians were a higher proportion of the rural population than were Russians. Thanks for confirming through this chart that Ukrainians were more rural as a population than were Russians. Thus, if the famine hit rural areas harder, they hit Ukrainian areas harder. As for the map of populatiuon decline: [35] what about it contradicts anything I've said? Do you think Dnipropetrovsk oblast doesn't have rural areas or something? One thing the map suggests is that Poles were not as hardly hit, because they tended to settle in areas of the right bank which were hit less hard by the Famine? If Moldovans were settled near Moldova this is true of them too. But they are small minorities. Your desperate grasping for other conversations (Krokhmaliuk et al) is funny although irrelevent here.Faustian (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

“As for the map of populatiuon decline” – may be correct wording would be hoax  ?Jo0doe (talk)

• So – you invent a Holodomor 1927? Great and Tremendous!– in addition to “Battle Groups Makivka and Black Forest which defeated 12 Germans battalions at Krochmalyuk 1973(also invented by you)???
• DYK the Kyiv, Kharkiv with XT3, Dnipropetrovsk, Stalino, and rest biggest urban settlements population as of 17/XII/1928 and 1/V/1931 and I/I/1934? If not – go to the library first before made any “conclusions” and thoughts. So, by the way – have you any success with “top Western historians” – any refs were found? Can we expect Krochmalyuk 3-d extrimly limited edition (2008) Holodmor publication in near future? Jo0doe (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The only one mentioning a "Holodomor" of 1927 is you, above. But thanks for showing another of your lies about me. Your ongoing battle against Britannica is funny.Faustian (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The scenario above is typical. Jo0doe provides a chart and triumphantly declares, "it’s about myths about Russians predominantly placed in cities and not affected by Holodomor." But a basic understanding of arithmetic would show that Jo0doe was wrong, as usual. The numbers from the chart that he provided showed Ukrainians being more rural than Russians. Proven wrong, as usual, Jo0doe resorted to bringing stuff up from months ago from another article. or using the word "hoax." Or lying about me claiming a "Holodomor" in 1927. Or bringing up population figures from 1934. As if those things erase his demonstration of ignorance about the chart that he himself posted about 1926. Really desperate.Faustian (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say here that 1897 and 1926 have 30 years between them, during which you had the 1921 famine and nearly a decade of war. Now that is enough to say that demographic continuity is going to be torn apart. Moreover the two were done to completly different standards. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So if we empowered with a knowledge of Arabic numerical system – we can see the difference between December 17 1926 and May 1 1931 and January 1 1934 – as similar story with [36] “Austrian officer” “German officials” and “recalled six years after the conversation” and actual data. So – it’s pity to see such effort to handle history issues with manga approach. So mathematics is really clear – if by January 1 1934 cities population increased roughly by 2.5-3 millions (doubled by 17/I/1939) – it’s mean only the sole fact – what such increase of population provided by extensive urbanization of Ukrainian SRR by Ukrainian rural population. So hoax Russians predominantly placed in cities and not affected by Holodomor is remain as such – but to assess such extremely required a good faith and basic knowledge of Arabic numerical system as also mathematics, otherwise such info can’t help .Jo0doe (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I like how you bring Austrian officers and manga together in your lonely struggle against Brittannica and basic mathematics that clearly show by the chart above that Ukrainians were more rural than Russians in 1927.Faustian (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

May be your missed a point - DYK what it's talk page of Holodomor-1933 But not Holodomor 1927Jo0doe (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy Gap in Britannica

Just few chapter were compared with historical works ( see some links at article itself)

• With the consolidation of Bolshevik rule, Soviet Ukraine progressively ceded to Russia its rights in such areas as foreign relations and foreign trade.

Would be interesting to heard more about Soviet Ukraine foreign relations – as regards to foreign trade – report of Soviet Ukraine foreign trade appeared in 1928 Ukrainian SRR Statistical compendium.

• Still, in late 1920, Ukrainians constituted less than 20 percent of the CP(B)U’s membership

Really – really interesting figure – so – If we check it for reliability? Or read later in article – “whin the CP(B)U itself, the proportion of Ukrainians in the rank-and-file membership exceeded 50 percent by the late 1920s.” So – were is the truth – “less then 20” or “more then 50”

• Ukrainian, of which more than 90 percent were peasants.

interesting, but I guess why 86,1 percent can be more than 90 percent at same time.

• The policy of War Communism … Compounded by drought, it contributed to a famine in 1921–22 that claimed a million lives in Ukraine

Did they know what War Communism ended at spring 1921 and what in 1918-1920 Ukraine was split between different military and paramilitary forces ? Big millions claims – so how can they get it/ prove it?

• segments of the population enjoyed a measure of prosperity

forgot to got a figures yet

• urged a cultural orientation toward Europe

Which one Europe ? What a baseless claim

• Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which had gained a wide following among the Ukrainian intelligentsia and peasantry since its formation in 1921.

Does they got a statistics? Factless claims

• In 1925 Stalin dispatched his trusted lieutenant Lazar Kaganovich to head the CP(B)U. Within a year, Kaganovich engineered a split among the “nati//onal communists,”

So – charming novelties in history…

• In parallel with the industrialization and collectivization drives, the Soviet regime commenced a campaign against “nationalist deviations” that escalated into a virtual assault on Ukrainian culture.

Soviet Ukrainians (Kosior etc) opposed to Soviet Ukrainian (Kaganovich etc) – ukrainisation – funny sentence from Britainnica

• In all, some four-fifths of the Ukrainian cultural elite was repressed or perished in the course of the 1930s.

so – who they treat as four-fifths of the Ukrainian cultural elite – so by 30s Ukraine has 1/5 of elite – interesting but factless statement – as they forgot to mentioned who nominated as “cultural elite” – may be “hierarchy and clergy”Jo0doe (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

* By late 1933 Ukrainization had come to a halt, and a policy of Russification commenced.

