Jump to content

Talk:Holodomor denial/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Title is biased

"Denial of the Holodomor" gives a negative cannonation. How bout "Criticism of the Holodomor"?

The article on the Holodomor is mostly right wing attacks on the situation itself. The only place we can defend ourselves is in page called "Denial of the Holodomor"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza2 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Extremely biased

Fix it you cowards.-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't mention too far, not far enough, or which way, we can't really tell which bastards you were referring to.-PētersV (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Vagueness and bad citations

Usually, Holomodor refers to an intentionally inflicted famine. But the article doesn't say that a "Holomodor denier" is someone who denies that the USSR intentionally inflicted the famine, in fact it doesn't ever specify what a Holomodor denier is. It certainly isn't someone denying that a famine occured, in which case almost all of the people listed wouldn't be deniers.

If it actually refers to someone who denies an intentionally inflicted famine, then Robert Conquest himself would be a Holomodor denier. Page 441 of The Years of Hunger by Wheatcroft and Davies says 'In correspondence Dr Conquest has stated that it is not his opinion that "Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put Soviet interests other than feeding the starving first- thus consciously abetting it"'

His use of "1933 famine" is odd but there is no way to interpret this which makes it seem like he is breaking up the famine and saying earlier deaths were deliberate but not in 1933.

Of course Wheatcroft and Davies, major sources in this article, would be Holomodor deniers as well since they argue (and this is the only claim supported by the evidence) that the Soviet leadership didn't want the famine and made relief efforts, but industrialization was a higher priority which came into conflict with famine relief/prevention.

Also, the article claims that Wheatcroft and Davies have refuted Tauger, but the source (#68) is an article by Tauger responding to their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.113.181 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


The Stalin Society

I objected adding The indeopendent's op-ed critical piece to this article. There's wikipage describing this organization and anything and everything about society itself should be there. If casual reader happens to become interested in this group, s/he could follow the link and educate her-/himself. Otherwise we're stepping at very slippery path. Would any of wikipedians arguing to keep description of the Stalin Society in this article be thrilled to see note on R. Conquest being paid anticommunist agitator accompanying his every statement? Unlike opinion piece in The Independent, Conquests's past as salaried anticommunist politrabotnik is proven fact. RJ CG (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As there's an article on the Stalin Society, suitably Wikilinked, might I suggest we leave the article at the current state (per RJ CG's revert) and put the "schism" commentary in the Stalin Society article where it would be of more use? This latest round of reverts isn't doing much to advance the state of the article. —PētersV (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
strong support RJ CG (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliance on Conquest

RJ CG's point about Conquest being paid does bring up another one. I think as a community of editors we've agreed that Davies and Wheatcroft's work on the Great Famine is one of the seminal works of the current generation. Various editors have positioned it as discrediting Conquest, making him obsolete, and so on. So, with regard to our topic here (in the context of Soviet authorities denying the famine, thereby not soliciting foreign aid...):

  • Davies and Wheatcroft state they disagree with Conquest on interpretations of history. They do not disagree with him on facts and events and do not dispute the oral histories Conquest collected (and, in fact, reference those positively).
  • D&W explicitly shy away from interpretation, to the point where they discuss how during Lenin's rule and even back into Tsarist times, Russia let the world know about its famines and gratefully accepted outside aid, but D&W don't say a single word about Stalin in that regard—as you read D&W regarding Lenin and earlier times, it's as if someone accidentally cut out the next paragraph where they should have discussed Stalin and Soviet foreign policy regarding the Great Famine. The omission is painfully obvious.
  • D&W never really show where they specifically disagree with an interpretation by Conquest. D&W simply state that records of discussions and decisions are still classified and so they prefer not to speculate--to the point that, as regards foreign policy and external aid, they compare the Great Famine to earlier famines by omission. —PētersV (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've been reading D&W a section at a time as needed, so if there is someplace they discuss Soviet foreign policy regarding the Great Famine and outside aid, please let me know. Haven't found it yet and not for want of reading through the index, twice. —PētersV (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I found a scholarly source indicating that Tottle pushed the line that Conquest was working for the British secret service in order to discredit him. I added some text to Tottle's section accordingly. Martintg (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could you bring specific quotes here that Tottle pushed the line? That it was done to discredit Conquest? Can you also place it in conquest? I see yet another Canadian sources. I think I am going to stick a global perspective on this article.
Note also that, while I don't have access to this article at the moment, the abstract seems to imply this Commission of Inquiry was produced by the same Council of Free Ukrainians that was central to the remembrance of the Holodomor; and that even then, the final results were "sharply divided". This is not relevant except that (a) were they divided in the matter of Tottle? Finally, to what degree did the Commission spend time on Tottle? Does the source mention him for a couple of pages or one line and a footnote? Does the source say anything about his importance as a source of "denial"? Relata refero (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual commission chaired and report written by a Swede, see http://www.ioir.se/ukrfamine.htm. Is that global enough for you? It goes into detail of Tottles allegations, which obviously were intended to discredit Conquest. Martintg (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it remains the case that this is something closely linked to Ukranian-Canadian sources. This is extremely problematic.
Please answer my remaining questions and bring specific quotes before reinstating the material. Some of it may need to be rewritten. Relata refero (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I don't believe Professor emeritus Jacob Sundberg is a Ukrainian-Canadian. Are you questioning his integrity? The fact is the commission he chaired examined Tottle's work. This examination is mentioned in a secondary source, an article written by Hobbins and Boyer (I don't believe they are Ukrainian-Canadians either) in the refereed Dalhousie Law Journal (which isn't a Ukrainian-Canadian publication BTW), makes reference to the commission's examination of Tottle's work and its conclusion. The Hobbins Boyer article devotes a whole chapter to the Commission's deliberations in regard to Tottle and his book, finally concluding, to quote: "Finally, because Tottle's book was well documented, he (Sundberg) pointed out that in "its detail this book suggests that the author has had access to classified information at a scale indicating resort to Soviet sources". So what is this issue in your mind that is "extremely problematical" Martintg (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact Tottle was a significant component in regard to Holodomor denial, Hobbins Boyer article quotes Sundberg: "if you connect this with the line going back to Tottle, the interest becomes intelligible. The connection between Marxist ideology and genocide is a crucial point in the considerations of the International Commission, and it is therefore a natural point of attack for those interests who would like to sabotage and impede the advance of the Commission's reasoning on this point" Martintg (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Why should someone being Ukrainian-Canadian=problems with his integrity? That's not what I mean at all. All I was saying is that the Commission was organised by a community org, and the Dalhousie Law Journal is Canadian as well. Which is why I think we are over-reliant on Canadian sources. This is not surprising, because the memory of the Holodomor and co-ordinated debunking of those who minimised it/ questioned its intent etc., was something that appears to have been central to the Ukrainian community in Canada in particular. (Or so I gather from whatever reliable sources have actually discussed it.) Which is why a "worldwide view" problem exists.
Canada was the primary (speaking of "global") battleground in the 1970's and 1980's in particular as the Soviets put on a full-court press to discredit the entire exile Ukrainian diasaporic community and with a particular vendetta for the Canadian community. Canada as center of the Ukrainian-Soviet conflict is as much to be expected as the Arab-Israeli conflict to be centered on the Middle East. —PētersV (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain what a "whole chapter of a paper" is? I find myself confused.
I also am unsure that if the Commission was "divided" and it was set up like a court of inquiry, we are quoting it accurately.
To catch up, on reliable sources so far about Tottle we have (1) An op-ed in the Kyiv Post (2) A mention in a Canadian law journal. Neither attests to its importance in terms of the battle for the Holodomor's memory - or at least, if the latter does, the quote hasn't been given to us. Relata refero (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for the update with the quote. Except what "interest" is he talking about in the first sentence? And what is "this" that must be connected? And what is the "point" on which the Commission is reasoning? Relata refero (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A section of the paper is devoted to Tottle, which is noted in the table of contents of the article which is 53 pages in length. The "point" is the connection between Marxism and genocide, and "this" being the campaign spanning back to Tottle to discredit this link. The fact the UN Under-Secretary for Human Rights and the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe both accepted the Comission's final report sufficiently internationalises the significance of conclusions of the report, which include the role played by Tottle. Will you now restore that part of the text you deleted here: [1] ? Martintg (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be patient on the restoration, I will certainly restore the material once we've thrashed it out.
What does "accepted" mean? Did they endorse it? Or did they merely receive it and say "the Holodomor was a tragedy, and we appreciate efforts to investigate it"?
(I'd also point out that my concerns about the worldwide perspective of this article continue to exist even if/when this is put back in. There are too many connections to a particular subset of the Ukranian expatriate community for me to be comfortable about the global view here.)
About the quote: I think you may have told me the definition for the wrong "this". I mean the "this" in the first line. If we substitute what you suggest we do, it makes no sense, as its a duplication, not a connection. Relata refero (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual commission chaired and report written by a Swede who was on the crusade to prove the link between Genocide and Communism, as he himself clearly states in pre-face. Alliance between anticommunists and Ukrainian nationalists seems pretty logical, but to me it more or less destroys NPOV status of the document produced by the alliance. I don't understand why should we trust it more than rugs produced by numerous USSR-sponsored left thinktanks during the same Cold War. That is, unless one subscribes to "anything is good to destroy the enemy" POV, but that again kills any NPOV posture. RJ CG (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Nowhere in the article have I attempted to push the Swede's Marxism=genocide viewpoint. The Comission was set up to examine whether a famine existed at all, not to push some political line. The issue is that Tottle's denial was significant enough and in scope of the Commission's purpose to consume a part of the Commission's time, and important enough for refereed paper in a Law Journal to discuss the Commission's deliberations of Tottle's work. This somewhat kneecaps Relata refero's argument that Tottle is insignificant. Martintg (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. Did indeed the paper discuss the deliberations of Tottle's work, or only mention it in a couple of sentences? Relata refero (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Replies to Coplon?

I believe Jeff Coplon's article in the Village Voice was answered by Robert Conquest and James Mace in correspondence over the next few issues. Does anyone have references and quotations which can be included in the entry? Hecht (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tottle

Mentioned in this Coplon article http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html Bandurist (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Relata refero (disp.) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

To sum up the discussion from the archive, a few arguments have been put forth which explain this tag. However, the arguments have been dealt with, in the following order:

First, the title. An argument has been put forth that the title of the article is confusing. However, no clear link has been shown between Denial and Denialism. Denialism is not a well-known term, and a regular reader would likely not be familiar with it. Note that define:denial gets more than 23 hits to various on-line dictionaries which give various explanations [[2]]; define:denialism gets one - to the wikipedia definition [[3]]. Therefore, the average English speaker would not find any ambiguity whatsoever between these two terms. Also, the term itself is explained in the lead of the article. Three separate references are provided.

Second the "tone" of the article. An argument was put forth that this article passes judgement on people. As unfortunate as this may seem to some, this article deals with people who said or say that the Holodomor did not take place. This article does not say that they are guilty. Their saying that the Holodomor did not happen makes them guilty.

Other problems with this article have been put forth, however they do not deal with neutrality. Therefore, the POV tag should be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome
That is by no means an accurate summary of the discussion.
The arguments have not been dealt with.
"The average English speaker" would find ambiguity between these terms in the context of an encyclopaedia and an alleged genocide. That context is precisely the one in which denialism is used. To claim otherwise is absurd.
"Three reliable sources" - actually, just two, and neither of which defines the term.
"The tone" - your interpretation is novel. Extensive examples have been provided of a problematic style, all of which are detailed in the prematurely archived section, and which are indeed still in the article.
Relata refero (disp.) 11:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, first, would you explain how an average reader would find any ambiguity between denial and denialism? Please keep in mind that this is the Wikipedia, and is written for the general pubic, not specialists. There is no evidence to show that anybody outside a very specific group of history students has heard of denialism. If you want to write articles about denialism, please get in touch with the Oxford UP.
Second, please stop using words like "absurd" to describe opinions that you don't agree with.
Third, this is not a place dealing with "reliable sources". Just POV. Let's deal with one issue at a time.
Fourth, the POV tag, and claim that the tone is not neutral is your interpretation. Nobody besides you had any issue with "tone" before. Therefore, it appears that you are the novelist. Again, please provide specific issues, or, better still, improve them. Please note that improvemene =/= deletion. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome.
First, for many reasons, but above all because of the connection with Holocaust denial, which is a familar term to the average reader. Also, I think you underestimate the "average reader". Can you substantiate your claim in any way?
Second, I'm afraid that if you believe that the word "absurd" is off-limits, you had best practice what you preach by cutting down on "get in touch with OUP.." Which is amusing, because that is the sort of source we should be aspiring to emulate, not the dregs of google searches piled into an article.
Third, you were the one who brought up sources. Look up.
Fourth, I count half a dozen editors in this and in the archives of the last couple of months making the same point about POV.
Incidentally, in some cases, improvement=excision of inappropriate, unencyclopaedic and poorly referenced material. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, if you make a claim that the "average reader" would confuse denial and denialism, you need to substantiate it. I have explained many times that denial =/= denialism, because there is only one definition of denialism on the internet, and that is on Wikipedia.
There is no definition of denialism in the Oxford online dictionary. Let's emulate that.
Incidentally, did you actually read the article on Holocaust denial? It clearly states that there are two separate things to discuss - denial and revisionism. Denial means it didn't take place, while revisionism means it happened just a little. There is no mention of denialism in that article, either. In the third paragraph, it actually says: Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists. There is no mention of denialism. Where did you get the idea that anybody would confuse the two terms? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a dictionary.
"Only one definition of denialism on the internet..." you are, of course wrong.
Please see Category:Denialism, which is the super-cat for Category:Holocaust denial. (The wikilink appears to have been removed by recent tendentious editors, possibly by the banned Vermont Public Library editor. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.)
Unless you can bring effective sources to the table indicating that there is a sufficient parallel between the movements to justify the name, I am afraid that it will remain a problem. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, have you tried to find a definition of denialism on-line outside of Wikipedia? Please try that. How many dictionaries can you find online that describe denialism? I'm not talking about denialism.com or Aidsdenialism.com. Just dictionaries that explain the term.
What exactly do you mean "you can bring effective sources to the table indicating there is a sufficient parallel between the movements"? That's exactly what I have been trying to get from you. I am saying that there is no connection, and the name is not an issue.
Also, did you actually look at the Holocaust denial page? Once again, there is no mention of denialism.
Following your logic, anybody could find a link between anything. An Ebonics scholar could claim that Cleopatra be da queen of denial.
Unless you can bring effective sources to the table indicating that there is a sufficient parallel between the movements to justify the tag, it will be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, but please try harder to follow.
Unless you can bring effective sources to the table indicating that there is a sufficient parallel between the movements to justify the tag Eh? How does that make sense? Tags dont have to be justified by sources, statements in articles do. Tags are justified by talkpage discussion. Which is on here.
If you want to compare this project to a dictionary, you are on the wrong project. (Wiktionary is under-staffed.) We are an encylopaedia, where you should consult academic sources in this field, where denial is used in quite a different manner. This is the fifth time I have made that point, and you have not yet got over your puzzling fascination with dictionaries.
Again: Holocaust denial is part of cat Denialism, and there was a long-term mention of denialism in the lead that was removed by a tendentious editor and has been since replaced. Which is, of course, exactly what I said above. I am amazed by my patience. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello, yes, don't you just hate tenatious editors who apparently have nothing else to do but remove things from articles? (By the way, the Holocaust denial article still includes absolutely no mention of denialism). Now, just to review, you said: "Unless you can bring effective sources to the table indicating that there is a sufficient parallel between the movements to justify the name, I am afraid that it will remain a problem." I asked: "What exactly do you mean?" You did not answer.

The reason I brought up dictionaries was to explain that there is no link between denialism and denial. You claim that there is an inherent connection, and therefore the title is POV and "a problem". I am showing you why the average reader would not confuse the two terms. No such connection exists.