Sa may be old- Ukrainization replaced with new- Ukrainization? Any trace of Russification were exist since 1933 till post-war post Khruschev timesJo0doe (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• A series of purges from 1929 to 1934 largely eliminated from the party the generation of revolutionaries, supporters of Ukrainization, and those who questioned the excesses of collectivization.

No names – so sad – only one super hero –Mykola Skrypnyk – so I assume he is sole person which represent generation of revolutionaries, supporters of Ukrainization. I assume author does not heard about Skrypnyk predecessors on Ukrainization post.

• finally to the deportation, by the mid-1930s, of some 100,000 families to Siberia and Kazakhstan.

plays with figures – so what about a real numbers (68+K) and predominantly not kulaks?

• Wholesale collectivization began in 1929, under duress from party activists and under threat of economic sanctions.

So forgot to note about Month – December 1929, and what about komnezams and silrady?

• The percentage of farms collectivized rose from 9 to 65 percent from October 1929 to March 1930 and exceeded 90 percent by the end of 1935

Perfect – understatement and play with figures – so our non-free web-page provided non-precise information. What farm they are spoken about? Great for Canadian woodcutters – junk for pay-off web-source.

• Mass resistance to collectivization—in the form of revolts, slaughter of cattle, and destruction of machinery—was answered by the imposition of ever higher delivery quotas and confiscation of foodstuffs.

so actually they omit very interesting – mass resistance lasted 3 month and was answered by Stalin with “Dizzy with success” – march 1930 – so by August 1930 collectivization of households declined to 29.2%.

• The result of Stalin’s policies was the Great Famine (Holodomor) of 1932–33

Interesting – but historians and early anti-communist noted Famine-1933 – so Britannica extend it for 2 years (instead of 5-7 months). So – Stalin responsible for slaughter of cattle, and destruction of machinery. Really interesting conclusions.

• Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians

So – guess – Ukrainians people or Ukrainians by nationality? I assume they deal with final data of 1926 Census and preliminary data for 1939 (if even not existed 1937) Census. So such practice can be expected for such proposes – Still deaths exceed for Ukr SSR in 1933 numbered 2.2 millions per scientific estimation .

• The famine was a direct assault on the Ukrainian peasantry, which had stubbornly continued to resist collectivization; indirectly, it was an attack on the Ukrainian village, which traditionally had been a key element of Ukrainian national culture

Really interesting resistance – as all-over collectivization accomplished by autumn 1931 – so direct assault on Ukrainian kolkoznics – a which was under Soviet Ukrainization since 1923 – really mindless conclusion.

• Its deliberate nature is underscored by the fact that no physical basis for famine existed in Ukraine. The Ukrainian grain harvest of 1932 had resulted in below-average yields (in part because of the chaos wreaked by the collectivization campaign), but it was more than sufficient to sustain the population.

Really – were is Ukrainian livestock? So two consecutive shortage of yields and dramatically increased rural population with overestimated 18.1 in 1931 and 14.6 in 1933 million tons instead 22 as usual?

• Nevertheless, Soviet authorities set requisition quotas for Ukraine at an impossibly high level.

18% less then 1931, triple times lowered and finally reached 3.7-4 million tons – as compared to ~7 million in 1930 and 1931 and ~6+ in 1933?? 3.7 Millions called impossible?

• leading to scenes in which peasants faced the firing squad for stealing as little as a sack of wheat from state storehouses

- I assume they never knew about September 1932 correction – so – another story of frozen meat of kulaks.

• The rural population was left with insufficient food to feed itself. The ensuing starvation grew to a massive scale by the spring of 1933, but Moscow refused to provide relief. In fact, the Soviet Union exported more than a million tons of grain to the West during this period.

as also an urban population. So – glad to see lie at Britannica about refusal of relief. So which one period – for 1932 and 1933 years – it true, but for time of Holodomor – lie – Brittannica – but never heard about Lloyd Register – all shipped goods easily traceable.

• The famine subsided only after the 1933 harvest had been completed

- mean March 1934 – if taking practice of harvest thresholding? So – what about historians fact based opinion - July 1933?

• The traditional Ukrainian village had been essentially destroyed, and settlers from Russia were brought in to repopulate the devastated countryside.

So – who seed the 1933 harvest and collect barely overestimated 22 million tons of grains in 1933 and submit to state 356 million of puds? 18 thousands of Russians? And 4-5 millions of Ukrainians zombies?

• It was only in the late 1980s that officials made a guarded acknowledgement that something had been amiss in Ukraine at this time.

Look like they never read own press for spring 1933 and Soviet Big Encyclopedia 1-st edition article about Ukraine

So – a conclusion – they simply do not read a lot of freely and for a long time books (I assume Google engaged). In addition to really idiotic navigation process and annoying engine it consist not checked for reliability set of data and figures Jo0doe (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion - Jo0doe is smarter than Britannica and is a better source than it is. Priceless.Faustian (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Books is better then Goggel - is'nt - as for Instance we can found what Y.Krochmalyuk 1973 is hoax, and Sovietologist is dimply affilated to unknown UniversityJo0doe (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, how does one get "dimply" associated to unknown University? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Jo0doe for showing that in his opinion when someone puts down the date 1973 instead of 1972 when referencing a book, this is a "hoax" (because, according to him, the book doesn't exist). This is an excellent example of his judgment. Interested readers can look at Jo0doe's comments here: [37] "Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press (book which does not exist – namely: such book was never printed in Vantage Press in 1973) " and the explanation here: [38]. But what else can be expected from someone who feels that his personal research places him above Britannica? BTW, wouldn't that make his ideas fringe or minority ones requiring a red flag, if they completely contradict Britannica?Faustian (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is outrageous. His edits to this article must be scrutinized. If he begins removing information sourced to Britannica based on his own personal conclusions, this is vandalism. Ostap 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I read his stuff and I laugh and cry at the same time. He is basically regurgitating what the Russian yellow press is producing. Bandurist (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I assume almost group of editors with similar opinion and intend [39]

almost all here (We missed Riurik) Does not ever heard about mentioned in article sources

Davies, R.W. & Wheatcroft, S.G. (2004) The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931 – 1933 (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan),

Mark B.Tauger Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-33 Kulchytskyy. "For assessment of the situation in the agriculture sector of the Ukrainian SSR." Ukrainian Historical Magazine No. 3, 1988

Soviet Agricultural Encyclopedia 1-st edition 1932-35 Moscow Soviet Agricultural Encyclopedia 2-nd edition 1939 Moscow Голод 1932-1933 років на Україні: очима істориків, мовою документів СССР в цифрах ЦУНХУ Госплана СССР. Москва 1935, С. Кульчицький, Голодомор-33: сталінський задум та його виконання (pdf), Проблеми Історіїї України факти, судження, пошуки, №15, 2006, сс. 190-264 Development of the Ukrainian SRR Economy. Kyiv-1949 Ukrainian Academy of Science publishing Final Report of International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine p.9 http://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/Holodomor/Holodomor-Commission.pdf Final Report of International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine p.48 http://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/Holodomor/Holodomor-Commission.pdf Трагедия советской деревни: Коллективизация и раскулачивание 1927-1939 гг.: Документы и материалы. Том 3. Конец 1930-1933 гг.", Российская политическая энциклопедия, 2001, ISBN 5-8243-0225-1, So why, actually, why is Britannica statements is irrelevant, to Holdomor article - because actually it statement refer to Soviet_famine_of_1932-1933 - Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians – so can’t found here what this article is about - is the famine that took place in Soviet Ukraine in first half of 1933. While it’s sad to note what Final Report of International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine Трагедия советской деревни: Коллективизация и раскулачивание 1927-1939 гг.: Документы и материалы. Том 3. Конец 1930-1933 гг.", Davies, R.W. & Wheatcroft, S.G. (2004) The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931 – 1933 (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan), statistical materials presented at U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, Report to Congress. Adopted by the Commission, April 19, 1988 .

Called here a Russian “yellow press” and “own personal conclusions”. While so- expected – to push online-encyclopedia article “short version of universe” consisted from poor quality collection of sentences instead of scientific works consisted of thousands pages. Jo0doe (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The quest against Britannica continues. LOL.Faustian (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So a similar story with [40] “Austrian officer” “German officials” and “recalled six years after the conversation” and actual data. So self controversial wording of few lines of texts originated from poorly drafted “historical” article is claimed here as whole Britannica. While neutrality of mentioned few lines is more then questionable ( even not spoke about quality.)Jo0doe (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Britannica deals in "historical" articles not historical articles. The struggle continues.Faustian (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• So poorly deal - I don't mind how even in few lines of text placed self contradiction:

Still, in late 1920, Ukrainians constituted less than 20 percent of the CP(B)U’s membership

the CP(B)U itself, the proportion of Ukrainians in the rank-and-file membership exceeded 50 percent by the late 1920s.”

Britannica versus Britannica ?Jo0doe (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the two quotes very carefully - the first quote refers to late 1920 (that means towards the end of the year 1920) - the second quote refers to the late 1920s (which means toward the end of the decade 1920-1929). Jo0doe this is getting very tiresome - you misunderstand the English language and conclude that the source is not reliable. Likewise a typo of 1973 instead of 1972 and you conclude a hoax. Please assume good faith. Bobanni (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read chapter [41] very carefully - and read history of Ukraine reagarding 1920 - before made any assumption on "English language" Jo0doe (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it. This confirms that you couldn't tell the difference between "late 1920" and "late 1920's" and then, based on your inability to understand the English language accurately, claimed that Brittanica contradicted itself. Instead of "Britannica versus Britannica" you should have written "Jo0doe versus Britannica" or "Jo0doe versus the English language."

Nice catch, Bobanni.Faustian (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• [42]- If you not point but “Still, in late 1920” placed after “1924”. So moreover – if you’ll be more familiar with situation in Ukraine in 1920 – you will be more convinced in what I’m spoken about, while as far as I knew your “citing the sources” habit – “Austrian officer” “German officials” and “recalled six years after the conversation” [43] -it would not help here.

So actually we’ve many secondary reliable sources vs one tertiary source. Thank you for your effort. Did you already found prove for “top-western scholars” yet? Jo0doe (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Responds with gibberish as usual.Faustian (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as your contributions on the edited by me WP - articles limited to "Black Forest and Makivka" and many “similar funny stuff” I would be highly appreciated if you can limit your provocative but does not have any relation to article topic sentences to my talk page. I also hope what you can able to mention which books [44] you are spoken about - As for the other books… Faustian (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC). Also please visit a library to be more familiar with Ukraine in 1920. Thank you.Jo0doe (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Britannica. back in the 80's (82-84) when I was doing research in the main Scientific Library in Kyiv I came across Encyclopedia Britannica for 1907 (There was nothing newer I guess at that time) in the English language section of the library . It was interesting in that it had Library stamps from the Petlura government days. I looked through it and someone had removed with a razor blade a number of the articles dealing with Ukrainian topics. . I particularly remember the article on Ivan Mazepa been missing - removed. The tradition continues I guess. These are the same people that try to convince us that Hitler was German and Beethoven was Austrian. Bandurist (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you - tradition of removal still last - pity it became a habit for group of editors in WP.Jo0doe (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Historians' references in the lead

Hello,

I would like to examine the references of the historians' estimates in the lead. The first reference [[45]] is unreadable, and the only numbers that my computer can understand is 1932 and 1933 and 1937. I propose that that reference be removed.