Also, as hard as I tried, I could not find any mention of cat denialism. I think everybody acknowledges the existence of cats. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the Holodomor. Now, please try harder to follow. If there is no connection between denial and denialism, there is no problem. With the POV of this article, I mean. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree. I would like to put forward the motion that the neutrality tag and POV be removed. Bandurist (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to have the POV removed, but till then the tag must stay. Relata refero (disp.) 11:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the motion. This has become one editor pontificating, calling other editors' work "dregs of google searches plied into an article" and "inappropriate, unencyclopaedic and poorly referenced material". The tag must go. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As extensively pointed out, the tag has been placed and argued for by at least half a dozen editors while the article has remained essentially unchanged. I would prefer to focus on the problems of the article than on cosmetic changes like removing a tag. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As extensively pointed out, the tag has been placed by half a dozen editors who appear to have nothing else to add to this article. If you consider a POV tag a simple cosmetic change, then it should not be so difficult for you to live without one. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
And as I and others have extensively pointed out, once the more unencyclopaedic poorly-referenced non-neutral parts are removed or rewritten, there is much improvement to be made. Unfortunately, sometimes pruning is necessary first, and that is not yet being permitted by this article's owners. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Since only parts are an issue for you, an article level tag is not necessary. Section level and inline tags are more constructive at this stage. Surely you cannot expect other editors to step inside your skull and see the issues you perceive, so how about placing inline tags to identify "the more unencyclopaedic poorly-referenced non-neutral parts". I think generally editors who refuse to utilise inline and section tags and insist on using article level tags at this stage of article development are being disruptively obstructionist. Martintg (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
PS, in regard to Relata refero's main argument against this article: "but above all because of the connection with Holocaust denial, which is a familar term to the average reader", does he also believe the average reader would confuse Climate change denial with Holocaust denial? Martintg (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources have in fact studied climate change denial as a form of denialism, and those sources are cited in the lead of that article.
About whether sectional tags are appropriate, I think when over two-thirds of the sections are problematic, one might as well tag the whole article, no? --Relata refero (disp.) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, it seems again that your opinion is against the consensus on this page. That is not discussion, that is one editor trying to push a POV. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What consensus, Horlo? And who is pushing POV? --Irpen 09:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, welcome back to the discussion. There is a consensus of editors, and there is disagreement on the part of Relata Refero and you. The questions that Relata Refero has asked have been answered. The fact that the answers that have been put forth by more than half a dozen editors who helped develop this article do not satisfy Relata Refero really smack of "I don't like it". Terrible, editors who seem to ask the same question over and over and over again, regardless of how patiently things are explained to them - and then the same editos take on a haughty air. Don't you think?
Unfortunately, there are other editors who seem to be trying to push a POV into this article by adding sections called "Sad Sight", and "Frozen meat of kulaks and sunken barges full of Ukrainian by nationality children", and adding POV tags without explaining anything NPOV about this article. That really looks like somebody trying to discredit this article for no reason.
Just to keep it clear, please see the discussion below for the scope of this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Martintg and Horlo that tag is not justified.Biophys (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? You don't see a disagreement over neutrality here? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I see a disagreement, but I do not see any valid arguments that article is not neutral. It is as neutral as an article on such subject can be.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Really? "The height of manipulation was reached..." sounds like a non-neutral tone to you? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Could you annotate the text with inline tags so we can fix any issues, it would be much more productive than blind placement of an article level tag, otherwise your non-cooperation in this area may be seen as disruptive. Martintg (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what would be disruptive would be my placement of neutrality tags over dozens of sentences! Also "this opinion needs balancing" tags, "biased source" tags and so on.
I believe we need to move beyond the pointless issue of the tag and focus on the article itself. Can we please do so? --Relata refero (disp.) 13:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello, actually, putting a tag and asking the same question again and again, even after more than half a dozen editors explained the reasoning, rationale, and references behind all the arguments, is disruptive. It really smacks of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I believe that many people would edit this page, the same people who built the article, if there was no editor who would immediately come by and make mass deletions of their edits. Also, if you think that the tags are a pointless issue, you will have no problem in their being removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I note several changes have been made to this article over the past two months, which I have not personally touched. See the bottom of this talkpage.
Please start discussing the actual issues now. You must have that avoiding them is not helping. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I ask you to please explain what you mean: "You must have that avoiding them is not helping."
Again, I ask you to help improve the article, don't simply remove things, or add tags. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Originally, it was agreed that the scope of the article is the denial the very existence or trivialization of the catastrophic famine causing deaths of millions people. It is indeed a marginal theory and using such a strong term as denial seems to be warranted.

On the other hand the views that Holodomor was an ethnic genocide are not marginal and using the word denial here is absolutely not neutral. If we accept this we should accept Denial of perestroika being an ethnic genocide, Denial of disintegration of the Soviet Union being the major humanitarian catastrophe of the XX century, Denial of Iraq War as ethnic genocide, etc.

I want either removal of the material of consideration Holodomor was an ethnic genocide or using a more neutral term like Apprehension of Holodomor (it would also solve possible BLP problems over labeling some modern living Western academics as denialists). Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I completely agree - the scope of this article should be exclusively the denial of the existence of the Holodomor. Or, as the lead states, "the famine never took place". This is not about the growing acceptance of the genocide. That has never been the issue here.
Therefore, it is clearly denial. Again, I don't see what the problem is - the lead clearly explains the term and scope of the article, and it is fully referenced. If there is mention about as a genocide, it should be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you bring a reliable source buttressing that interpretation of the lead? All three "references" are not relevant to this point that you claim.--Relata refero (disp.) 08:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Horlo and Alex, no problem. Let's remove this. I thought this insertion was O'K. Perhaps one needs a separate article about it.Biophys (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The piece I inserted actually belongs to a wider subject of Repressions of ethnic minorities in Russia (Russian Empire, Soviet Russia, and Post-Soviet Russia). Russia was rightly called a "prison of nations". Naturally, the repressions have been denied. It was denied that such repressions ever existed (like in this article), or it was claimed that repressions have not been directed against ethnic minorities (e.g. Holodomor and Katyn were not recognized as acts of genocide).Biophys (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

New Suggested Lead:

Holodomor denial is the claim that the genocide of Ukrainian farmers in 1932-1933—usually referred to as the Holodomor did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship.

Key elements of this claim are the rejection of any of the following: that the Soviet government had a policy of deliberately targeting Ukrainians especially the farmers identified as Kulaks for extermination as a people; that between three to ten million people were systematically starved to death by the Soviet government; and that genocide was carried out by expropriating all farm produce and blocking access to other food.

Many Holodomor deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holodomor revisionism instead. Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holodomor deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies.

Most Holodomor denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holodomor caused by natural conditions or by economic hardship imposed by the “collectivization” process. The methodologies of Holodomor deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.


with appropriate sources does this meet with everyones approval - Speak now. Bobanni (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I think it is convoluted and is not clear. Holodomor denial is not genocide denial. This is a seperate issue. Bandurist (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Main subject of this article should remain the denial that Holodomor ever took place. At the same time, one could also briefly mention in the end of the article other related controversies, such as (1) denial that Holodomor was a genocide against Ukrainians, and (2) denial that Holodomor was a terror-famine, a repressive policy of Soviet government rather than a result of poor climate. These distinctions between different denials are not clear for a reader, unless they are clearly stated. That is why I included the segment above. I still think that was an improvement.Biophys (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Depends. Can we find sources that clearly differentiate propaganda of the three types? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That should be probably another article, something like Disputed genocides in the Soviet Union, such as Holodomor and Katyn.Biophys (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How about a new article "Hololomor genocide question" with one section from the Genocide POV and another from the non-Genocide POV? Bobanni (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) (edit conflict) Hello, thank you but I have to agree with user:Bandurist here. In the proposed lead, the issue gets very easily convoluted and mixed up with genocide denialism. That is a completely different issue.

Personally, I agree with everything you said, but that is not what this article is about.
Also, I think that if this article has to be very clear about what is being denied: there are people who say that the holodomor never took place. There were people in 1932-33 who were saying that, there were people all through the Soviet mistake saying that, and there are people saying that now. ThatBold text is what this article is about, and it should be very focussed and clear. I think that there is a critical mass about Holodomor-genocide denial to start an article. What do you think? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Horlo, you've said "this is not what this article is about" several times. Remember, we haven't actually settled what this article is about. Half the discussions on this page are about what this article is about. Not just from me. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Relata Refero, everybody but you has agreed that this is what the article is about. Other people either don't understand English or are trying to mix beans and cabbage (trust me, don't do that either).

You don't like it. That's too bad. I'm sorry.

You think that this is about denialism. It is not. Again, IT IS NOT. I understand that typing in caps is like screaming, but you don't seem to get it. THIS IS NOT ABOUT DENIALISM. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT THE HOLODOMOR NEVER TOOK PLACE. Build a bridge. Get over it. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can type in caps if you like, but people seem to disagree with you. See above, where people other than me are disagreeing what this article is about. You see, when articles are poorly defined, this sort of thing tends to happen, and leads to screaming of the sort you just did.
Can we return to the subject of sourcing the different things various people believe this article is about now? --Relata refero (disp.) 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, again, you seem to miss the point. Nobody is disputing what the scope of the article is. If you actually took the time to read the debate, you would see that people disagree about things like "frozen meat of Kulak children" and "campaigning on the bones of famine vicitms". Nobody disagreed about the scope of the article until you started confusing denial and denialism because of what you thought you read into it.
Please read the lead of the article to see just how poorly defined it is. Actually, I will paste it here: Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, a manifestation of the Great Famine in Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR) claiming millions of lives, did not occur. Which part exactly is poorly defined? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
One could define the subject of this article as follows: "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, a manifestation of the Great Famine in Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR) claiming millions of lives, did not occur, or denial that Holodomor was an act of genocide, or attempts to minimize the scale or death toll, or claims that famine has not been intentionally created by the Soviet authorities". That would increase the scope of the article and bring it from the "denialism" to "controversies" category. This is just a thought. I do not vote for anything. But this prolonged dispute should be resolved somehow.Biophys (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would return to the beginnings of the discussion, where it was discussed and agreed that this article be about those who deny the fact that the Holodomor took place, nothing else. I do not want to politicize this issue, as difficult as that may be for some editors to accept. The point is that the Soviet authorities claimed that there was no Holodomor, some western (soviet friendly) newspeople said that there was no Holodomor, and even now some (soviet friendly) freaks say that there was no Holodomor. That is the scope of this article, nothing more. That is exactly why there is no POV with the title, there is no question of denialism, just a whole bunch of people who say that the Holodomor never took place. Much to the chagrin of some, the Holodomor is a topic which now, on the 75th anniversary, has become important again, and many scholarly sources are re-examining it. In Ukraine, in the US, and in Canada. That is why this article is important. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What "Holodomor" are denied or why knowledge of history is important for WP

Group of fellows would like to state what Holodomor is:

  • Ukrainian famine/genocide of 1932-33
  • 1932-33 famine was engineered by Soviet authorities under dictator Josef Stalin to force peasants to give up their private plots of land and join collective farms.
  • to crush Ukrainian nationalism
  • Seven million Ukrainians were killed by starving to death
  • Frozen meat of Kulak and NKVD in 1933 (Mace)
  • Sunk barges full of Ukrainian (Conquest)

and rest very "reliable data" from "reliable" source

So what history and historians spoken about 1932/33

  • Holodomor – 1933 lasted till end of spring mid of June 1933 (see Kulchitskyy "Голод 1932 р. в затінку голодомору-33" http://www.history.org.ua/Journal/2006/6/4.pdf Thus - Holodmor 1932-33 does not exist as historical fact but exist Holodomor -1933
  • There no cannibalism and starvation in USSR and Ukrainian SRR in second half of August 1933 – as mentioned Theodor_Cardinal_Innitzer as also a later.
  • All over collectivization was complete in Ukrainian SRR by mid October 1931 (see here [4] and [5]) – So peasants already join collective farms by end of 1931 (Note – Holodomor 1933)
  • There no OUN in 1932/33
  • Total probable estimated death exceed for 1927-38 together with voluntary out-migration numbered 2.583 for whole Ukrainian SRR population – said to us demographers (see more here http://www.ined.fr/en/resources_documentation/publications/ined_cahiers/bdd/publication/79/)
  • There no NKVD nor private freezers in 1933
  • Statistics for barges available for 1927-37 – there no decrease in quantity for 1932/33
So please decide first -which Holodomor were denied by Kalinin and Litvinov together with rest mentioned here names. Jo0doe (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Enormous Problems

Discussion on the history of Russia in the scholarly community does not include the term "Holodomor." All competent scholars whether in Russia or the West look at the 1933 famine in Russia as embracing the entire country. The historian Viktor Kondrashin documents very clearly the extent of famine and explictly repudiates the Ukrainian Nazi narrative of the famine's alleged focus on Ukraine. The famine affected all of Russia including the Moscow region, the Volga basin, the Central Producer region, the Urals, Turkestan, and Siberia. Whether or not this is the intention, this attempt at creating a "Holodomor denial" is a cynical attempt to trivialize the Holocaust.

Concerning "Holodomor Denial", the examples used in this article are disingenuous. Not a single text under discussion claims that there was a total absence of famine in Russia and elsewhere. Rather, like all competent historians on the subject, they merely repudiate the idea that the famine constituted some kind of genocide against Ukraine. The "Stalin Society" deriving its information from Tottle says very explicitly [6]

While drought was a contributing factor, the main cause of the famine was the struggle around collectivisation of the countryside in this period.

It is especially problematic to suggest that the scholarly community fully agrees with the view that famine in Ukraine and elsewhere was man-made. Scholars such as Dr Mark Tauger have confirmed that the famine was not artificial or "man-made". The 1932-33 famine was the result of a genuine shortage.

Concerning the reliance upon Robert Conquest for information, it would be dishonest to present his views as though they are representative of the scholarly community. See, for example the reviews of Conquest's work in the London Review of Books by J.Arch Getty and R.W. Davies in the journal Dentente. Mark Tauger said about Robert Conquest[7]

...the famine of 1931-1933 was by no means limited to Ukraine, was not a "man-made" or artificial famine in the sense that she and other devotees of the Ukrainian famine argument assert, and was not a genocide in any conventional sense of the term. ...Mr. Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies and does not deserve to be considered a classic, but rather another expression of the Cold War.

With respect to Walter Duranty, the section about him amounts to slander with selective quotations and innuendo. Walter Duranty never denied that there was a food crisis in Russia and even acknowledged that some three million people had died as a result of the food crisis, as he writes in an August 1933 article for the New York Times

The excellent harvest about to be gathered shows that any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. The food shortage which has affected almost the whole population in the last year, and particularly in the grain-producing provinces--that is, the Ukraine, North Caucasus, the Lower Volga region--has, however, caused heavy loss of life.... Although it is pure guesswork to attempt any estimate of the loss of life so far, not so much from actual starvation as from manifold diseases due to lowered resistance and to general disease in the last year, approximations are now possible. Among peasants and others receiving bread rations conditions were certainly not better. So with a total population in the Ukraine, North Caucasus and Lower Volga of upward of 40,000,000 the normal death rate would have been about 1,000,000. Lacking official figures, it is a conservative to suppose that this was at least trebled last year in those provinces and considerably increased for the Soviet Union as a whole

Drabj (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking on behalf of the competent scholarly community. No doubt it is an honor that they chose you as their spokesperson. Your long-winded sermon about "famine in Russia" and "Ukrainian Nazi narratives" reveals much. Please remember, Wikipedia is not vehicle for communist propaganda. Thanks a bunch, Ostap 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any content to that last statement, or is it merely a sarcastic personal attack? --Relata refero (disp.) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Just getting around to it... re: "Scholars such as Dr Mark Tauger have confirmed that the famine was not artificial or "man-made"." No. Tauger has ridden off his high horse and not addressed basic issues such as official Soviet denial of famine as compared to earlier admissions which brought with them international aid. Denial of famine, restriction of movement directed particularly at the Ukrainians, et al. strongly support the Ukrainian view that they were intentionally victimized. Tauger is infatuated with his own scholarship and has no problem deriding scholarship that does not acknowledge the supremacy of his own, sorry, disagrees with him. The more I read of Tauger, the more he looks to be out to "prove a POV" that he has held all along as opposed to conducting research first, conclusions second. —PētersV (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, your opinion is interesting to me. Not, however, to the world at large, unless you publish it in a peer-reviewed work. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Bobanni (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:Verifiability. This link is personal blog:

"Some scholars allege that Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies. [1]". Such sources are only admittable in articles about themselves.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Read WP:SPS. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Two problems. "Some" is more than one. Tauger is a known quantity, his position is the famine was not influenced by man, and is of itself controversial. I've read some of his scholarship and personally am not that impressed. But it's not about my opinion. You can write something like: "Mark Tauger, a scholar who contends the famine was purely the result of natural circumstances (need book ref), alleges... (need quote ref)". Moreover, that "quote ref" should come from a published source, not from Tauger's writings (and I'll accept from face value they are his) on some blog site. What people write in TALK is written to a different standard from what they write in AN ARTICLE. Scholars included. Tauger quoted in a reputable journal saying the same of Conquest is fine. —PētersV (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That was Tauger himself summarising his entire work on the subject. He valued that summary enough to put it on his site years after he wrote it. It is probably one of the most reliable sources in this entire shoddy article. I can't believe you're advising we remove it. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Tauger disagrees so vociferously, it shouldn't be difficult to find his position stated similarly elsewhere, no? We shouldn't need to resort to a poorly formatted blog saved somewhere where there's no distinction between polemics and scholarship. As I mentioned, there is also the problem of Tauger not being put into context, rather remaining a faceless "some" doing "alleging." For what it's worth, I wouldn't support something saved on some blog that Conquest wrote, either.
   Your evaluation of Tauger as "one of the most reliable sources in this entire article" is your editorial opinion, of course, and it could be right, it could be wrong. Therefore, Tauger's contentions, as published in reputable journal (peer-reviewed as worthy of consideration), are the appropriate source; by taking on determining whether or not to include Tauger's blog, we appoint ourselves as qualified to conduct an academic peer review. —PētersV (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, why don't we limit the entire article to peer-reviewed journals. No? Then read WP:PARITY. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Tauger is (being represented as) an authoritative scholar. Is it really that difficult to find a better source for Tauger's opinion? I support Tauger's scholarly opinion being positioned and represented in the article. Whether I totally agree or not isn't material. —PētersV (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It would also seem general statements/criticisms should be in the main article. If Conquest, for example, states that circulation of information was suppressed (pertinent to this article) on a particular occasion, general statements by Tauger regarding Conquest do not necessarily apply. —PētersV (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is another problem. This citation of Tauger is simply irrelevant. We are talking about the following segment: According to Robert Conquest, the denial was the first major instance of Soviet authorities adopting Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique to sway world opinion, to be followed by similar campaigns over the Moscow Trials and denial of the Gulag labor camp system. [4] Some scholars allege that Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies.. If Tauger disputed anything in this specific statement by Conquest ("Big Lie", Gulag, etc.), the citation of Tauger would be all right. But Tauger does not dispute this specifically if I understand correctly. He simply through dirt on Conquest. Hence the citation of Tauger is irrelevant "well poisoning".Biophys (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, given how dependent this entire article is on our Robert, I'd think that a contrary view in the lead is the least we can do. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) With reference to Conquest, Davies and Wheatcroft don't pillory him the way Tauger does (in fact the opposite). They do state their purpose is not to investigate motivations or to draw conclusions regarding motivations (which was one of Conquest's purposes, to understand the dynamics of the entire process), and they acknowledge the value of Conquest's work. Tauger's outright denunciation of Conquest as a mere Cold War motivated hack (per blog) is not mainstream. —PētersV (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Worrying that Conquest was fighting the Cold War is pretty mainstream actually, about as mainstream as worrying about how much the New Historians of the 1950s were minimising Stalinism. There's a reason why Conquest's facts are always attributed. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because it was the Cold War doesn't mean it's immediately suspect as pure POV. Conquest isn't a wholly discredited source as some have argued here. Davies' and Wheatcroft's assessment actual rather compliments Conquest on his gathering of information (personal accounts, etc.). D&W do not discredit or obsolete Conquest, as has been argued here. D&W simply make the point that their own work intentionally avoids the decision makers and decision process. —PētersV (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The very first denial, by Soviet authorities to the outside world, started it all and isn't subject to interpretation. But you knew that. :-) PētersV (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why people pay so much attention to Conquest. I easily added three more scholarly books by other authors on this subject. More can be found if needed.Biophys (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, a solution of insufficient sourcing is always adding more reliable secondary sources per WP:Verifiability. I cited Richard Pipes and Edvard Radzinsky who are notable historians and published numerous books, specifically about Russian history. You can not find better sources about Russian history. Please do not delete again perfectly sourced texts.Biophys (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly delete sourced texts if necessary. In this case, don't think that supporting one cold-war-inflected historian with another is appropriate for balance. --Relata refero (disp.) 01:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:Verifiability, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". I am using exactly such sources, that is "books published in university presses" and "books published by respected publishing houses". Furthermore, these are books published by notable historians - we have WP articles about them. WP rules do not tell anything about "Cold war".Biophys (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Very good. Now read WP:NPOV. I can't rewrite the policies to explain individual applications of them to you, I'm afraid. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this policy. Unfortunately it is you who removes sourced and relevant views on the subject. This is obviously a violation of WP:NPOV. Biophys (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sourced and relevant =/= balance. Please repeat that to yourself as often as necessary until you get it. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. To be balanced, an article should include all sourced views on the subject. That is exactly what I am doing here. And you are welcome to include alternative sourced views on this subject, if you think it is not balanced.Biophys (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No. To be balanced, an article should contain sourced views in a proper balance of all major points of view. Relata refero (disp.) 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, and you are welcome to include anything sourced what is missing, exactly as I do, instead of removing sourced texts you do not like. If there is nothing you can add, it means, the proper balance had been achieved.Biophys (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not how it works. We demonstrate the balance a priori, and then choose between reliable sources. We don't add sources madly and the resultant mish-mash is considered the proper balance of perspectives! That's totally inappropriate, and fails NPOV. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting "don't think that supporting one cold-war-inflected [sic.] historian with another is appropriate for balance"

It's not up to to any one single editor to determine how a historian writes (not the usual use of inflected) and whether or not that otherwise respected historian should be expunged as a citation. Personally, to me, Tauger exhibits a far more rabid and obvious POV than some of the sources Relata refero has seen fit to delete. But I am no more an authority to unilaterally expunge Tauger than Relata refero is an authority to unilaterally expunge Pipes or Radzinsky. So I ask such cititions be respected. Unilateral deletion of citations of respected sources is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —PētersV (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite. If they're respected, that is, and not deeply controversial and much-discussed themselves. Which rules out your examples, doesn't it? (Oh, and the use of inflected is correct.) --Relata refero (disp.) 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor Template

Holodomor Template was added to this article strictly for background information of related articles in Wikipedia. The Holodomor template is patterned after the Holocaust Template and the Armenian Genocide Template.

The template, if any, should meet the consensus by its content. So far it is a random and strange collection of stuff someone might have "heard" or something. It cannot be used in articles. --Irpen 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No objection to template on its talks page - Holodomor Template was added to this article strictly for background information of related articles in Wikipedia. The Holodomor template is patterned after the Holocaust Template and the Armenian Genocide Template.
Current version of the template includes a "Holodomor denial" section. So, it is only logical to include this template into all aricles it links to (and especially this one). Irpen probably wants to question if we need such template at all, and if we need to include "Holodomor denial" as a part of the "Holodomor" template. This should be discussed at talk page of Holodomor template rather than here.Biophys (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some scholars allege that Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies

"According to Robert Conquest, that was the first major instance of Soviet authorities adopting Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique to sway world opinion, to be followed by similar campaigns over the Moscow Trials and denial of the Gulag labor camp system"
"Some scholars allege that Conquest's book on the famine is replete with errors and inconsistencies"

This criticism is out of place in this article. They are not challenging the accuracy of this statement. We don't know what part of Conquests work these scholars find inconsistent or in error, so adding this is your OR. Add this criticism to the Robert Conquest article. Ostap 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. The segment about Tauger is simply irrelevant. See that about Tauger. BTW, they had a heated exchange by letters with Conquest in Slavic Studies disputing various things (a rare scientific scandal). Hence, Tauger is also not a neutral source.Biophys (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you actually look at ratemyprofessors.
It should be quite obvious that that link is quite irrelevant, so I wont waste time on pointing out why.
As to the relevance of Tauger himself, he is talking specifically about Conquest's coverage of the famine; this article covers the coverage of the famine and relies extremely heavily on Conquest. I rather think that that makes a sufficient case for relevance. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
But this article is not about Conquest's book on the famine. Does Tauger dispute any of the specific material that is cited to Conquest in this article? Is any of the information attributed to Conquest in this article erroneous? If not, then this weaselish criticism should be removed. Ostap 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Reduce the amount this depends on Conquest, and we can avoid mentioning Tauger at all!--Relata refero (disp.) 07:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Few citation from Robert Conquest

http://zhnyva33.narod.ru/part3.html#b15

  • Коли проблема безпритульності стала завеликою для місцевих урядовців, безпритульних почали розстрілювати у великих кількостях.
  • Лебединському дитячому центрі 76 дітей, що заразилися сапом від неякісної конини, було розстріляно.
  • Отож, “небажаних” дітей позбувалися за допомогою різних засобів. Повідомлялося також, що деяких топили в баржах на Дніпрі (так робили і з дорослими). Але більшість дітей загинула від голоду. Існують більш-менш чіткі підрахунки кількості таких жертв.

Please remember, Wikipedia is not vehicle for anti-soviet propaganda and propaganda sources heavy usage. However - does group of editor decide which Holodomor denied [8]? - Jo0doe (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Most vehemently of all, these experts reject Conquest's hunt for a new holocaust. The famine was a terrible thing, they agree, but it decidedly was not genocide.

"There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians," said Alexander Dallin of Stanford, the father of modern Sovietology. "That would be totally out of keeping with what we know -- it makes no sense."

"This is crap, rubbish," said Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, whose Russian Peasants and Soviet Power broke new ground in social history. "I am an anti- Stalinist, but I don't see how this [genocide] campaign adds to our knowledge. It's adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology."

"I absolutely reject it," said Lynne Viola of SUNY- Binghamton, the first US historian to examine Moscow's Central State Archive on collectivization. "Why in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when they were terrified of war [with Germany]?"

These premier Sovietologists dismiss Conquest for what he is -- an ideologue whose serious work is long behind him. But Dallin stands as a liberal exception to the hard-liners of his generation, while Lewin and Viola remain Young Turks who happen to be doing the freshest work on this period. In Soviet studies, where rigor and objectivity count for less than the party line, where fierce anti-Communists still control the prestigious institutes and first-rank departments, a Conquest can survive and prosper while barely cracking a book.

"He's terrible at doing research," said veteran Sovietologist Roberta Manning of Boston College." He misuses sources, he twists everything."

Then there are those who love to twist, and shout --to use scholarly disinformation for their own, less dignified purposes

Should we use "crap and rubbish" as source for WP?Jo0doe (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe's quote can be found at http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html by Jeff Coplan & Progressive Labor Party. Are they considered a realiable source? Bobanni (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whom? Roberta Manning of Boston College? Lynne Viola of SUNY- Binghamton? Alexander Dallin of Stanford? the father of modern Sovietology?Jo0doe (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Few citation from Robert Conquest (in English)

Let's quote the English edition of the Conquest's book (1986, ISBN 0195051807) for the benefit of anyone who reads this page. All the quotes that correspond to the Ukrainian translations above come from p. 296 of this edition:

  • "When the problem became too great for local officials bespeizornie [sic] are reported shot in large numbers.<ref68>"
    • The ref # 68 cited by Conquest is no less than Alexander Orlov's " The Secret History of Stalin's Crimes (1953). You can click above for some material on this "scholarly" work based on "previously unpublished anecdotes", "an unofficial history, written without reference to primary sources or documents", "sometimes based upon gossip heard at the NKVD water-cooler or at a French cafe." When reviewed by an academic journal (International Affairs, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 3 Jul., 1955, p. 389) it was called the "unsavoury book lives up to its sensational title."
  • "In the Lebedyn's Children's Centre seventy-six children are reported shot after getting glanders from horsemeat.<ref71>"
    • The ref # 71 Conquest gives to this fact is: Fedir Pigido-Pravoberezhny, "The Stalin famine: Ukraine in the year 1933" (1953). Note that the publisher of this source is ..."Ukrainian Youth Association" in London. This valuable SOURCE which Conquest sites repeatedly has whooping 72 pages and the Library of Congress, which even chose to have Tottle's masterpiece among its holdings, lacks this valuable Conquest's source.
  • "It is certainly true that unwanted children were got rid of by inhumane or lethal practices, though mainly by starvation in various centres; and it is also reported,, for example, that some were drowned in barges on the Dnieper, (a method also used with adults).<ref72> There is reasonably clear evidence of the numbers, if not the exact numbers, of the child victims."
    • The ref 72 for barge drowning is given in a way that hides any possibility to establish the publisher. It just says: "Seminar on Ukrainian Famine, 1933, Toronto, December 1981".

I hope this quotations display the strength of articles that are so Conquest-based. --Irpen 07:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A researcher of history can use any sources including the unreliable ones, Soviet propaganda, professional disinformation cooked by General Orlov, and whatever. It does not mean he believes this is true. An example of disinformation can be cited as an example of disinformation. But we are not going to do original research to disprove reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's simply follow the rules

According to WP:Verifiability, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses;...Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.".

Here we have a book published by Harvard University Press and written by Robert Conquest, a notable Western historian who authored about 25 books, most of them specifically on Russian history, such as The Great Terror and others. He is an internationally recognized researcher. If you know any historian who has a better record (20+ books) on Russian history of 20th century, please tell who he/she is. There are no more reliable secondary sources than his books - based on WP:Verifiability.

Obviously, everything in history is a matter of debate, and so his books. There is nothing special here. If Conquest tells something specifically about Holodomor denial, this can be cited here. If other reliable sources tell something, specifically about Holodomor denial, they can be cited too per WP:NPOV. My point was that Tauger did not tell anything at all about the Holodomor denial.

If you want to debate the Conquest book (which is not a subject of this article), one can create an article The harvest of sorrow about the book and include all criticizms there. That is what we always do.Biophys (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. However, a Conquest-heavy article needs balance; and Tauger was talking about Conquest's discourse on the Holodomor. Since this article purports to be about the discourse on the Holodomor, Tauger is relevant, unless we scale down our reliance on Conquest.--Relata refero (disp.) 15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain what exactly Tauger tells about Holodomor denial? If he tells nothing, his opinion belongs to article The harvest of sorrow (I feel we should create it). Also using Tauger's blog is not a good idea. I am sure he published something in journals.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
On your first point, since this article purports to be about the discourse on the Holodomor, Tauger is relevant, unless we scale down our reliance on Conquest. On your second, I have pointed out above that this is Tauger's chosen summary of his work on the subject. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not reliable - but crap and rubbish see scholars opinions about "books". Quality of historical works based on source used and propose of publishing. In case of Robert Conquest we have well known cold-war anti-soviet pamflitist with "rubbish" in every book. I would like a point your attention on WP:REDFLAG policy. Jo0doe (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You should read the beginning of this section, but I can repeat again. This is a book published by Harvard University Press and written by Robert Conquest, a notable Western historian who authored about 25 books, most of them specifically on Russian history, such as The Great Terror and others. He is an internationally recognized researcher. If you know any historian who has a better record (20+ books) on Russian history of 20th century, please tell who he/she is. There are no more reliable secondary sources than his books - based on WP:Verifiability. If you have any problems with this source, let's post this source at "Sources" noticeboard and ask for more opinions. If you have any other reliable sources that challenge Conquest conclusions on the Holodomor denial subject (so far there is NONE), we can cite them as well.Biophys (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a dozen historians of the Soviet Union less controversial than Conquest. I don't see the point of the question. I am not questioning the reliability of his books as sources.
And since Conquest has never actually come to any conclusions about "holodomor denial" as the "concept" is presented in this article, other than by using the word "lie", I don't know where you're going with this.... --Relata refero (disp.) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This article cites several books by Conquest. If this is O'K (I thought that is challenged), I do not see any problems except citing blog by Tauger who does not tell anything specific about Holodomor denial.Biophys (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Conquest books known for twisting and misusing the facts
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking.
see above

Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves

claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Any comments? Jo0doe (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Based on information provided, the three books by Conquest are mainstream ("majority") sources on Holodomor denial by Soviet government and others (books by a notable historian published in Harvard University Press and other places like that). If there are any other sources that dispute Conquest assertions, specifically on the Holodomor denial (rather than anything else), they can be cited in the article - no problem. So far, there is only one source, the blog by Tauger (who published much less on Russian history than Conquest), and even this blog does not tell anything specifically about the Holodomor denial. So, we have three academic books published by a notable historian versus a blog by a non-notable University professor which does not tell anything on the subject. Which view is mainstream? Once again, if you want to discuss one of Conqest books about the famine, this can and should be done in another article.Biophys (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Moreover, this article cites several other academic books by other notable Western and Russian historians and other sources that are completely consistent with claims by Conquest about the Holodomor denials. If you want to debate other claims by Conquest (there are lots of them), this should be done elsewhere.Biophys (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

None of those books are about any well-defined movement or activity known as "Holodomor denial". --Relata refero (disp.) 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, EACH book explains explicitly how the existence of Holodomor has been denied. This article is not about a combination of words, it is about a phenomenon - denial the Holodomor ever happened.Biophys (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Not only it was "well defined" but it has been organized by the Soviet government according to these books.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's your interpretation. Nothing in the quotes suggests that the authors believe it was targeted particularly at the Holodomor, as opposed to the usual unwillingness to let the West know that they weren't precisely achieving a worker's paradise. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
How come "nothing in the quotes suggests"? Current text tells the following: Stalin "had achieved the impossible: he had silenced all the talk of hunger... Millions were dying, but the nation hymned the praises of collectivization", said historian and writer Edvard Radzinsky[3]. According to Robert Conquest, that was the first major instance of Soviet authorities adopting Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique to sway world opinion. Last part is very close to original text. O'K, I can easily provide more direct quotes later. Is that the problem? Both authors talked about Holodomor (Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933).Biophys (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Stalin ensured that the failures of collectivisation were not advertised. Similarly, he did not talk about the displacement of nationalities, nor did Pravda have front-page stories on the Gulag. In any case, this quote refers to the "Big Lie" technique, which is not denial. It is, in fact, the inverse. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I simply cite the source. It tells that the intentional denial (a cover up) of the Holodomor was a "Big Lie" technique. That is what Conquest said. He may be wrong but that is what he tells.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, only a big lie technique isn't denial. Its as if Holocaust deniers went around claiming that the Nazis liked Jews, and the number of European Jews increased by six million. That is in fact precisely the point Conquest is making. I trust you see the difference. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking.
Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.
Once more - which kind of "Holodomor" - "drowned in barges on the Dnieper" or historical one?Jo0doe (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A few points – collectivization process for Ukraine territories, in main, accomplished by August 1931. Main soviet newspapers in 1932-34 was full of about improper management and conducts in agriculture. In 1937-38 published a lot of about “crimes of spy’s” against soviet low.