Go to the toolbar on MS explorer, click on "view", go to encoding, and click onto "Auto-select". This will make the cyrrilic readable.Faustian (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tried it many times. I'm using firefox, and none of the encodings work. Is anybody else having this problem? Does anybody use a Mac? Horlo (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The third reference [[46]] seems to be just something that somebody put on the internet. There is no reference, no explanation, no masthead, just basic print. I propose that this be either re-referenced or removed.

Any comments? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article on the Ukrainian famine

The following article could be used as a source here, and the picture included in the article would probably make a better lead picture in the article. -- "Holocaust by hunger: The truth behind Stalin's Great Famine" - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1038774/Holocaust-hunger-The-truth-Stalins-Great-Famine.html --172.166.130.166 (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

swaggering 21st-century state of Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev

So – cold war propaganda is back?

But picture of “Holodomor” – definitely interesting http://ukrlife.org/main/evshan/famine14.htm - so “You have to have visual impact”? Isn’t?

So author clearly demonstrate his “knowledge” in topic.

So what about:

• 70% of kolkhoznics as of Holodomor?
• Then, three years later, grain supplies dropped radically. It had been a poor crop, made worse by the fact that many peasant farmers had shifted from grain into more lucrative cotton production

ha-ha-ha!!! So idiotic statement for 1927.

• By 1930, it was clear the collectivisation campaign was in difficulties. There was less grain than before it had been introduced.

ha-ha-ha!!! So idiotic statement for 1930 harvest.

• They divided huge numbers of peasants into three categories

2.5 -5% of peasants households of total.

• In 1930/1, millions of peasants were deported

1.8 million – isn’t?

• In the same week, a train pulled into Kiev from the Ukrainian villages 'loaded with corpses of people who had starved to death

interesting – similar appeared at 1941 -42 OUN-Nazi press – so it’s well known hoax from Conquest – same story for “his wife Nadya committed suicide, in part as a protest against the famine..”

So similar mixing data and facts to get desired.

So – another poorly worded propaganda. Jo0doe (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, of all people, you should avoid making comments like "poorly-worded".

So - you (Horlo I assume) propose to include 1922 picture in the article ?Jo0doe (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, please do not assume anything, as that makes an ass of u and me.

Second, what does that have to do with the fact that you can't tell the difference between "in 1920" and "in the late 1920s"?

Third, how did this become a discussion of a picture of 1922?

Please, do not type just to type. This is a talk page solely about this topic, not a chat page. Please do NOT obfuscate the issue. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

may be you missed and the picture included in the article would probably make a better lead picture in the article?

So did you read [47]- If you not point but “Still, in late 1920” placed after “1924”. Jo0doe (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor deaths count ”four to five million were Ukrainians” – hoax from Britannica

So, by using a basic mathematics it can be easily proved for editors which experienced difficulties with demography and can’t see a difference between “exceptional mortality” and “excess mortality”:

An online course of preliminary school mathematics:

Entry data (in million)

• present population of Ukraine as of December 17 1926: 29.024
• (plus) natural increase of population (1927 -1932) 2.906
• (minus) kulaks and other deported and relocated (1927-1932): ~0.35
• (minus) deaths of “four to five million were Ukrainians”
  • As a result - available population as of January 1 1934 should be ~27.5 or ~26.5 (depends on “4-5”)
• (plus) natural increase of population (1934 -1938): 2.508
• (minus) Great Purge and additional deportation (1933 – 1938) : 0.25+
  • Results should be below 30 or 29 (depends on “4-5”)
• While widely accepted number for Ukrainian SRR present population as of January 17 1939

30.960

So, aditional 1 or 2 millions of “dead Ukrainians” appeared at online version of Britannica – is hoax. It’s pity but no mathematical explanation were given for this “additional deaths”.

Please, kindly look at book with ISBN:27332-0152-2 and ISSN:0071-8823 p 15-31, p.271 for exact figures –as far as above is mathematics. Jo0doe (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe, please give up your crusade against Britannica. Its not worth your time. Ostap 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not me, not me - but INED if you not pointJo0doe (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, he forgot WP:SYN as usual:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

It's funny to see his Original Research applied against Britannica, though.Faustian (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Krockmalyuk 1973 and Armstrong 1963 you suppose - no you are mistakenly put other editors in misconception - may be you don't know

what instead of vanity press one scientifical book can have an ISBN as also ISSNJo0doe (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• So the book is here [48] - together with abstract
• Statistics for deaths and births [49] Jo0doe (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What does Krokhmaliuk have to do with the Holodomor? As for the other books, review the policy on synthesis, please. Unless this website you referred to [50] explicitly makes conclusions about the Holodomor it's just your OR as usualFaustian (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So please read carefully 1973 edition. Which other books, you are about?Jo0doe (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad images or unwanted information