Pravda got a front page story about GULAG – after Belomor-Baltisykiy channel completion. Most of information was published but in very specific way – in order to assess it you should be comfortable with “official language” of 30-s. Actually It’s not big lie – it’s understatement Jo0doe (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained Deletions

Recent deletion of fully referenced material was deleted with the comment "defend your additions" - this is the reverse of collaborative editing. Need a really good explanation why these facts "unbalance" the article. Comments that characterize "not good enough" do not help advance the article. The other editors need to understand why it should be deleted. Bobanni (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they extensively quote primary sources? Because they rely entirely on a single non-English source? Because the section is already unbalanced? Because the article is already unbalanced, as demonstrated and tagged? Beyond that, in what circumstances is dumping an enormous set of quotes encyclopaedic? All this shouldn't require saying. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The book in question is by eminent Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Serhiychuk. It is published by the Centre of Ukrainian studies at the Kyiv State University named after Taras Shevchenko in Kyiv, 2006. The work has 392 pages of sources documents and analysis.

Serhiychuk"s analysis is a secondary source.

Apart from the analysis by Serhiychuk (pp 321-332) The following document are also published:

1) Report from the representative of the Ukr. SSR A. Holovko at the United Nations Oct 28 1973 (pp.333-335) (in Ukrainian) 2) Propositions of the Soviet Ambassador to Canada Alexander Yakovlev regarding the neutralization of Ukrainian emigre actions commemorating the Famine of 1933. Marked Secret. Dated March 23, 1983 (pp. 335-342) 3) The note of protest from the Soviet Embassy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Canada dated July 5, 1983 (pp.343-344) 4) Letter from Danyliw and Associates regarding the setting up of an International Tribunal dated October 17, 1983 with a photo reproduction of the said document (pp.344-350) 5)Report from the Novosti Press bureau A. Podakin to P. Naumov regarding neutralizing the Ukrainian Emigre actions dated 9 January 1984 marked Secret (pp.350-357) In Russian. 6) Extract from a report regarding the conversation between Consular official A. Makarov and R. Halperin dated December 3 1984 In Russian (pp. 357-360)

Because the book was published in only 3000 copies and may be difficult to obtain, I am offering to scan the referenced pages of the publication for confirmation regarding translation and sources if you provide me with an email address where to send the scanned pages.

Bandurist (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • 3000 copies - actually reveal source as WP:SPS

WP:SPS - Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. So actually – does Volodymyr Serhiychuk - established expert on the topic of the article Denial of the Holodomor whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications? Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • His Doctor of Science dissertation he defended in 1992 was on "The Ukrainian Cossack Army of the second half of the 16th - 17th century". ???

Moreover - some of his work "Symon Petlura and the Jews" (1999),"Pogroms in Ukraine. 1914-1920" (1998), The truth about Jewish pogroms" (1996), are whitewashing of well known criminals Jo0doe (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The books are published by Kyiv University. I have seen Serhiychuk's earlier works quoted in third-party publications. His latest, so far no, but this is probably mainly because they are recent works. JoDoe - I have noticed that you regard most Soviet materials as the "truth", even out and out fabrications. Bandurist (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But in his case, he actually works and teaches there. I also have more confidence in his sources than yours. He has bone fide credentials and has a real Doctorate, not a fake plagarised Russian one like Putin. What can you you provide to boost you credibility? Bandurist (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So he got a discount on publishing :) - still it does not change WP:SPS status. Jo0doe (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Materials being repeatedly removed

Modern Soviet Denial

In February 1983 Alexander Yakovlev, the Soviet Ambassador to Canada, in a secret analysis "Some thoughts regarding the advertising of the Ukrainian SSR pavilion at the International exposition "Man and the world" held in Canada" prognosised a campaign to bring attention to the Holodomor spearheaded by the Ukrainian nationalist community. A. Yakovlev proposed a list of concrete proposals to "neutralise the enemy ideological actions of the Ukrainian bourgeoise nationalists"[2].

By April 1983 the bureau of the Soviet Novosti Press Agency sent out a special press release denying the occurrence of the 1933 Famine in Ukraine. This press release was sent to every major newspaper, radio station and television station and University in Canada and also to all the members of the Canadian parliament[3].

On July 5 1983 the Soviet Embassy issued an official note of protest regarding the planned opening of a monument in memory of the victims of the Holodomor in Edmonton[4].

In October 1983 the World Congress of Ukrainians lead by V-Yu Danyliv attempted to call a international court to judge the facts regarding the Holodomor. At the 4th World Congress held in December 1983 a resolution was passed to form an international tribunal[5].

A. Makarov from the Soviet Consulate in a discussion held December 3 1984 with the Canadian minister for foreign affairs Ron Halpin demanded that the Canadian government "use concrete measures to stop the anti-soviet campaign of provocations regarding the so-called "Famine", and stop aggressive actions of the Ukrainian emigre centres against the Soviet Union and to take legal action against war criminals who had committed crimes on temporarily occupied Soviet territory.[6]"

The Soviet Communist party approached the Canadian Communist Party to engage journalist Douglas Tottle to prepare counter-propaganda materials under the title "Fraud, Famine and Ukrainian Fascism". The official reviewers of the tome in Kyiv suggested that the name of the book be changed, as they stated in their explanation "Ukrainian fascism never existed", and suggested that the citations of Soviet authors K. Dmytriuk and V. Stryrkula be removed from the publication[7].

Bandurist (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely seems relevant, but based on a single source, and is far too long. Please summarize in 1/3 the space (additional sources would probably merit it being given more space). - Merzbow (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
May be this could be made shorter. Main point here: Soviet authorities continued the denial that Holodomor existed even in 1980s, and one of the "deniers" was Alexander Yakovlev, a very notable figure and an "architect" of perestroika. A majority of this text can be left in footnotes - as a reasonable compromise. I was surprised to see that Yakovlev did not tell a word about Holodomor in his memories. Now it is clear why.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with Merzbow that some mention of the Soviet campaign against Ukranian nationalism in Canada is necessary - it is the only really notable thing about this portmanteau article, after all - I continue to be deeply unhappy about the choice of the sources above. For example "issued an official note of protest regarding the planned opening of a monument.." What does that mean? Does that mean they objected to the monument? To the implications of the monument? To the words on the monument? Why did they object to the monument? Did they do so because they claimed that it perpetuated the "myth" of the famine, or because it claimed that the famine was intentional? Where is the context?
Is the sentence about Novosti really translated accurately? What did the release say? What does this history say of the motivation behind Yakovlev's statement? To what degree is he stating that the famine did not exist, and to what degree is he wishing to claim that memorialisation of it is "excessive" and ideologically motivated? (Cf the Chinese government today privately admitting deaths in 1950s Tibet, but refusing to allow commemoration). All this makes me very suspicious. If it is basically a sourcebook of primary materials edited by this individual, then quoting it as a properly structured secondary source is inappropriate. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
On looking at this more closely, it seems obvious that Serhiychuk, who has access to the archives, is merely presenting them as a sourcebook. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to look more closely without the book in question. All you have is a very brief summary of the man\in analysis, a list of documents republished relating to the material and one 2 page translation. It doesn't really give an truely adequate picture of the work. Bandurist (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The book is available online in an electronic version at


http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Serg.php

http://www.history.univ.kiev.ua/golodomor/32_33.htm

Bandurist (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Note of protest from Soviet Embassy

Serhiychuk is a historian who analyses the data. It is a secondary source. The fact that he also includes a reprint of the source documents allows one to check his analysis. Obviously the topic is currently a heated one with the whole year marked as a memorial to the Holodomor.
The Note of protest from the Soviet Embassy is dated July 5, 1983.

It states:

The Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics notifies the respected Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada and has the honour of turning the attention of the Ministry to the intentions of the Edmonton section of the "Committee of Ukrainians in Canada" to erect a monument to the so-called "victims of Famine in Ukraine of 1932-33". This action cannot not be viewed as a indecent anti-soviet action, whose goal is to turn away from the truth regarding the collectivisation of village farms in the USSR, to promote hatred to the USSR and the Soviet people. It is visible tht the plans to erect such a monument are supported by the city government of Edmonton, which passed a resolution to allow the erection of the monument in the central square of the city. Such activities attacking the USSR from the official government in association with activists of the right-extremist centres in Canada, including the union of War criminals of the so-called "Ukrainian Insurgent Army", the SS division "Galizien" and others cannot be supported. Attention is brought to the anti-Soviet manifestation in Toronto on May 29 this year regarding the so-called "Famine in Ukraine", which amongst its organizers was one of the leaders of the pro-fascist "League of Freedom for Ukraine" V. Didiuk, the head of "the brotherhood of former soldiers of the SS. Galizien division" O. Sokolsky and the participation of members of the federal and provincial parliaments.

Whatever formal excuses these former hitlerite cronies use to hide under under, the to mask their anti-Soviet actions in Canada, the patronage of the government officials makes a mockery of the millions of Soviet people, who became victims of German Fascism in the years of the Second World War.

The Embassy voices its protest against anti-Soviet for that reason of the erection of the above mentioned monument. It expects that actions will be taken in the prohibition of its construction.

The Embassy uses this occassion to remind the Ministry in its high and important regard.

6 copies

5 July 1983

1,2 - to addresses 3. - filed 4. 2EO 5 - Central Committee of Communist party of Ukraine 6. - Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ukr. SSR 27 June 1983 Ottawa

Bandurist (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'm not at all surprised. The "so-called" is masterly, in that it commits them neither to denying that it happened - if questioned, surely they can claim they were questioning the semantics. Frankly, I would think that any source that saw this as outright denial is questionable.
About the secondary aspect, I have my doubts. The way that it has been translated, it sounds just like a brief, non contextualised or analytical, introduction to each documentary source. If there's an overall introduction where he lays out his interpretation of the datar, that might be useful. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to question a source, particularly if you don't have it underhand, however it is a secondary source and it is from a reliable source, and I have offered scans of the documents.

Oh the one hand what I wrote is too long, On the other it is scant. Keep in mind that what I selected was what I thought was useful for the article in question. The materials are there and laid out and can be further investigated and the article refined. The most interesting documents are the ones which are marked secret which are in some areas quite inflamatory and provide incite into how the Soviet Embassy functioned regarding the Ukrainian emigre organizations and particular individuals. These are worthy of translation, however they are quie long. Bandurist (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is too long from the point of view of weight in the article, and it is scanty in the sense that it is really little more than a list of titles of primary sources. I have no doubt that the specific propaganda actions take by the USSR to deal with the memorialisation of the Holodomor by the Ukranian-Canadian committee are encyclopaedic, but they have to be dealt with properly and in context. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What specific suggestions can you make regarding the condencing of the material? What would you like to see? Bandurist (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to propose to mention which kind of “Holodomor” denied by Soviet – “7 million of Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin to force them to join kolkhozes”; “Lebedyn's Children's Centre seventy-six children are reported shot after getting glanders from horsemeat”; It is certainly true that unwanted children were got rid of by inhumane or lethal practices, though mainly by starvation in various centres; and it is also reported,, for example, that some were drowned in barges on the Dnieper, (a method also used with adults).

And mention what two last instance really happened in Ukraine – but in 1941-43 and with assistance and direct participation of ukrainian militia which in large extent represented at Ukrainian emigre organizations which claimed about “Holodomor” and “Holodomor denials” Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews (IMT Vol III p.21). Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed” (IMT Vol II p.448) Moreover – cite Fabricate from Deception and especially Distractions - To get someone's attention from the truth by offering bait or something else more tempting to divert attention away from the object being concealed. e.i. – “Holodomor” with "7 millions" instead of “Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed”.Jo0doe (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

JoDoe - Either make a serious contribution, or go somewhere where you can be appreciated. Your comments are silly and derogatory. Bandurist (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Serhiychuk book is available in an electronic version.


http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Serg.php

http://www.history.univ.kiev.ua/golodomor/32_33.htm

Bandurist (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So actually it’s a selected collection of archival documents rather then book – because I can’t find any logic or sense in wording before strange selection of archival documents (some of them already published in 1990-96)– however such documents contradict with name of book- “How we were starved to death” – see ЦК ВКП(Б) "О ПРОДРЕСУРСАХ УКРАИНЫ" Положение с продресурсами на Украине требует немедленного приостановления всякого вывоза пшеницы и ржи (в зерне и муке) из Украины. Чтобы не повторять опыта прошлого года, когда весной пришлось на Украину чрезвычайным порядком завозить хлеб, необходимо дать указание Комитету Заготовок при СТО о немедленном аннулировании всех вывозных нарядов из Украины по пшенице и ржи (в зерне и муке), а именно: ___на экспорт в ноябре и в союзные республики в ноябре и декабре: пшеницы и муки — 21.940 тысяч пудов и ржи и муки — 5.511 тыс. пудов, а всего — 27.451 тысяч пудов. ___Приложение: справка о потребностях Украины в продовольственном хлебе с 1/ХІ 1932-го года по 1/VП 1933-го года. ___Секретарь ЦК КП(б)У (Косиор). Прот. № 106, п.10 от 13.ІІІ.ЗЗ г. О ПРОДОВОЛЬСТВЕННОЙ ПОМОЩИ ___В целях оказания продовольственной помощи крайне нуждающимся отдельным районам и колхозникам ЦК постановляет: ___1. Обкомы и облисполкомы должны на основе проверки через ответственных товарищей, командированных из областей не позже 20.111. установить окончательно районы, которые настоятельно нуждаются в оказании помощи. ___2. Отмечая совершенно неудовлетворительное развертывание местной инициативы и использования больших возможностей для мобилизации местных ресурсов, ЦК обязывает обкомы и райкомы партии добиться необходимого перелома в этом отношении в районах и обеспечить развертывание руководства делом заготовок различного рода продуктов в своей области. ___7. ЦК особо обращает внимание обкомов на необходимость оказания помощи в первую очередь детскому населению. Для этой цели создать особый централизованный фонд, выделив в первую очередь 700 тонн муки (500 тонн за счет невыкупленных грузов, 200 тонн за счет экономии в хлебопекарнях), 170 тонн сахара (150 тонн за счет Наркомснаба, 20 тонн за счет невыкупленных грузов), 100000 банок консервов (за счет нераспределенного резерва Наркомснаба), 50 тонн круп и 500 пудов подсолнечного масла, изъяв его из Укрмлина. О решении бюро Днепропетровского обкома от 23.04.33 г. ком оказал продовольственную помощь Славутскому району, при чем районное руководство не приняло никаких серьезных мер к ускорению прибытия продовольственной помощи на место, а также не использовало местных возможностей (лесоразработки) для смягчения продовольственного положения в районе

19. VI 1933 г. ___Політбюро (Протокол № 118 пункт I) ___Слушали: заявление тов.Трилиссера ___Постановили: Констатировать, что Винницкой области была оказана за последние два месяца большая продовольственная помощь 26 апреля — 150 тыс. пудов 26 апреля — 260 -"- 1 июня – 135 -”- 13 июня – 180 -”- Из украинского фонда – 56 -“- Всего 781 тыс.

___Только в начале июня Винницкий обком оказал продовольственную помощь Славутскому району, при чем районное руководство не приняло никаких серьезных мер к ускорению прибытия продовольственной помощи на место, а также не использовало местных возможностей (лесоразработки) для смягчения продовольственного положения в районе. Strange - isn't?Jo0doe (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tauger's conclusions called into question

Prominent writers such as Wheatcroft question Tauger's conclusions. For example, in a comparison of the different viewpoints on the famine in (Wheatcroft, S. G.(2004) 'TOWARDS EXPLAINING SOVIET FAMINE OF 1931-3: POLITICAL AND NATURAL FACTORS IN PERSPECTIVE ', Food and Foodways, 12:2, 107 — 136)

"In contrast to these views of the dominance of political factors, Mark Tauger describes the famine as largely accidental and caused mainly by external exogenous factors. While I have some sympathy with Mark Tauger’s attempt to question these political interpretations, I would claim that he, in his turn, has over reached himself and has over simplified the problem, but in the opposite direction to the others."

I think readers should be alerted to the fact that Tauger's viewpoint represents, in Wheatcroft's words, "the opposite extreme" of arguing that the famine was totally accidental, and this viewpoint is not shared by other significant authors, such as Wheatcroft and Davies. The way the Refero represents Tauger's view on Conquest's work could be misleading to the reader if we don't indicate what other authors think of Tauger's work. Martintg (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tauger isn't being used as a source on the famine itself, but on Conquest's position with ref to the thinking on the subject. If Tthe article was dependent on Tauger, or even used him extensively, I would certainly think that some information on this would be appropriate, but as it stands, no. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
All aspects of this disagreement by the sources must be included. Taugers disagreement with Conquest's view is a source for the article - your assertion about the article being dependent on a specific source is not logical. Remember Conquest was the FIRST academic researcher to write about this topic. Bobanni (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
He didn't actually write about "it", did he? He wrote about the famine. Relata refero (disp.) 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Tauger does not comment on "big Lie" statement by Conquest. Hence his citation is irrelevant.Biophys (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Remove the whole thing, then. Having one bit without the modification is unacceptable. Relata refero (disp.) 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement by Conquest is about Holodomor denial. Hence it is relevant. Statement by Tauger is not about Holodomor denial. Hence it is not relevant.Biophys (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No. The statement by Tauger is about Conquest and the Holodomor; if Conquest is in the lead, that modification will be presented. So remove him from the lead. This would also increase readability, as all the people trying to add "big lie" to lead probably haven't read that article. That method is not "denial". --Relata refero (disp.) 05:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tauger's conclusions discredited

Tauger himself supports the claim that Wheatcroft and Davies have discredited his view on the famine. In the opening paragraph of Tauger's article "Arguing from errors: On certain issues in Robert Davies' and Stephen Wheatcroft's analysis of the 1932 Soviet grain harvest and the Great Soviet famine of 1931-1933", Europe-Asia Studies, 58:6, 973 — 984, he asserts:

"In their recent book, THE YEARS OF HUNGER: SOVIET AGRICULTURE, 1931–1933 (2004), a detailed study of the Soviet famine of those years, Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft criticise my publications on the Soviet grain harvests of 1932–33 and the causes of the famine. In an appendix to their book and in a table located online, they attempt to discredit the evidence, methodology and conclusions from my article "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933" (Tauger1991) and certain other publications"

--Martintg (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, they say "attempt to discredit" then. And how is it relevant? He doesn't say that they attempt to discredit his view of Conquest's position with re the discourse on the Holodomor. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If we want to include Tauger here (which I am not sure we want to do), then he looks like just another Holodomor denialist. Hence his criticism is appropriate. Agree with Martintg.Biophys (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So - Wheatcroft and Davies called Tauger as "another Holodomor denialist"? Which Holodomor was denied? Originated from World Congress of Free Ukrainians ?Jo0doe (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tabled a law

Hey, there. In the midst of the more serious issues this article faces, I thought I might mention another: this excerpt from the lede: "...the government of Ukraine tabled a law...". "Table" as a verb is extremely problematic because it has the opposite meaning in U.S. English as Commonwealth English. This makes it difficult to determine which sense is intended and will likely mislead users of whichever form was not intended here. I'm not fixing this myself because I'm not sure which sense is intended. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about whether the law was good or not. I'm concerned about making the meaning of the sentence clear to all speakers of English. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern has a point. In American usage, "to table" means to suspend a motion, whereas in Commonwealth english it means to propose a motion. Quite opposite meanings here. I think in this case the Ukraine government proposed a motion. Martintg (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the section. My English is Commonwealth (from Australia). Change it to proposed a motion. Thank you JoeDoe for your comments re Yushchenko. I will forward them on to him when I see him on Tuesday. Bandurist (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. If only all the issues at this article were this easy... Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Edmonton Memorial

see article: "On July 5 1983 the Soviet Embassy issued an official note of protest regarding the planned opening of a monument in memory of the victims of the Holodomor in Edmonton" picture is of this monument. Quoting the inscription on the monument and its point of view is no reason to delete the picture. Other points of views may need to be added. Bobanni (talk)

In addition, keep in mind that (possibly influenced by President Yushchenko's recent visit) the Canadian Government yesterday passed a private members bill to recognise the Holodomor as an act of Genocide. IMHO it cannot be classified POV if a monument to Genocide in Canada is recognised by the Government as being genocide. In fact I think your particular feelings regarding the subject are more POV, or more specifically that of a minority POV. Bandurist (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Really

OK, so are there any REAL arguments to keep those tags up?

Please, no more "it has been described in detail" (because there have only been a few mentions made, and they have all been changed) or "there are at least half a dozen editors who want the tags" (because there is only one editor who is a native English speaker who wants the tags there - others strangely admit to not being English speakers and yet can understand minute nuances in English of Denial vs denial).

So again, really, is there any reason to keep the tags?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no valid arguments to keep these tags.Biophys (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Or so you say. --Irpen 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Irpen, that argument is about as good as any other you've made here. Thank you for the input. Horlo (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So, actually, at least, you’ve able to decide which one Holodomor denied?

Please list which one - ???Jo0doe (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, again, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not just a place for you to practice English. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, and let's start form the main question. What is "Denial of Holodomor"? The article introduces the notion, cites some refs and none of the refs support the article's definition. Please correct this problem first. --Irpen 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, denial of the Holodomor is denying that the Holodomor took place. If you are not sure, or if the English is not clear, please feel free to follow the links - there are at least three sources given at the end of the first sentence of the article. If there are any difficult words, please feel free to ask, and I will explain them. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
DONE - tag removed Bobanni (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, please don't remove the tags without addressing the outstanding issues, explained at length and comepletely unanswered earlier on this page. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Relata refero, you seem to be confusing ranting and explaining. Irpen, please stop just being a nuisance. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. Ranting, if applicable, is applicable to the tone of the discussion. Explaining, which is certainly applicable, is applicable to the content of the discussion. Easy. Again, please try responding to the 300kb of objections first. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Denial that a massive famine occurred vs. denial that it was an intentional genocide.

This distinction seems to be missing here, and I think it's an important one.

From the very beginning:

Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, the 1933 famine in Soviet Ukraine, which claimed millions of lives, did not occur.

vs.

The concept of Holodomor denial is explained by Miron Dolot in his book Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust “Seven million people in the ‘breadbasket of Europe’ were deliberately starved to death at Stalin’s command.

These two sentences do not have the same meaning. Claiming that the famine did not occur or that millions of lives were not lost is absolutely insane, undoubtedly politically motivated because it is simply not subject to any kind of scholarly debate.

Claiming that that the deaths were not deliberate (ie. that it was not a genocide) may be offensive to some, but it's certainly a common debate among respected historians (not just Russian nationalists, secret communists or anti-Ukrainians). The list of "Holodomor deniers" seems to include people from both camps, but does not clearly make a distinction, which is libel as far as I'm concerned. For instance, should Conquest, who now denies it was an intentional genocide, be included in the list? TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, feel free to add that clarification to the article. I think the article originally started out as denial of the famine, the genocide angle evolved later. While there is argument about whether it was natural or man made, the other aspect of course is that if the famine had natural origins, did the leadership make it worse than it could have been, and whether this was deliberate or due to incompetence.

Absolutely. I should have acknowledged that there is a big difference between arguing that it was not an intentional genocide and that arguing that the Soviets were not (very) responsible. In my humble opinion, the latter fits a lot closer with earlier pro-Soviet famine denial than it does with any scholarly debate. I haven't read Tottle, but my first impression is that he seems to fit into this latter category. Serbyn's response (and the new Ukrainian denial law), however, suggests there is no room for debate.

Unfortunately, like Holocaust denial, people take reasonable arguments and legitimate debate, and twist them (sometimes ever so slightly, so it's hardly noticeable to the average person) to distort the truth and support a conspiracy. eg. There are very few (if any) official Nazi documents specifically showing Hitler's approval for the final solution. Historians acknowledge this, but note that he was a total micro-manager and an insane antisemite, and there's a huge amount of other information which proves he was fully aware and ultimately responsible. Deniers take a few of the same original facts and twist them to suggest Hitler was somehow blissfully aware that millions of Jews were being murdered by his party. But the first statement is still legitimate, and it's important (albeit difficult) not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have cite for Conquest's change of viewpoint? I have a paper of his from 1997, which mentions documentary evidence (a memo from Molotov) that indicates the Polituro recklessly pursued grain requisitions with full knowledge that famine conditions were developing in the Ukraine. Martintg (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I just read it in the Holodomor article:

Davies and Wheatcroft also cite an unpublished letter by Robert Conquest: Our view of Stalin and the famine is close to that of Robert Conquest, who would earlier have been considered the champion of the argument that Stalin had intentionally caused the famine and had acted in a genocidal manner. In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that "Stalin purposely incited the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put ‘Soviet interest’ other than feeding the starving first—thus consciously abetting it".[8]

TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Horlo, if you don't like clarification I added to the lead, find another way to say it, but please don't remove it altogether. I'd be happy to discuss it with you here. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry if I came across as a bit rough, but there is one editor here who simply removes everything she/he disagrees with and labels it POV.

There was some wording - like 'feverent' that needed clarification. Also, the main idea of this is article is denying that there was a Holodomor. The genocide issue is not part of the focus, and adding that to the lead simply makes it more confusing to the average reader. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid I didn't notice that Holodomor genocide question existed when I made that addition. Sorry about that. Would anyone object if I moved the names of those modern scholars--who do not deny the existence of a horrible famine but do question whether it was a genocide--to that page? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No objections? Done. I've left Tottle here as I'm not sure he fits on the other page. That's my POV. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Russian Sources

  • Stalin’s speech were he admit the whole responsibility for "kolkhozes faults" on Communist Party

From here http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-kolekt-1933.php

№ 346 З ПРОМОВИ Й. В. СТАЛІНА НА ОБ'ЄДНАНОМУ ПЛЕНУМІ ЦК І ЦКК ВКП(б) "ПРО РОБОТУ НА СЕЛІ" 11 січня 1933 р.

І якщо нам не завжди вдається вести справу колгоспів так, як вимагає цього ленінізм, якщо ми допускаємо нерідко ряд грубих, непростимих помилок, скажемо, но лінії хлібозаготівель, то винні в цьому ми, і тільки ми.

Не в селянах треба шукати причину утруднень у хлібозаготівлях, а в нас самих, в наших власних рядах.

Jo0doe (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK about Between February and June 1933, thirty-five Politburo decisions and Sovnarkom decrees authorized the issue of a total of 35.19 million poods (576,400 tonnes) [41]or more than half of total aid to Soviet agriculture as a whole. 1.1 million ton were provided by Central Soviet authorities in the winter-spring 1933 - of grain for food, seeds and forage for Ukrainian SSR peasants, kolhozes and sovhozes. Such figures did not include grain and flour aid provided for the urban population, children and aid from local sources. - more here - http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-Pyrig-1933.php Horlo may assist you with strange UkrainianJo0doe (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Fam-kolekt-1933.php

№ 348 ЛИСТ ЛЕБЕДИНСЬКОГО РАЙВИКОНКОМУ ХАРКІВСЬКОЇ ОБЛ. ДО ГОЛОВИ РЯБУШІВСЬКОЇ СІЛЬРАДИ І ГОЛОВИ КОЛГОСПУ "ПЕРЕМОГА" ПРО ОРГАНІЗАЦІЮ ДОПОМОГИ ГОЛОДУЮЧИМ

24 січня 1933 р.

В окремих колгоспах є окремі двори, що голодують, а Ви не вживаєте будь-яких заходів нібито це Вас не стосується. Колгоспи повинні негайно запобігти цих явищ і бути занадто чутливими особливо до бригадирів, колгоспників з великою кількістю трудоднів, родин червоноар-мійців як колгоспників, так і одноосібників, червоних партизан, до дітей, з кого б вони не були, за стан яких ви несете відповідальність. Ця допомога повинна бути організована через взаємодопомогу колгоспників. Зберіть гроші, купіть овочі, корову на м'ясо, хліба у колгоспників та видайте грошей і натурфонд з колгоспу (з листа Постишева).

Значна кількість хліба є закопана, захована в землю, розвиньте ініціативу його виявлення засобом натур [альної] .нагороди хлібом виявивших осіб і повернення частини хліба на цю допомогу.

Окремі, випадки голодухи повинні бути ліквідовані па місцях негайно, але є декілька колгоспів у районі, де потрібна загальна допомога, на яку потрібно мобілізувати значні кошти, а тому за ухвалою райтрійки Ви повинні виділити і переказати на рахунок райспоживспілки в Лебединській філії Держбанку 300 крб., списавши на витрати за рахунок адміністративно-управлінських витрат.

Не пізніше 20 лютого 1933 р. надішліть до РВК список всіх виявлених, що знаходяться в тяжкому продовольчому стані, з зазначенням складу сім'ї. Характеристики про кількість працездатних, кількість вироблених трудоднів й причини такого тяжкого стану, коли і яка надана Вами допомога.


Note - Postyshev and date of "Genocide Decree" about travel for bread. Strange Genocide Jo0doe (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not directing all this stuff at me, because I don't understand Russian, or Ukrainian, whichever this is. Sorry. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly – it’s for group of editors which invent this article (While it’s only Ukrainian – So you can ask Horlo for assistance in translation if you will find this stuff interesting)Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Themightyquill, welcome to life with JoOdoe. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One more denialist

[9] If use similar criteria as for Himka, John-Paul for the words Я вважаю неповагою до мертвих, коли їхню смерть використовують як спосіб здобути моральний капітал жертви. Адже саме з цією метою перебільшуються цифри. Суть цих ідей полягає в тому, що Голодомор перевищує інші такі трагедії, зокрема Голокост. Я не розумію, чому інших не ображає таке змагання в мучеництві, навіть якби цифри були правдивими – а вони такими не є. що повага і чесність, які ми винні померлим, вимагає утриматися від використання їхньої смерті для здобування політичної популярності в Україні. Чи для збільшення рахунку на свою користь в міжетнічній конкуренції в Північній Америці. Should the group of editors will add this one “new denialist” ?Jo0doe (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubiousness of citations in the lead

Hello,

Could somebody please explain why the citations in the lead are "dubious"? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It was explained above. I will repeat for you. The citations supposedly support the following "definition" of the article's subject: "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor, the 1933 famine in Soviet Ukraine, which claimed millions of lives, did not occur". However, none of the citations used there actually define the "denial of Holodomor" in this or any other way. --Irpen 10:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree, the sources clearly define it:
  1. ^ 1933 famine is called "holodomor," ...The Soviet Union dismissed all references to the famine as anti-Soviet propaganda. Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power and the Soviet empire disintegrated @ Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity By Dinah Shelton; Page 1055 ISBN 0028658485
  2. ^ After over half a century of denial, in January 1990 the Communist Party of Ukraine adopted a special resolution admitting that the Ukrainian Famine had indeed occurred, @ Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts - Page 93 ISBN 0415944295

--Termer (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources just say that the Soviet Union denied that the famine took place. Note, that nothing in this support the Horlo's definition of the phenomenon that is supposed to be a subject of this article: "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor did not occur". This is either a tautology, that has no place in the article and adding these links does not change that, or this is an ORish choosing of one of many meanings of what people who use the term "denial" in connection with Holodomor may actually mean.