So - great effort to remove high importancy data [[51]] from article still last - , so Bobbanie - you've unable to read some figures on removed by you images - or you simply don't like info which does not match to Ukrainian Holo version. Please, simple provide for visitors as more data as possible rather then try to put them in misconseptionJo0doe (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that the foreign language tables contain useful information then translate them into tables or better still reference the appropriate parts. Poor quality images have no place in wikipedia. The comments given in [[52]] come from Wikipedia Manual of style. The images will be deleted. --Bobanni (talk)

So - great - you don't like the information in tables. Just a short thank you.Jo0doe (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, if you don't think that the non-English tables are worth translating, then they most certainly have no place here. Wholeheartedly agree with Bobanni. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So - can you assist - since non-English is actually Ukrainian. Do we need to translate arabic numerical into BIN or HEX?Jo0doe (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello - could you please explain your sentence - "since non-English is actually Ukrainian"? What does that mean? Please remember - Wikipedia is not just a place for you to practice Engish. If you have something constructive to add, please do. However, please do not try to make yourself smarter than Britannica. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let me suppose why highly related to topic of article statistical data was removed - as genocide components -myths about dissapeared - namely

good harvest in 1932

food extencively exported at the time of famine

grain basket of Europe in 1932

Restrictions on freedom of movement -which has notable resultsJo0doe (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-English sources from Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." referenced by Bobanni (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Great assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality so does any of statistical institution of English-spoken countries collect and publish information which you tried to remove (namely Ukrainian SRR statistics for 1926-1935?Jo0doe (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So we can add note to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Arableland_ukr.jpg - Point "1" - cereals - upper section of tables - acrage - bottom - percentage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ukrrailwto.jpg - Point "1" - passangers traffic (in millions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ukrexpimp19281934.jpg - rows 3 and 4 from the bottom - cereals 5 - fish 6 butter 7 - meat ; 2 sections on right side of table - 1 column - export 2 column - import http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radgosp.jpg - А section - meat (last row - total supply) 2-d - milk and butter 3-d - eggs. Is it will be ok?Jo0doe (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor_Famine_map.jpg HolodomorUcrania9.jpg as hoax

Holodomor_Famine_map.jpg 

– Rate of population decline in some regions of the USSR. 1929-1932 Source: "The Foreign Office and the famine : British documents on Ukraine and the Great Famine of 1932-1933 / edited by Marco Carynnyk, Lubomyr Y. Luciuk and Bohdan )

hoax because:

• Authors not a demographists

How does this make it a "hoax."Faustian (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sentence “Population decline 1929-33” has any sense nor confirmed by demographical statistics

Your claim about something written in a RS.Faustian (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Map reflect 1959 (“artificial seas”) etc but claim “1929-33 decline”

Personal preference.Faustian (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Moldavian SRR and Vinnitsa oblast listed as not affected – reliable sources provide other information

Wrong. Vinnitsia is listed as having experienced 1-14.9% population loss. You criticized the map and made claims about it without, apparently, having read it carefully. Please provide a reference to your claim about Moldova being affected by the famine when it wasn't even part of the USSR at that time. This will be interesting.Faustian (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• No data exist on FAMINE in Crimea – so claim for 20-24.9% decline is hoax

Your OR and personal preference.Faustian (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• 25% or more mean what Ukrainian SRR lost at least 1/4 of their population so mathematics = 30* 1/4 ~ 7 million – proved many time by different scientists as hoax.

Misreading the map again. 25% loss occurred in some oblasts, not in others, according to the map, so you are just making a straw-man argument.Faustian (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So – should be relocated to [[53]]

HolodomorUcrania9.jpg

Street in Charkov 1932 (people died of Great Famine in Ukraine) Author: Eng. A.Wineberger (Germany) 1932

• Famine 1933
• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,746864,00.html Starvation & Surplus, TIME Magazine, January 22, 1934 – note about info what picture captured in spring 1933

On November 21, 2003, in Toronto, Dr. Hennadii Boriak, Director General of the State Committee of Archives in Ukraine, spoke at a session of the National Convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies called “New Research on the Famine of 1933.” Вкрай обмежена база фотоджерел час від часу призводить до тиражування під виглядом документальних свідчень Голодомору фотографій іншого історичного періоду та інших регіонів. Як правило, це знімки з періоду першого радянського голоду 1921–1922 рр. з російських теренів. За відсутністю автентичних фотоджерел Голодомору 33 р. знову і знову використовувалися ті самі фотографії. Навіть в останному виданні Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre за редакцією Всеволода Ісаїва (Торонто, 2003) фігурує принаймні одна фотографія періоду 1921 р. з Росії (Famine – Genocide in Ukraine, 1932–1933. Western Archives, testimonies and new research/ Ed. by Ws.W. Isajiw. – Toronto: Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre, 2003. – PP. 96–97.) Jo0doe (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The comments about the map are original research or personal preference and shouldn't affect whether or not the map stays. Those comments used against the particular picture of the Kharkiv street don't directly relate to that picture, so they also shouldn't affect whether or not that picture stays. Any evidence that the specific picture is from 1921? If so, the picture should of course be removed immediately.Faustian (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Usual discruptive "no arguments' comments from editor which used this article for personal attack - no contribution traced ever from the begining

[54] [55] [56]Jo0doe (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Highly reccomended to read

[57] - for group of editors which not familiar with History of Soviet Ukraine - pages 7-92. So - you can find a lot new:

Pavel Postyshev, a Russian from Ivano-Voznesensk had served in Ukraine during the years of national cultural revival (1923-1930) and had even been an ardent public proponent of Ukrainization when that was the Party line.