In fact, if you read the sources that speak about "denial" in connection with Holodomor and exclude the Wikipedia mirrors, most of them are about denying that Holodomor was Genocide and written by those who think that it was. Another possibility is that Denial of Holodomor means the denial of the propriety of using the term "Holodomor" to describe the famine since the term, due to its etymology, may imply that famine was a deliberate mass murder through hunger. So, the definition of "Denial of Holodomor" presented in the article is Horlo's only and the references he added to this do not support such definition. --Irpen 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Unlike you say, there is no mentioning of any genocide by the sources cited above and that's exactly what they say : "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor did not occur". As of holodomor, it is clearly defined by the sources as the 1933 famine. Either Holodomor, the 1933 famine in Ukraine was a genocide is not under discussion by the sources. Therefore the questions you have raised and any possible implications due to possible etymology of the word have no relevance to the situation here. Unless you're suggesting renaming the article word by word according to the sources: The denial of the 1933 famine in Ukraine called "holodomor" ? Or are you saying that the name Holodomor should be avoided all together because it might mean "murder by hunger" and the article should be renamed to Denial of the 1933 famine in Ukraine? --Termer (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken Termer. None of these sources say anything like "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the Holodomor did not occur" All they say is that someone denied the existence of the famine. This by itself does not define what the denial is. Worse, nothing in the sources suggest that this denial becomes a scholarly subject by its mere existence to justify the article. For example, the Communist Party of America denied its being ever involved with a Soviet espionage effort. However, this does not mean that we can just make the red link Denial of the KGB-Communist Party USA connection blue, define what this "denial" is and fill the page with random collection of information on such denials. This is precisely what this definition and the whole article does. --Irpen 02:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm sure you understand if I can't take "You are mistaken" for a serious argument that could possibly support your opinions. The idea of Denial of the KGB-Communist Party USA connection from you is entertaining but very inappropriate in the context I think! I don't have much to add, other than repeat myself: the sources define the title, the article and the content just fine. This doesn't mean that it can't be improved and I can ensure you, it's going to be done over time.--Termer (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm sure you understand if I can't take "I don't have much to add, other than repeat myself" for a serious argument that could possibly support your opinions. You did not answer my post but when you have anything to say on topic, please be my guest. --Irpen 06:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

be your guest? You must have misunderstood me. I have never intended to change your opinions. The purpose of this discussion here is to show the reader how irrelevant are the "dubious" tags as the tags on the article in general. Any reader can make up their own mind and see that the citations and refs provided above and in the article are in sync with the title and the content. It calls for dubious – discuss, and thats what I did. my purpose has been fulfilled here, I've discussed it like it called for out there, and found: the refs are not dubious like claimed. thanks! --Termer (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Irpen, next time that you feel I have incorrectly targeted your English abilities, please refer to your edits here.
"this is an ORish choosing of one of many meanings of what people who use the term "denial" in connection with Holodomor may actually mean". It seems that you do not understand what the regular English speaking reader would understand with the term "denial".
If you do not understand, please ask. However, sometimes, you have to accept. The sources cited describe exactly what "denial of the Holodomor" is, and who did it. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Horlo, please quit trolling about my English and in general. As for the sources, they just say that someone denied the Holodomor. If the sources are otherwise compliant they can be used to support this assertion. But nowhere these sources define what constitutes such denial. --Irpen 08:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Irpen, your first sentence just showed why you should not be editing English WP articles that have to do with grammatical nuances. One more time: if you have statistics, please present them; if you have articles which support your hypothesis, please present them; if you have arguments why this is not worthy of being a WP article, please present them. However, you have not done any of the above here, you have just decided that because you don't like it, sources are dubious. Please, add something constructive, and don't put the tags back unless you have a reason to do so. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, I will not be feeding you anymore. Until you have a source that would say something like

"The Denial of Holodomor is..."<ref>

this definition will be tagged as dubious. Instead of revert warring, arguing semantics and making offensive jokes about my English, I suggest you spend this time trying to find a source that would support your assertion that there exists this definition of "Denial of Holodomor..." outside of your wikipedia article. As for my English, I hope you know some non-native to you language better than I know English. You asserted elsewhere that you are a teacher of English grammar. That's terrific. But it gives you no right to insult me. My English is good enough for this Wikipedia according to anyone but yourself. Your next offensive insult will be reported. You were already warned at your talk about this. --Irpen 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, I am not making any offensive jokes about your English, and if you have understood it as such, I apologize. My comments about language stem from the fact that I assume good faith. Here's an example of why I think there may be a language issue: on this page, you claim that "Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power and the Soviet empire disintegrated", a quote from the encyclopedia of Genocide, does not define Denial of the Holodomor; yet on the soviet famine page you claim that the title "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 (The Industrialization of Soviet Russia)" means there was a USSR-wide famine! How is it that on one talk page, there is a very narrow interpretation of the words, yet on another there is a very wide one?
Other than language, the only other reason that somebody would have such wide discrepancies in interpretation would be a POV - and I don't want to assume that.
Now I'm sure you are aware that semantics play a key role in an Encyclopedia - in fact, by saying that none of the sources given define "Denial of the Holodomor", you are, in fact, arguing semantics. So please, no more threats.
Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Does this quote explain "denial"?

"Ukrainian farmers had settled and developed much of the Canadian west at the turn of the century. When these Canadians offered to help ease the suffering in Ukraine by sending food through the Red Cross, they were told that the famine was a hoax. In fact, in 1932 Soviet wheat from Ukraine was dumped on world markets. Wheat that had been confiscated from Ukrainian peasants by Red Army troops and secret police was sold to western countries at prices no Canadian farmer could match. No one could believe that the people growing the wheat were being starved to death. Further, the Soviet government instituted a policy of "disinformation", convincing journalists and Soviet sympathizers in the west as well as western governments that there was no famine, as Ukraine had produced a great harvest in 1932, sufficient to feed its population for several years. Until very recently, the Soviet government maintained its formal denial that the Great Famine had ever taken place, or that the state had any part in creating it. Fortunately today there exists an excellent documentary record that Ukraine, "the breadbasket of Europe," was indeed a target of ethnic cleansing, with starvation as a potent weapon of Soviet policy of dealing with its towards its largest minority, the Ukrainian people."

Bobanni (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post unattributed quotes from external sites. Where is this from? School brochure? Who is the author and what are their credentials? More importantly, even if this source is reliable, the passage does not define the denial, which is Horlo trying to do in the article's first sentence. The statement that someone denied something does not constitute the definition of the denial. Which Horlo is trying to insert. --Irpen 05:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Irpen - Any good dictionary will give you a definition of denial. Also look up the verb deny. I feel that your weak understanding of English language and the common term "denial" is driving your insistence that this self-evident term needs to be defined. Bobanni (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A "self-evidet dictionary term" does not need to be defined again in an encyclopedia article. If all there is to it is a dictionary definition, we can just as well remove this "definition" as a tautology rather than claim it is defined where it in fact is not. But speaking of the rest of the article, if it is devoted to discussion of a dictionary term rather than the scholarly topic, it cannot be anything but an ORish synthesis. Still would be interested to know what is the source of this pearl you posted. --Irpen 07:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, this is not a dictionary, but you keep insisting that you want a term defined. This article does not define the term, it provides information about it, and shows the reader how people throughout history have denied the existence of the Holodomor. Just as an aside, did you also place a tag on the Holocaust denial page because in the lead there is no source stating "holocaust denial is ..."? If not, perhaps you should, just to be intellectually honest. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As of now, the article does define the term, or attempts to do so but references this "definition" to sources where it is just not there. I see a problem with such definition. Now you refer me to the dictionary. So, is it dictionary that defines the concept? If so, this definition has no place here because encyclopedias customarily do not refer to dictionaries.
I am not prepared to get to yet another so controversial an article as Holocaust denial. My interests are very wide but they don't cover this, undoubtedly fascinating topic that is sure to rise even more passions from the users who edit it. I am sure they will do fine without me especially, because they are in a much better position editing that article than us editing this one. See, unlike for the "Holodomor denial" there are plenty of scholarly sources and works specifically devoted to a Holocaust denial. Editors who edit that article don't have to pick quotes from the sources devoted to the Holocaust to write the denial article, just like you and Bobanni do here, because there are no sources devoted to the Holodomor denial, a concept you invented here. (You still failed to produce a single source whose subject is this "denial")
So, let's solve this article's problems one at a time. If you can't produce a definition referred to a reliable source it only means that your definition is OR or, if it is referred to a dictionary, it is a tautology. In both cases it should be simply removed from the lead rather than being referenced to sources that assert the denial but do not define it. --Irpen 19:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Irpen, I will not keep answering this question for you again and again - and if you keep asking it again and again, you will be reported. The encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity clearly states: "Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power"Italic text. If that is something that you can't understand, I'm sorry, but I won't waste any more time explaining it to you. Please don't tag again. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This does not define what denial is. --Irpen 08:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the source does not define what denial is because the source is not an english language dictionary. The source uses the term "denial of the famine". Also, that is not what a dubious tag is supposed to indicate. A dubious tag indicates that the source is not valid or not reliable, or not verifiable. For example, if the source did not provide numbers that were claimed in an article, that could be considered dubious. However, none of that applies in this case, so the source is not dubious. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. The source uses the word, it does not define the concept, or process. This has been explained before. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the source uses the word. The concept does not need to be defined, much like holocaust denial does not need to be defined. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Holocuast denial does "need to be defined", and there are several definitions, some legal, some academic. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tags

Wikipedia recommends: "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy.'

No one has been able to explain in a compelling manner which "Point of View" is missing from this article. A few editors are using the "POV" arguement (incorrectly) to justify deletion of properly sourced material. This tag has been here a long time. It is time to present arguements. Repeated arguements that this has already been extensive discussed does not help. If you feel that there are arguements on this page - please take the time to paste them HERE so we can have a valid discussion. If you feel the article should be deleted nominate it for DELETION. Bobanni (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Arguments have already been presented at length. Please scroll upwards for unanswered points. It is not the case that they need to be copied and pasted every time someone asks in order to justify a tag. As a helpful guide, these are some of the aspects of NPOV that remain violated by this page: "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries"; "describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner"; "describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner". This article is sourced extensively to expatriate newsletters and the like, and so unsurprisingly sounds like one. To give an example of what is actually relevant, in terms of the real scholarly work that has discussed this supposed phenomenon and its discourse and is completely ignored:
  • Johan Dietsch, Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture (Lund, Sweden: 2006);
  • David R. Marples, Heroes and Villains: Creating National History in Contemporary Ukraine, Central European University Press, 2007;
  • Luciuk, Lubomyr Y. (2000). Searching for Place. University of Toronto Press.;
  • Chorbajian, Levon (1999). Studies in Comparative Genocide. St. Martin's Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help);
  • Satzewich, Vic (2002). The Ukrainian Diaspora. Routledge.;
  • Fitzpatrick, Sheila (2003). Stalin's Peasants. Oxford University Press.
I am thus replacing the tag.--Relata refero (disp.) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


  • The way I'm getting this, the concern is that the title Denial of the Holodomor may refer to "Denial of Holodomor as a genocide denial", even though the article clearly speaks about the denial of occurrence of the famine as such by the Soviet authorities and some western journalists. So it all depends on how do you interpret the word Holodomor, is it just a name for the famine or is it a name of a genocide, a deliberate mass murder of Ukrainians. If you think it's a name of the famine there's nothing wrong with the title and it's neutrality. In case you think "Holodomor" means a genocide, the title is not neutral according to some opinions since many of those books listed above define a genocide differently what the famine was all about and as we all know, there is "no scholarly or political consensus" either the Holodomor was an act of genocide or not. Even though it's the same with Denial of the Armenian Genocide, for some reason the title and the article doesn't get disputed on WP.
I think the tag is fine, the more the better actually, it draws attention to the article and the subject, it directs the reader also to the talk page and everybody can make up their own mind if this article has multiple issues or not.--Termer (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. To get the tags removed magically, the article should be renamed to something like the Denial of the 1933 famine in Ukraine. That would avoid interpretations that the "Holodomor denial" could mean a "genocide denial" like for ex internationally disputed Denial of the Armenian Genocide is all about.--Termer (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PPS. I hope to see Relata refero using single standards on WP and tag the Denial of the Armenian Genocide accordingly ASAP. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on Holodomor genocide question that deals with those issues. I would happily try working on the article you mention, but I can only have so many open questions at once. When I last saw it Philip B Shearer seemed to be doing a bang-up job corresponding to the one I'm having to do here. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So please Relata refero would you explain, what exactly are you after? Is it a fact that the occurrence of famine was denied by Soviet authorities or is that a complete WP:OR WP:SYNTH and in conflict with WP:Verifiability like the tags suggest? And once Holodomor genocide question deals with the genocide issues, what seems to be the problem here? I'm sorry but I'm not really getting the motivation for tagging the article in case the genocide question is not an issue here!--Termer (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

POV Tags - second try

The POV tags discussion got off-track with dealing with other issues. Can we confine discussion to this article and why some one found it necessary to add a POV tag. I cannot find any valid reason that it shoul be there. One editor does not like the term HOLODOMOR. Another two editors want a definition of HOLODOMOR DENIAL - and refuse to accept a dictionary definition. There are some challenges to some sources because some editors feel they are not scholarly enough.

Removing POV Tag again. Lets keep the discussion on topic. If you feel that other off topic comments are neccessay put them in another section. Bobanni (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I find your statement disingenous. Please respond to any of the 300k of objections already posted. Let me repeat the last-mentioned points, as you seem to be unable to pick them out of what was clearly a very long and confusing conversation:
Arguments have already been presented at length. Please scroll upwards for unanswered points. It is not the case that they need to be copied and pasted every time someone asks in order to justify a tag. As a helpful guide, these are some of the aspects of NPOV that remain violated by this page: "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries"; "describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner"; "describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner". This article is sourced extensively to expatriate newsletters and the like, and so unsurprisingly sounds like one. To give an example of what is actually relevant, in terms of the real scholarly work that has discussed this supposed phenomenon and its discourse and is completely ignored:
  • Johan Dietsch, Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture (Lund, Sweden: 2006);
  • David R. Marples, Heroes and Villains: Creating National History in Contemporary Ukraine, Central European University Press, 2007;
  • Luciuk, Lubomyr Y. (2000). Searching for Place. University of Toronto Press.;
  • Chorbajian, Levon (1999). Studies in Comparative Genocide. St. Martin's Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help);
  • Satzewich, Vic (2002). The Ukrainian Diaspora. Routledge.;
  • Fitzpatrick, Sheila (2003). Stalin's Peasants. Oxford University Press.
I am thus replacing the tag.--Relata refero (disp.) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying Relata refero that according to those authors the Soviet authorities never denied the occurrence of the famine? Also please note that in terms of the real scholarly work is simply your opinion/POV. Since I personally can not fathom what exactly is your POV, despite the 300k above, please be clear about it so that it, the POV you represent could be added to the article according to WP:NPOV. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I am saying that those authors discuss the use and abuse of the famine in political propaganda, which is what makes this article notable. The reason you can't figure out what my POV is that I don't have one on this subject. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you clearly have a POV that you just spelled out in your post: the use and abuse of the famine in political propaganda. So basically the article needs to have a section that would look into this propaganda part of the subject? Then it would be in compliance with WP:NPOV in your opinion, meaning according to the POV or the viewpoint you represent?--Termer (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no.The entire article exists only because "the use and abuse of the famine in political propaganda" is notable. That is the extent of my POV, so as you can see it isn't really a POV on the subject at all, as we understand the term on wikipedia. So a "section" is unsatisfactory - the whole article purports to be about who repeated Soviet propaganda and why, except since it's sourced to community newsletters, random websites and unpublished manuscripts, it fails NPOV on several counts, as well as OR and SYNTH specifically. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Umm, so you're saying all the official denials at the time of the famine, which prevented aid to the Soviet Union as in prior famine, is also OR and SYNTH? If it's not, then whoever repeats it is not OR or SYNTH, what people repeat is what they repeat, there's no "OR" or "SYNTH" involved. Or are you saying that we can't quote directly what people have said and written unless it has been quoted in a scholarly article? If that's the case, at least three quarters of Wikipedia would disappear and nearly all of it regarding Eastern Europe. Let's be sensible here. Instead of soliciting aid the USSR forced people to remain in the famine zone while suppressing news of the famine. There's no getting around that fact. That it's propaganda that there was no famine is immaterial. —PētersV (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. What is notable is the denial, not the famine used for the purposes of propaganda. The latter, while it can and should be a component of the article, is NOT the primary subject of the article. —PētersV (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what you call the "denial", and most sources call business-as-usual for Stalinist Russia, is only notable because of the propaganda use. That is, after all, the only place that it appears in reliable sources.
About your claim about interpreting official disavowal of famine conditions at the time, please read WP:PSTS. I have no comment on your "three-quarters of Wikipedia". It is irrelevant to the application of policy. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


Relata refero - What source are you refering to as expatriate newsletters and community newsletters? Bobanni (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I point them out above, please read the talkpage before asking the question. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


RE:Relata refero First of all, sorry to see that you haven't taken your time to look into the sources but perhaps that explains your opinions. Since numerous books that have dealt with the subject listed in the ref section can't by any means be called community newsletters, random websites and unpublished manuscripts your argument fails NPOV on several counts because of it has no ground. And it is a very politically motivated POV that The entire article exists only because "the use and abuse of the famine in political propaganda". The article exists because denial of the occurrence of the famine is a fact. Political factors such as Russian nationalism that has chosen to take pride in the Soviet past and Ukrainian nationalism that has chosen to take pride in braking away from it's Soviet past have a lot to do with this political propaganda from both sides of course. But these facts of "the use and abuse" by both sides should be a part of the article.--Termer (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
PS.And I still haven't seen any suggestions from you that would help to improve the article. Please note that simply tagging the article without any suggestions how to improve it, sorry to say, doesn't make any sense to me.--Termer (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the archives, you will see multiple discussions on how I intend to improve the article, once the POV and SYNTH has been removed. Of the rest of your comment, since it rests on faulty assumptions ("haven't taken your time to look into the sources"), I don't think I need to reply, nor is it relevant to the specific points I raised above. Please stay on-topic. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with the policy: WP:NPOV doesn't require removal of POV's, it's very clear about it! It says that The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view" and it requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. Also, you'd still need to reply to "faulty assumptions" in order to justify the tagging since you were very clear about your reasoning: it's sourced to community newsletters, random websites and unpublished manuscripts. Since this is not the case here, the article is sourced to reliable, third-party published sources as well, the reasoning of yours is not valid. Therefore unless it's explained with something thats in sync with the actual situation, the tag needs to go.
Now, WP works on building WP:Consensus, therefore there is no need to go and see the archive, your previous attempts have obviously failed. Since you have initiated the dispute in here, you'd need to come up with a compromise and clear suggestions how to reach a consensus here. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. The bits sourced to RSes are overstated and out of context and thus POV/SYNTH violations, the crucial parts are original research, or sourced to community newsletters (the Ukranian Echo), random websites (ArtUkraine) or unpublished manuscripts (the Last Stand nonsense). I have stated what aspects of our NPOV policy are violated already. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

you have no idea what WP:Consensus is? Please familiarize and make suggestions how can it be reached. And I can't see anything wrong with an Ukrainian source been used in related article. After all Holodomor happened in Ukraine therefore it is self explanatory that Ukrainian viewpoint should be cited in the article. Feel free to add any that you are familiar with. And I just list some of the books that have been used as refs here since you keep claiming that the artice is sourced to community newsletters. Please point out which ones exactly are newsletters listed down here.

--Termer (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Uncooperative Editor ==--Termer (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor felt it was necessary to alert other editors via a POV TAG that he felt that there was POV problem. In supporting his position he refers to a number of sources as expatriate newsletters and community newsletters.

Repeated requests to clarify which sources fall under that definition are met with the comment: “I point them out above, please read the talk page before asking the question”. They cannot be found. In light of this uncooperative attitude the POV issue cannot be resolved.

Please identify which sources are expatriate newsletters and community newsletters.

Bobanni (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place. See "A bit of reorg (Soviet Union section)" in the archives. I repeat myself in the section immediately above. Please attempt to familiarise yourself with the state of discussion by reading the talkpage and its archive. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


  • Is it so hard to be specific. Relata refero - you are constantly side stepping the issue. Just find the stuff and post it. It is as simple as that, otherwise editors will come to the conclusion that the postings you refer to "as above" do not exist and that your statements are just a tactic to disrupt the editors of this article. I notice that you really have not made any contributions to the article except removing materials, and that you did without discussion. Bandurist (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Please respond to the points made in the section I have linked to, and in the section immediately above. I have consistently pointed out that subtraction of unencyclopaedic material is the best contribution that can be made here. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we continue to have the same discussion, the entire article tagged even though the entire article can't all be POV + OR + SYNTH. Promises to improve the page once all objectionable content is gone don't improve it now. I took a look through all the sections again looking for any specific areas for improvement:

  1. Introduction - Not applicable, if it's a summary and the article body is OK, then this will (eventually) be OK too
  2. Soviet Union
    1. Cover-up of the famine - There's no doubt about the official cover-up.
    2. Falsification and suppression of evidence - The facts are clear and unambiguous. If there's an objection to Conquest amongst the perennial Conquest-bashers (even though Davies and Wheatcroft value his work), we can lose the last paragraph without losing much in terms of content.
    3. Campaigns of disinformation - We're still on the conduct of Soviet officials, there should be no issue here.
    4. From glasnost to post-Soviet standoff - Not the strongest section, but I don't see any problems in representing the stand-off regarding the famine: on the one side, silence over genocide, on the other, it wasn't just the Ukrainians.
  3. Contemporary denial outside of the USSR
    1. Walter Duranty and The New York Times - I myself have agreed that the Duranty bio article itself exists mostly for bashing. The narrative for this section should be fairly straightforward: what did Duranty know and when (based on private statements/correspondence), and what did he report via the Times. The parts about who called him a liar, "while other reporters reported the famine as best they could..." are a bit of too much information, that level of detail should just go in the Duranty article (which should appear as a see also).
    2. Louis Fischer and The Nation - The "second worst" part can go. The narrative does have to be cleaned up. It's part denial, part acknowledgement, part "they brought it upon themselves."
    3. Communist Party of the USA - Don't see any issues here. Clearly an attempt to intimidate and suppress.
    4. Holodomor denial by Foreign Dignitaries Visiting the USSR - This needs some cleanup. If Shaw and Wells didn't know otherwise at the time, they can't be blamed for "denial," at least not as currently written. What they wrote later is not proof of what they knew at the time. Same for dignitaries for whom a Soviet show was put on. At least large parts of this more appropriately belong in the prior Soviet section under something like "Manipulation of foreign perceptions".
  4. Modern denial
    1. Modern Soviet Denial - First, and an aside on why we care about Canada (the question has been asked), the Soviets conducted a particularly virulent anti-Ukrainian campaign in Canada, including publications such as "SS Werewolves", painting Ukrainian nationalists as rabid Nazi fascists (written by "V. Styrkul", the very same "V. Styrkula" "author" mentioned in this section as "not to be quoted"--as it was undoubtedly a KGB nom de plume). I don't see any issues with this section.
    2. Douglas Tottle - Really a continuation of the above, he was using materials prepared by the KGB. Should be a subsection of "Modern Soviet Denial". Everyone who follows who was inspired by Tottle (Coplon, Merl, Puntis) is a subsection of this one.
    3. Mario Sousa - Stands on his own. His words speak for themselves. We're already gone through the arguments of do we care, he is mentioned in at least one scholarly work.
    4. Symposia about Holodomor denial - Admittedly there is some crossover to denial of the Holodomor as genocide, nevertheless, the parts about denial of existence of the famine itself are clear.

Insisting people read through the archives for your (Relata refero's) objections isn't helpful, I've participated in some of those and it's not a whole lot clearer other than the whole thing stinks. Perhaps your specific objections are less impenetrable to others and they can clarify for myself and others.

P.S. On Tauger far above, he's at the other extreme (and doesn't take criticism well if you read his blog entries). If we're going to discuss scholars with an axe to grind, he's on that list too. —PētersV (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of those are constructive and positive changes, do go ahead and make them. We can discuss problematic OR based on Tottle and Sousa once those changes are made. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero needs to be less evasive and work more cooperatively and explain what the issues are, preferably with inline and section tags. Asking us to wade through archived talk to divine his current objections is not helpful, particularly when many of the earlier issues have been fixed. Martintg (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
There have been minimal changes since I and others first raised objections, so asking me to repeat them over and over again is tiresome. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello, answering the same questions over and over again is also tiresome. Many people have cooperated to create this article. Your asking a question about it does not make it POV or OR. Please state specifically what you think needs to be improved in this article, or - better still - improve it. The editors have been more than patient here. Please, lose the "tiresome" attitude, that helps noone.
Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Please feel free to point out where my questions have been answered. I have stated specific objections directly above and in the preceding two sections, framed in the terms of our guiding policies. --17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In dealing with the POV issue - repeated request for clarification have not been forthcoming. A number of RS, OR, SYN issues have been presented as justification for the POV issue. Reapplying TAGs without clarification will only degenerate to an"edit-war". Please point out which point-of-view is not presented. Bobanni (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to post in reply to the same claim, for the third time, the following detailed remarks.
Arguments have already been presented at length. Please scroll upwards for unanswered points. It is not the case that they need to be copied and pasted every time someone asks in order to justify a tag. As a helpful guide, these are some of the aspects of NPOV that remain violated by this page: "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries"; "describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner"; "describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner". This article is sourced extensively to expatriate newsletters and the like, and so unsurprisingly sounds like one. To give an example of what is actually relevant, in terms of the real scholarly work that has discussed this supposed phenomenon and its discourse and is completely ignored:
  • Johan Dietsch, Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture (Lund, Sweden: 2006);
  • David R. Marples, Heroes and Villains: Creating National History in Contemporary Ukraine, Central European University Press, 2007;
  • Luciuk, Lubomyr Y. (2000). Searching for Place. University of Toronto Press. ;
  • Chorbajian, Levon; George Shirinian (1999). Studies in Comparative Genocide. St. Martin's Press. ;
  • Satzewich, Vic (2002). The Ukrainian Diaspora. Routledge. ;
  • Fitzpatrick, Sheila (2003). Stalin's Peasants. Oxford University Press.
Naturally, since these points have not been addressed as yet, I am forced to replace the tag, which signals to editors and readers that their input on the talkpage is requested. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero: All is clear and fair. The only thing I'm not getting, why do you expect someone else than yourself to address these issues? I've read for example Heroes and Villains: Creating National History in Contemporary Ukraine and I don't see it being in conflict with the current article. In case you do, why don't you fix it but expect someone else to take care of it and you just hang the tag but don't put in any actual work that would need to be done in your opinion.
Please be more specific and suggest clearly what kind of facts and sourced-cited opinions have to go into the article to make it better comply with all the issues listed on tags in your opinion. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it would need large-scale rewriting and change in tone which I fancy would be reverted as I did it. Thus, consensus first that large changes are required, rather than effort followed by edit-warring. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly why I asked you, please start suggesting clearly necessary changes on the talk page so that a consensus could be reached. Abstract "large-scale rewriting" is not very clear what do you have in mind. Therefore lets go through it sentence by sentence if necessary so that everybody can see and say what exactly are you talking about and how your suggestions could be implemented. --Termer (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Start by removing all sentences sourced to artukraine, Ukrainian-Canadian newsletters or directly to the Tottles of the world and move on from there. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen, it's not necessary according to WP:NPOV: sourced opinions and facts related to the subject are relevant. Your job here is to add viewpoints not to remove them. Please come up with valid suggestions how the article could be improved, since so far there has been nothing practical prom your side that could possible justify the tagging. Thanks--Termer (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of NPOV. To correct your error, please read the policy, especially the sections I extract above, again. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Misunderstanding of NPOV? please read the policy again? Sorry but questioning your opponents intelligence is not a valid argument on WP. --Termer (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider you an opponent, but a fellow-editor, and I don't believe that your intelligence has been questioned in this conversation. To repeat: the first step to addressing multiple interlinked article issues, including tone, is to cleanse it of dependence on unencylopaedic sources. Since that is not being done, I am restoring the tag, to alert other editors to this conversation. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the tone of this article in my opinion. In fact I think the tone of the article is most neutral considering the atrocities the Soviet regime committed against it's own civilians, in this case in Ukraine. In case there are problems with the tone in your opinion, please, I already asked that it should be gone over sentence by sentence if necessary. So please, pick a sentence and lets look at it. So far there as been no solid examples and suggestions how the article could be improved, just abstract opposition to the article in general. Therefore I'm clad that you consider me your fellow editor. Please also show it with your actions that you seriously attempting to improve this article by working together with your fellow editors. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read the archives for specific examples. The reason I personally am not discussing a specific instance is because by discussing the inappropriate tone we will legitimise the inappropriate sourcing. (If we attempt to fix the tone of a problematic sentence which is sourced inappropriately, it is wasted effort given that we will wind up removing it anyway.) First we fix the sourcing and OR, then the tone; however, the both of them are problematic, and we need a tag to alert readers to the discussion.
On your point about tone, I am afraid that you need to read WP:WFTE again, and possibly Holocaust for a reasonable example on how to write. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Too tired to dig for the diff, but I recall seeing a comment from Relata refero that this is worst article on Wikipedia. Please correct me if I've misremembered. —PētersV (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I do indeed use this as an example on the noticeboards if required, and in the other politically fraught areas I edit to tell them it could be worse. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not among valid arguments on WP--Termer (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Errm, I'm not using it. But thanks for the reminder, anyway. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

From NPOV policy:

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed.

removing tag Bobanni (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Except in this article it is not the case that "all additions are likely to express bias". As explained above, already. Thus, I am replacing the tag, as you removed it in error. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd. First five sources (all academic books or articles) tell about the denial of the famine.Biophys (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No they don't. I am happy to repeat this ad infinitum. Not that it is relevant to this section. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The very concept remains undefined

The very first sentence of the article pointendly demonstrates the problem. It goes like this:

Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the 1933 famine claiming millions of lives in Soviet Ukraine, known today as the Holodomor, did not occur.[Ref1][Ref2][Ref3][Ref4].

So, this makes an assertion that the subject of this article "Denial of Holodomor" is an assertion that the famine did not occur. While looking on the four references (their reliability aside), I see nothing there saying what the denial of Holodomor is. Yes, they say that some denied the famine existence. But this does not define the denial of Holodomor because "Denial" in historiography is not the term that is used lightly. Take Holocaust denial. There are many academic books devoted to this academic subject (not to the Holocaust itself but to the denial of Holocaust as a specific phenomenon.) Here we have none. There is just a statement that some denied that the famine took place. Well, some deny that strawberries taste well. Does not make "Strawberry hating" a valid subject.

The article remains an OR-ish hodge-podge of disparate information arbitrarily pasted together to create a pseudoencyclopedic subject that in fact is not studied in any academic works. --Irpen 04:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically what you're saying is that in your opinion denial of Holodomor should be a primary subject of an academic study, only that would make the subject worthy and encyclopedic for WP purposes? If that is really what you believe, why haven't you tagged for latest examples on WP would be perhaps 2008 South Ossetia war, International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war etc?
No WP policy says that a subject of an article should be based on a primary theme of an academic study. Unlike 2008 South Ossetia war, the current article is based on numerous published books and studies where the subject has been discussed. Therefore your opinion has no basis whatsoever. Please help out with improving the article instead of simply tagging it without any solid reasons. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I could easily improve this article beyond recognition if given a free hand to enforce our core policies. Till that time, it will stay tagged to encourage reader participation. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Termer, while we would all be lucky if every important topic in the world has received enough scholarly attention so that we would have a thorough academic study, you are right that we do not have such luxury. However, at least each topic we cover in Wikipedia should be a subject of a reputable study. Hundreds of the top-level world newspapers and analysts discussed the Ossetian war in the media. The reaction to it has always become a subject of extensive reviews. However, and this brings us back to point one, not a single source used in this article is devoted to Holodomor denial. Academic or not. None. There are sources that state that person A from B at year C said that there was no famine. This is a passing comment in a work about D. Not a single source is about denial (I hope you agree there are publications around about Ossetian war.) Not a single work looks at disparate issues clamped together in this article and considers them a part of a specific denialism movement. What we see is an attempt of Horlo and Bobanni to create such subject on Wikipedia. Even the definition, the very first sentence, is either false (not supported by sources it is cited to) or tautologous (if, as Horlo claims, it merely follows from a dictionary.) --Irpen 22:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a single source is about denial? Thanks Irpen for keep pushing your fellow editors to do a better job. Even thogh there are enough books listed that discuss about the subject, the denial, it's always good to add more sources to any subject. this time its going to be from Evolution in Reference and Information Services By Di Su, Jessica Tan Gudnason, Di Ed ISBN 9780789017239 that has entire chapter on Denial of the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide. To keep the tone more neutral for WP purposes, as I've understood you'd like to keep the word Genocide out of it, since there is no consensus among politicians and scholars, right? --Termer (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no access to this book but I would love to know what is there. Could you give us any more detail on the book, its authors, their credentials, page numbers of the chapter? How does the book define the phenomenon? Does its definition match the one in the article that defines it as "the assertion that the Holodomor, the 1933 famine in Soviet Ukraine, which claimed millions of lives, did not occur." If so, we should reference this definition to this book instead of the references this definition is sited to since these reference do not have anything anywhere close to define this denial? If the book defines it differently, we should change the definition in the article. I am glad that we now have a dedicated source. Please help us bring the article in line with the source. So far, it is a bunch of irrelevant material from unrelated sources pasted together for arbitrary reasons. --Irpen 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything you've asked for has been attached to the article: I've updated the article with direct links to the books and relevant chapters where everybody can read it.--Termer (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Whatever definitions anybody can read out of these books, I'm sure everybody agrees that the current one listed in the article is much more neutral in tone and therefore better suited for WP.--Termer (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, those questions are not answered. Also, I fail to see how "Evolution in Information Services" is in any way a relevant reference here. Accordingly, I am reverting your ill-advised additions. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Relata refero, would you stop edit warring and removing directly related references from the article? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS for why some references, while apparently "directly related", are unacceptable. Thank you. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to list the books at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--Termer (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Evasive rhetoric

Still need explanation for POV tag -

What points of view are missing from this article. Evasive answers like scroll up to discussion prove fruitless. Comments like this is the worst article in wikipedia does not advance the POV discussion. OR and SYN arguements do not reflect on POV discussion. Your method of operation appears to be:

  • Place a tag on an article
  • Provide little or no justification for tag
  • When other editors try to address your concerns - you are evasive
  • Then your contribution is in effect 'not good enough - the tags stays'.

This makes collaborative editing very hard. Bobanni (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

∗ Іt would be nice to have some feedback that one can understand. I would be happy to improve the article. Just be specific. Bandurist (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


I am happy to repeat myself as long as is necessary. Arguments have already been presented at length. Please scroll upwards, to the section that quite clearly states "Neutrality Tag" for unanswered points. [Also see "Tags one by one", "Tags, tags, are good for your heart" and "Motion to remove "Neutrality" tag" in the archive.] It is not the case that they need to be copied and pasted every time someone asks in order to justify a tag. As a helpful guide, these are some of the aspects of NPOV that remain violated by this page: "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries"; "describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner"; "describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner". This article is sourced extensively to expatriate newsletters and the like, and so unsurprisingly sounds like one. To give an example of what is actually relevant, in terms of the real scholarly work that has discussed this supposed phenomenon and its discourse and is completely ignored: 

   * Johan Dietsch, Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture (Lund, Sweden: 2006);
   * David R. Marples, Heroes and Villains: Creating National History in Contemporary Ukraine, Central European University Press, 2007;
   * Luciuk, Lubomyr Y. (2000). Searching for Place. University of Toronto Press. ;
   * Chorbajian, Levon; George Shirinian (1999). Studies in Comparative Genocide. St. Martin's Press. ;
   * Satzewich, Vic (2002). The Ukrainian Diaspora. Routledge. ;
   * Fitzpatrick, Sheila (2003). Stalin's Peasants. Oxford University Press.