45 Visti VUTsVK December 11,1932. Petliurists were followers of Symon Petliura, who as leader of the Ukrainian People’s Republic in 1919-1921 led Ukrainian socialists in their war against the Bolsheviks. In pre-war Soviet usage, Petliurist was really a generic term for a Ukrainian nationalist. Makhnovists were followers of the the Ukrainian anarchist leader Nestor Makhno, who in 1919-1920 dominated large areas of eastern Ukraine. In this period, Makhnovist thus meant a peasant anarchist.

On February 5-7, a CP(b)U Central Committee plenum was held to approve the January 24 instruction officially. Kossior delivered the main speech, giving Postyshev full public support Moscow’s instruction, he stated, “Characterized not only the work of the three decisive regions but also the work of our whole Party organization in organizing and carrying out the grain procurements.” The mere 225 million poods procured was inexcusable, given that more had been procured from a worse harvest in 1931. 65 There had been “a lack of Bolshevik vigilance” and an “illusion” that the plan could be met without full mobilization. The peasants had carried out mass theft and sold off the grain before the party so much as noticed it. Only in November 1932 was the CP(b)U really mobilized to take part in the “struggle for bread”. 66 And by then the class enemy had wormed his way into the regime. Kossior declared: 65 S. Kosior, “Pidsumky khlibozahotivel i zavdannia KP(b)U v borot’bi za pidnesennia sil’s’koho hospodarstva Ukrainy* (Results of the Grain Procurements and the CP(b)U’s Tasks in Elevating Ukraine’s Agriculture), Bil’shovyk Ukrainy, 1933, No. 3, p. 23.

By October 15, 1933, in those regions where the ongoing 1933 purge had been completed, 27,500 of the CP(b)U’s 120,000 members and candidates so far “verified” had been purged as “hostile class, vacillating, dissolute elements.” At the same time, 237 district (raion) Party committee secretaries, 249 district executive committee chairmen, and 158 district control commission chairmen were replaced. In addition 3,000 “leading workers” had been sent to man the new Political Sections of Ukraine’s Machine Tractor Stations, and 10,000 people had been sent to the collective farms, 3,000 of them for permanent work as farm chairmen or heads of primary party organizations. 54 This meant that nearly half of Ukraine’s district Party secretaries, over half its district government heads, and a third of district control commission heads were replaced. About six political section workers were sent to each district Another 10,000 “experienced Bolsheviks’* were sent to the collective farms

On December 6, an initial six villages were placed on the “black board” (chorna doshka) 42 and subjected to an economic blockade. 43 On December 13, this measure was extended to 82 districts in the Ukrainian SSR, and the Ukrainian Central Committee ordered the Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv regional authorities to expropriate immediately the property of 1500 individual peasants who had not met their quotas. 44

42 The “black board” and “red board” were initially placed in factories to list respectively, in public, the names of shirkers and exemplary workers.

It soon became apparent that everything that could be taken had been. On February 25, 1933, this led to a seed loan from Union stockpiles of 20,300,000 poods 63 of grain to Ukraine and another 15,300,000 poods to the North Caucasus Territory, specifically to the Kuban. According to the resolution, the reason for the loan was unfavorable weather, which had led to harvest losses in the steppe regions. Part of the grain loaned was consumed as food, given out in the fields as an incentive for working on the Spring sowing. 64Jo0doe (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Poor sources

Main problem here is an extensive use of various primary sources (which often contradict each other) or tertiary sources (like encyclopedia Britannica). One should use only numerous scholarly secondary sources here, as recommended by WP:Verifiability. Then all disputes would be easily resolved. As long as the reliable scholarly secondary sources (like a book by Conquest) are sidelined, this article will remain a mess. This article simply has no a narrative section. It should first explain what had happened instead of discussing "who is guilty?".Biophys (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of this discussion participants are engaged in original research of primary sources to "disprove" reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please list which one various primary sources you are about - so frozen meat of kulaks and barges with ukrainian childre drowned by soildiers, predominantly russians is reliable scholarly secondary sources ?

• What appeared at "Scope and Duration" section - on your sought? I can see answers on what, when and how long Jo0doe (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was precisely my point that no one (including me) should engage in discussion of hundreds of controversial primary sources that exist on this subject. Such discussion takes place here for a year and was completely unproductive. Instead, one should take a couple of scholarly books (reliable secondary sources), and describe the actual events according to them. I suggest book "Harvest of sorrow" written by the best Western expert on Russian history of 20th century who wrote maybe ~20 books on this subject. Please suggest other reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Listed in the article refs. While could you prove by the best Western expert on Russian history of 20th century Jo0doe (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be constructive. What alternative books on this subject by internationally recognized scholar(s) do you suggest?Biophys (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, But I really don’t mind which various primarily sources used in article you’ve spoken about.

Could you list at least one or two examples of primary sources. For books - see refs. I also don't know noone internationally recognized scholar(s) on this subject - since it's highly politically and propaganda charged topic - so internationally recognized scholar(s) avoid involving in such matters (if they are scholar(s))Jo0doe (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

O'K, if you think there are no books by internationally recognized scholars, let's reduce our expectations. Let's use publications by people who have wikipedia articles about them as our "main sources". As long as other sources do not contradict such "main sources", we use them too. Would such approach work?Biophys (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have to disagree. There are internationally recognized scholars about this topic, even though it's a politically charged debate. Universities have never shied away from controversy.

There are people who publish, for example Serbyn and Vallin. They may contradict each other, but that does not mean that they are not important. What is not important is the editor's opinion. Each scholar must be mentioned, and sourced. That, in my opinion, is key: can the scholar's work be shown? If it can, and that writer has credibility, they should be included. If it can't, the scholar may be the only one in her/his field, but they should not be included. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny compartion Serbyn and Vallin - like Hegel and Goebbels. So you call Serbin as demographist -funnyJo0doe (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, I'm sorry, but I never said that Serbyn was a demographist.

I said that Serbyn is a respected scholar on the topic of the Holodomor. And he is. He has actually published more than Vallin on the topic of the Holodomor.

That is why he should be included in this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually - have you already read [58] book ?

• So Serbyn opinion should be included inline with WP:RS - but, I hope you agree, what his opinion about demography in Ukr SSR in 1930s worth a little - as regards rest his vision - see WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE Jo0doe (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But his works does not mutch WP:NPOV - did you read bottom of this stuff - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Holodomor_Famine_map.jpg_HolodomorUcrania9.jpg_as_hoax and DYK the origin of image from serbin hardocover [59] - ?Jo0doe (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

see at this "funny" russian yellow press web source - [60] it's preciselly what Dr. Hennadii Boriak, Director General of the State Committee of Archives in Ukraine, spoke at a session of the National Convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies called “New Research on the Famine of 1933.” spoken aboutJo0doe (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoax

Allegations of "hoax" are very serious and should be used very carefully. Please review your information - repeated unfounded allegations of HOAX are disruptive and if continued will be dealt with according to Wikipedia policy and convention. Bobanni (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Read here [61] If you'll have any difficulties with Ukrainian language - ask Horlo or Faustian for assistanceJo0doe (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[62] However 1932 Ulica w Charkowie 1932.jpg already was deleted from WP - but now it appeared under other name. So - it must be deletedJo0doe (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, I must again ask you two things - first, please don't change the subject.

Second, please try to keep your sentences short - your English is very difficult to understand, so keeping your replies short will make this easier for everybody.

Now, please respond to the first allegation. If you cannot, please do not add any more sections. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read a detalied explanation on link above. So hoax is hoax Jo0doe (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on the map are just original research. The map is from a RS and it stays. As for the photo - you have not provided any evidence that that photo, specifically, is from 1921/1922. Until you do so, it should stay. Once you provide the evidence, it should be deleted immediately. But you haven't in the discussion you provided a link to. All you did was supply a quote from Time magazine not about that picturem, and another quote also not referring to that picture but to the fact that pictures (in general) have been misused. Please find evidence that the specific picture you want removed is not from 1932/1933.Faustian (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So - you (as Carynnyc) claim what Crimea was a part of UkrSSR in 1933 and has mentioned decline rate of population? Did you read book which map from? So map will stay in relevant chapter. While similar photo was removed from en:WP some Ulica w Charkowie 1932.jpg times ago.

Moreover if you can read Times article you can note what pictures presented were taken in 1933 - so claim for 1932 (Spring Summer or Early autmn) - if you don't oppose to closing of it's not OR - it' clearly visible fact) Jo0doe (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine that you claim that a similar photo was removed. This one hasn't. So, if you feel it should be removed, then get this one removed, too. The Time magazine article stated that pictures presented were taken in 1933. Did it refer, specifically, to this picture? Or are that your OR?Faustian (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Great - presented were taken in 1933. - so, you again deliberately insert hoax in WP. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Review the policy on synthesis and original research. I ask again, did the Time article refer specifically to that picture?Faustian (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide any non=propaganda prove what mentioned picture taken in 1932. Anyway - could you find Garreth Johnes article on

starvation in Ukraine at pictured at photo period?Jo0doe (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide info what "The Foreign Office and the famine : British documents on Ukraine and the Great Famine of 1932-1933 / edited by Marco Carynnyk, Lubomyr Y. Luciuk and Bohdan " is RS for demography indicator = namely "population decline". Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please state the policy that only charts provided in books written by demographers are acceptable when they refer to rates of population loss? Just because you don't like info doesn't mean it should be removed or categorized based on personal preference.Faustian (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RS for detailed explantion - RS for demography indicators are demography sources - cuuld you prove what mentioned GIS or mapped information published in RS demography sourceJo0doe (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First prove that the map is not from a demography source (i.e., where did Luciuk et al get the data from?). Then find the quote supporting your claim that "RS for demography indicator is demography source." Thanks.Faustian (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Listed in source. Actually did yuu read it? - See RS for science matterJo0doe (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Population

The graph showing the number of Ukrainians in the USSR is misleading because the decline is attributable to how millions of people listed as Ukrainians in the RSFSR changed their nationality to Russian for the 1937 census. The population of the Ukrainian SSR totalled about 28.9 million in 1926 and basically remained constant at about 28.3 million in 1937. The Kuban okrug in 1926 shows over 900 thousand Ukrainians[63], compared to about 150 thousand in Krasnodar krai in 1939[64]. Nierva (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually - no 1937 Census Results exist - see more [65] So putting together 2 set of different figures has any senceJo0doe (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Britannica's number was simply misquoted

This is what the EB said:

Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians..

Please note that EB does not give this as a number of victims in Ukraine. According to the 1926 census, there were many Ukrainians in other Soviet regions affected by the Soviet famine, not only in Soviet Ukraine. The subject of this article, according to the lead paragraph, is "the famine that took place in Soviet Ukraine during the 1932-1933". So, unless there is an estimate in EB about the number of famine victims within Ukraine, we cannot use EB as a source for the number of victims. Luckily we have excellent scholarly sources with the calculations of number of famine victims specifically within Ukraine. So, we are still on very firm scholarly ground here. --Irpen 05:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it’s reflect the general issue of some of North American –Ukrainian sources which suffered significant difficulties with Ukrainian History itself .Jo0doe (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sections removal

Were removed:

• Legislation provisions
• Export of grain

As far as that “arguments” mentioned many times in genocide proponents publications would be necessary to preserve it in article – especially in terms of “black board” issue and “extensive export instead to feed for starved”- to underline the actual facts. Jo0doe (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Procurement practice removed - blanking became a tradition - while attempts to read a books even not tracedJo0doe (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing sinister about removal of the three sections from the Holodomor article since they appear in the Collectivization in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic article (almost identical word-for-word). Blanking perhaps is not the correct term for these edits. Summary comments included this info. Bobanni (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So - mentioned in both does not have any close relations to Collectivization in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic which reached it target in August 1931. So - actually it's blanking - as far as this "“arguments” appeared many time in genocide proponents publications . Actually - what's wrong with sovkhozes delivery data? Why it was removed? Jo0doe (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Estimate practice explanations in Death Tall section

Great and definitely needed – but there should be some clarification:

• Estimates vary since some are based on Ukrainians who died within the 1933 borders of Ukraine; while others are based on deaths within current borders of Ukraine

this sentence has any sense since current borders of Ukraine included even non-USSR territories, while personally I don’t know any scientific estimation for “Ukrainians who died within the 1933 borders” – Mesle&Vallin used January 1939 borders.

• Other estimates are based on deaths of Ukrainians in the Soviet Union.

there no such statistics available – correct statement would be

Other estimates are based on final Soviet Census 1926 data about those who listed themselves as Ukrainians in the Soviet Union and comparing it with invalid data for Soviet Census 1937 and preliminary data for 1939 Census.

• Some estimates use a very simple methodology based percentage of deaths that was reported in one area and applying the percentage to the entire country.

Actually it’s called not a “very simple methodology” but absolutely non scientific approach (even not used at the secondary schools)

• Many question the accuracy of Soviet censuses since the may have been doctored to support Soviet propaganda.

There no other Census in USSR – excluding Soviet – so if 1926 Census results was assumed as a valid (despite the concerns of over enumeration in European part and under enumeration in Asia part) so similar approach also should be used (with some reservation) for 1939. Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your thinking is somewhat flawed. There may be inaccuracies in the 1926 census, however these inaccuracies were not politically inspired. The 1939 census was a reaction to the unexpected results of the 1937 census and it had a political component. Your feelings regarding the treating of the 1939 and 1926 censi as equal are unwarranted. For more background regarding the 1937 census see Soviet Census (1937) Bandurist (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Not mine, not mine - please read book [66] before made any conclusions.EN Atricle Soviet Census (1937) is clear breaching the WP:ISNOT rules - while we've good Ru article Jo0doe (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Article length - revisit

The article was too long, in particular the materials regarding the Collectivization. The collectivization materials was moved to a separate article and these materials should be just summarized. There was just too much detail there in comparison to the rest of the article and it detracts from the main article which is the Holodomor.

This was proposed and agreed upon - hence it is concensus. One editor who agreeedis reversing his position. To reverse this we will need to get concensus.

Bobanni (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you’ve visit list of WP long articles. May I remind you what history it’s a science which not allowed “simplified” solutions –as far as details is highly important –omitting such can in result be a WP:Fringe (see below example). Unfortunately there no currently in en:WP article about historical event named Collectivization in the Ukrainian SSR but a copy-paste content from Holodomor and nothing else. It’s clear bad faith to remove brief (as far as Collectivization in the Ukrainian SSR history published in multiple volume work in 1960s) important info which directly related to historical event. I hope you agreed what hunger is a result of absence of food means. I hope you know what most food originated from agriculture. It’s really sad what North-American based Ukrainian Diaspora (especially post-war one) has a almost nothing about what actually happened in Ukrainian SRR rural areas in 1923-1939. – So here is why detailed info about situation about agriculture to assess why actually starvation taken place. So you right – it’s article about Holodomor but not about Holodomor-Ukrainian genocide or Deliberate starvation prepared on orchestrated by communists – predominantly Russians (TM Comquest), Ukrainian (by nationality) Peasants Genoside etc. I also hope what you carefully read my comments to [[67] – so there no consensus actually.

• So here is the explanation what you actually did

historical text

3. The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf HITLER which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation. The Ukrainian National Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will continue to fight with the ALLIED GERMAN ARMY against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign and united State and a new order in the whole world.

So here you said (as instance) “There was just too much detail there in comparison to the rest of the article and it detracts from the main article” and modify text in to

“3. The Ukrainian National Revolutionary Army which is being created on the Ukrainian soil, will continue to fight against Moscovite occupation for the sovereign and united State and a new, just order in the whole world.”

I hope it’s clear explanation of what you actually did. I hope you avoid such actions in the future. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New section proposal

Actually in article omitted one important factor which contributed to Ukrainian situation in 1932/33 – Trade, supply and speculation. As far as of most does not know what since 1928 private trade began to “clam down” by Soviets and in replace of it they created a kind of cooperatives on distribution of anything centrally (RSK ect) – by end of 1931 private trade were finally forbidden – while cooperative not. So by spring 1932 in Ukraine prices on food were 7-8 higher as compared with neighboring republic – so which inflict noted at 22 February Decree 1932 “travel for bread”. When in 1933 was allocated money from State budget for purchase food at non affected Ukrainian territories were food was available at cooperative network – the prices demanded were even high as at affected Ukrainian territories. As far as I’ve CPI on food items for 1933-35 as also a food supply quantities to trade network for 33-34– would relevant to place such section in the article. Moreover in First Edition of Soviet Agricultural encyclopedia ru:Сельскохозяйственная энциклопедия at article “Soviet Trade” mentioned about fault of RSK and noted “Comrade Stalin urged Soviet trade management about improper way which they choose” Jo0doe (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)