Have fun. I look forward to one of you actually addressing the concerns of the several editors who have had problems with the article, as detailed in the linked sections. I would prefer, as I say, to start with the straightforward application of RS. When that is done, large parrts of the POV problem go away. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

these books do not talk about the denial at all or barely mention the denial of the famine but are about the Holodomor, the famine itself. Please note that this article is about the denial of the famine, not a general article about the Holodomor. Therefore how are these books relevant to the article and the discussion? Please feel free to improve the article in any way you can according to any reliable secondary sources that talk about the subject. --Termer (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC).
No, they are reputable books from reliable presses that give exactly as much credence to this made-up synthesis as it will receive in reliable sources.--Relata refero (disp.) 19:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, the books listed would be good sources for Holodomor genocide question. The bottom line, you can't by any logic justify tagging by referring to sources that do not cover the subject. Sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. --Termer (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, please read WP:NPOV to see how it makes sense; I have explained in my very last post how specific parts of NPOV are being violated. They cover the "subject" as much as it has been covered in reliable sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I know WP:NPOV by hart and nothing there justifies tagging based on sources that do not cover the subject. the books listed in the article that do cover it are as much reliable sources as the ones you have listed here, just that they cover the subject unlike the books listed by you.. I have do questions to you. Did the famine occur and was it's occurrence ever denied by anybody? Only after you have answered these fundamental question can we move on with this. Because so far, sorry to say it once more, your arguments don't make much sense and you're not making yourself clear what's wrong with the article.--Termer (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your questions are irrelevant to a discussion of how to apply policy to this article. To repeat, we use reliable sources. If this phenomenon has been discussed only tangentually in reliable sources, then that is how we discuss it here. Currently the central parts of this article do not use reliable sources.
Yes, I agree. The argument by Relata is basically the following: this article is not "neutral" because it does not cite all existing books on the subject. This argument is entirely wrong. We have few to none articles citing all existing sources, and an article can be neutral even without citing all existing sources. If Relata wants to use any specific sources to make article more neutral, he can do that.Biophys (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No. That is not my argument. My argument is summarised above. Please do not misrepresent it. Bringing more sources will not "fix neutrality". Please do not make that mistake again. --Relata refero (disp.)

The worst article in Wikipedia

The following comment was made on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard [9]

What the editor is perhaps trying to say is that this is part of the "Holodomor" walled garden, which is a politically and historically fraught topic, apparently, and in which most of WP's articles are sourced to extremely doubtful sources and consist largely of massive SYN violations. I was unfamiliar with the question, though not with the collectivization-related Soviet famine of 1932-33, before I discovered the worst article in Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in the details of what underlies this fringe-pushing, they can email me. I don't want to start a firefight on this noticeboard. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Relata refero could share his ideas here.

Bobanni (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You can read them here. I'm particularly impressed by the references given

References

Coplon, Jeff. January 12, 1988. In Search of a Soviet Holocaust. The Village Voice. Douglas Furr's website.

Coplon, Jeff. March 1988. Rewriting History - How Ukrainian Nationalists Imposed Their Doctored History on High School Students CAPITAL Region. Douglas Furr's website.

Davies, R. W. and Wheatcroft, Steven G. 2004. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Souza, Mario. Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union. North Star Compass website.

Tauger, Mark B. 1991. The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933. Slavic Review 50:1, pp. 70-89.

Tottle, Douglas. 1987. Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard. Toronto: Progress Books.

Bandurist (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be good to know if Relata refero concerns about this article are somehow related to opinions of Robert Lindsay the blog that was posted above here? please Relata refero be clear about it what exactly are you after? Also, please do answer the 2 questions, did the famine occur and was it's occurrence ever denied?--Termer (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is the purpose of this to claim that I'm the blogger you linked? That would be entertaining. Anyway, the blog's impermissible per WP:BLP. Removed. If you want to know my personal views on this issue, I am afraid I think them irrelevant in this and in any article I edit. (Nevertheless, I believe they are in the archives. Please expend some effort on reading archives before attempting to edit pages such as this.) --Relata refero (disp.) 04:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That the Great Famine in the Ukraine was officially denied is, how shall I say it, undeniable. It just wasn't colloquially known as the Holodomor at the time. Trust me, there are far "worst" articles on WP. PētersV (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have edited in many and varied sections of this encyclopaedia. This is the worst, but that's neither here nor there. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

???

I have Relata refero read your comments and I keep telling you , they don't make sense to me. Perhaps it's just me but it seems I'm not the only one who's not getting it what exactly are you after. And please answer the direct questions to have some sort of dialogue going --Termer (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
PS. Please explain why do you choose edit warring over consensus building? And why do you remove sourced facts from the article?--Termer (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sourced facts that are irrelevant per WP:PSTS, or sourced to inappropriate non-WP:RSes or violate WP:NPOV should be removed. That's why. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Your not the only one. I find it difficult to understand him too.Bandurist (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have answered the questions extensively. Please actually respond to the points I have made instead of disruptively de-tagging. --Relata refero (disp.)
You have answered then in such a manner, so that only you can understand. An encyclopedia needs to be understandable. You are not. Bandurist (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are having difficulty with this language, may I suggest one of the other language wikipedias? I personally think the obsessive attention to the English WP is overdone, and am proud of my contributions to the Hebrew, French and Latin wikipedias. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
All we ask is that you make a specific list of points that need to be improved. It would be preferable in English, but Ukrainian, Russian, German, Polish, Yiddish or Hebrew are acceptable. Bandurist (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
See above. Anything sourced to non-RSes, especially those that are clearly primary sources. To quote from something a short distance up the page, which must have escaped your attention otherwise you would not have been discourteous and asked me to repeat it, "Start by removing all sentences sourced to artukraine, Ukrainian-Canadian newsletters or directly to the Tottles of the world and move on from there." --Relata refero (disp.) 10:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And as long as I'm at it...

Regarding: "...WP rules do not tell anything about "Cold war".Biophys (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  Very good. Now read WP:NPOV. I can't rewrite the policies to explain individual applications of them to you, I'm afraid. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)"
Well, here's the thing. Which came first? If someone came to an issue with a POV and then found facts to support that POV ignoring other facts, then it's a POV source regardless. Some here contend Conquest is POV. I contend Tauger (to whom Conquest is his personal anti-Christ) is POV.
   If a scholar examines evidence and then comes to the scholarly conclusion that happens to be anti-Soviet, that is not a "Cold War" source that should be deleted for not being objective. Where do we stop deleting reputable sources that are anti-Soviet? Advocating an editorial position that, when all is said and done, maintains any editor can delete any anti-Soviet source as intellectually polluted is not protecting the sacred "NPOV." It is, in fact, an editorial position replete with "POV." —PētersV (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The point is that Conquest was at the center of one of the most contentious storms in academic history throughout his career. That doesn't apply to Tauger at all. Your claim thus falls quite flat. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, not all the world is platitudes when it comes to Tauger. If you wish to consider Conquest at one end of the spectrum then Tauger certainly is at the other extreme and further beyond. And, as I have documented, authoritative statements which editors make regularly on WP about Conquest being "discredited" by, for example, Davies and Wheatcroft, are, in fact, completely false. Your response thus is more of the WP:SAME and not fully informed. (And of course it's going to be a "storm" if you're discrediting the Soviet Union at a period during which it was at the height if its power.) —PētersV (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, nonsense. Documented where? Conquest remains on of the most controversial of historians, even now that the Soviet Union has thankfully been consigned to the dustbin of history, and even after some of his wildest suppositions turned out to have been right. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
In discussing the contentions D&W obsolete Conquest, Conquest is no longer admissible as a source, etc., D&W themselves recognize the value of Conquest's work. Apologies I don't have the time to dig for diffs. If I kept a log of conflicts, I might be accused of bad faith. -PētersV (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
And Tauger is placid scholarship incarnate only among his advocates on WP. -PētersV (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"If a scholar examines evidence and then comes to the scholarly conclusion that happens to be anti-Soviet"

But if an author takes an article published in the Hearst press in 1935 which claimed to offer a story by someone who had allegedly just traveled through the USSR and seen a famine and one cites the article as a source but changes the date by two years from 1935 to 1933 because you know that no famine was happening in the time claimed by what was obviously a false article, all of which Robert Conquest did do, then that is Cold War propaganda, no more, no less. If one makes fun of the Webbs for having written a book where they used official Soviet production figures from the 1930s, if one implies that the Webbs should have had more sense than to take official Soviet production figures for granted, but then one turns around and uses official Soviet production figures of grain in 1932 to imply that a famine was manmade, then that is Cold War propaganda. Even before the archives opened up and it became clear that the older estimates of Soviet grain production in 1932 were significantly above what the actual harvest was, it was already easy to see a double-standard of methodology in the way that Conquest freely used the inflated public Soviet figures where it suited him but then mocked the Webbs for doing the same where that suited him. Actually, his criticism of the Webbs would have been valid enough in itself. The Webbs did too easily take for granted official Soviet data. But Conquest ignored this point where it was advantageous. So, yes, that fits the definition of Cold War propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.137.134 (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the slanted lying propaganda by association charge.
   As for use of Soviet archival data there is no double standard in what you term "ridicule" and turning around to use. Follow:
  1. ACTUAL HARVEST # (less than)
  2. SOVIET ARCHIVES # OVERSTATED <- Webbs believed (less than)
  3. THE AMOUNT TO PREVENT FAMINE, I.E., EVEN BY SOVIET ARCHIVES # THE FAMINE WOULD HAVE BEEN MAN-MADE <- Conquest
It's simple math. As for why overstated, Soviet "archival" production numbers are notoriously bad because they were recorded in monetary equivalent... production "grew" as the ruble inflated. Not to mention it was never propitious to be the bearer of bad news working for a regime that routinely shot the messenger.
   Finally none of us are personally the self-appointed police over who or who is not a scholarly source. That is the job of academics conducting peer reviews. So, your contention is WP:OR at best.-PētersV (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A poll?

Frankly speaking, Relata refero makes a revert war against consensus. We have discussed everything already several times. Enough is enough. I suggest these tags to be removed.

I think we did, but Relata still disagrees.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Polls are clearly pointless, and not how we work, for excellent reasons. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Polls are especially pointless when you wind up in the minority. But it does give us an indication of what people think Bandurist (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
While I saw some room for improvement, tagging the contention that the Great Famine in the Ukraine did not happen as dubious is not constructive. We have Soviet denial in bucketfuls, that is more than sufficient. And plenty of scholarly sources discuss denial of the famine, they just don't use "Holodomor" if they predate that modern term. Relata refero, please suggest/mkae a specific editorial change (words) other than tagging or reverting, not, you'll work on the article when it's been changed enough to suit your editorial sensibilities and you've told us what's wrong in detail. —PētersV (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The reason I see this article as terrible is because it's very difficult to make incremental improvements until a lot of material that shouldn't be here is removed. In particular, the manner in which the intro is set up makes it sound like there is a political structure to the cover-up, when, as every single source makes clear, cover-ups of bad stuff were business-as-usual for the people that ran the USSR. Hence the "dubious" tag, which is perfectly acceptable in the absence of any actual material addressing the intro as written. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
And, BTW, I've already explained the significance of the Ukrainian-Canadian community and the Soviet government targeting it with disinfomation and slander IN PARTICULAR over every other Ukrainian diasporic community on the planet. Those Canadian Ukrainian sources are pertinent and significant and speak to the core of that "relationship.". Not, who cares about Canadian Ukrainians, they are not a mainstream source, you might as well ask a caribou to comment on Cold War foreign relations. Such uninformed contentions (you'll pardon my modest hyperbole) merely illustrate that you have not studied the Ukrainian-Soviet relationship enough to comment knowledgeably, you only comment from your own limited perceptions. —PētersV (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your point goes to the heart of the problem. Given much of the Holodomor memory battle was being fought by and against the Ukrainian-Canadian community, their community newsletters are primary sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but (above) "the USSR covered things up all the time" (paraphrase) makes this cover-up "dubious"? The USSR explicitly did NOT cover up the prior massive famine and received international aid is the whole point which you appear to wish to ignore completely, which makes the Soviet denial of the Holodomor famine explicitly NOT business as usual, it was a CHANGE to business as usual. —PētersV (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, none of the reliable sources draw the implications that you (and the intro) do, which is why stating they do is dubious. And yes, the Soviets covered up stuff that made them look bad all the time. I think that's the one thing all reliable sources agree on. You don't? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, "implications" (in the absence of concrete documentation) would be the *why* of why the Soviets denied the later (this, Holodomor) famine as opposed to receiving the aid they so desperately needed as they had earlier. Decided it was a serendipitous opportunity to wipe out the Ukrainians resisting collectivization? Decided it was just poor for PR to have another famine? All valid questions, and none of which have anything to do with this article.
   There is absolutely nothing "implied" about the Soviet authorities covering up and denying the famine. You're reaching for straws to justify your relentless tagging. —PētersV (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Rot. To claim that there was a campaign of "denial" in the manner that the lead does separate from the standard Soviet approach to bad things they did is clearly not borne out by any of the sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason Relata refero keeps removing the facts and secondary published sources frm the article:
...Denial of the Ukrainian famine (1933) according to:
*Evolution in Reference and Information Services By Di Su, Jessica Tan Gudnason, Di Ed; p. 137 ISBN 9780789017239
*Legitimacy and Force By Jeane J. Kirkpatric; p. 80 ISBN 9780887386466
Please restore the removed facts and secondary sources provided. regarding any possible primary sources used for refs, I think it would be good idea to clean it up and remove any sources that could be considered primary from the article.--Termer (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree that sources you cited are fine and should be restored. Second, I would certainly agree to remove all or most primary sources in main article Holodomor, because there are enough good secondary sources on that subject. Third, it would be OK to clean up some parts of this article supported by least reliable primary sources. You can try to remove a few most questionable fragments and wait for discussion. But it is probably a non-starter to remove everything supported by primary sources - too many people would object.Biophys (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
As stated before, library science is not a reliable source in this respect. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary versus secondary

So the article can't be accused of/degenerate into a list of crackpots who say the famine never happened, it would be reasonable to limit individual mentioned in the article to those mentioned in a scholarly secondary source. For example, I did find Sousa mentioned some time back, so this would likely not be severely restrictive. I haven't looked for the deleted/self-reverted Lindsay. Just a thought. —PētersV (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolution in Reference and Information Services By Di Su, Jessica Tan ISBN 9780789017239 is a pretty good secondary source that covers the denial of the famine:
  • page 137 available at google books [10]
- Mario Sousa, member of the Communist Party Marxist-Leninists Revolutionaries Sweden -blames Nazi propaganda for spreading the story about famine
-the 25 Feb 1987 issue of Challenge-Desafio, newspaper of the Progressive Labor Party -trying to debunk the acclaimed film Harvest of Despair and R.Q book harvest of Sorrow...Nazi collaborators attack Stalin, the Soviet Union, and the whole idea of communism
  • Page 138 available at amazon book reader.[11]
-both (sources above) would like to rehabilitate the image of Soviet-style communism...
-a 1987 book by Canadian Douglas Tottle was the only book located supporting the views echoed....
-question of the Ukrainian famine was thoroughly investigated and documented in a report to the US congress in 1988...
-although scholars differ in their opinions regarding how much grain Stalin was sitting on (i.e how much he was holding back from Ukraine), and whether or not the famine constitues genocide...
-R.Conquest is a strong proponent of the relationship between official Soviet policies and the famine. He also located a document in (then) newly opened Russian archives from Stalin and Molotov to local party officials, in which those local officials were ordered to prevent a mass exodus of peasants from Ukraine and Kuban in search of bread...
-Mark B. Tauger has argued that the 1932 grain harvest was much too small, which caused the famine on its own...
-Barbara B. Green has argued that the famine was not an intentional act of genocide but rather a result of Stalin's forced collectivization
--Termer (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for these mentions. Also, I've deleted the Lindsay section. After a fairly thorough search, he's only quoted on web sites that are even more crack-pot and fringe than he is. (Stalin was a humanitarian demographically saving 36,000,000 lives, non-Jewish writers can't write about Jews without creating a firestorm unless slavish praise, etc., etc.) Including crackpots detracts from those that have been notable enough to have been included in a secondary source. —PētersV (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Denial_of_the_Holodomor has been filed in response to -library science is not a reliable source in this respect [12] by Relata refero. --Termer (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is NPOV tag repeatedly added without explaination

This TALK page has a lot of rhetoric. Yet nothing that relates to NPOV. You repeatedly direct editors to some phantom section above yet there is nothing NPOV related. You question reliability of what you call “NEWSLETTERS”. There are no newsletters used as sources – it is just a disparaging term that you are applying to valid sources. You question the concept of “Holodomor denial” and dismiss any references to business as usual for Soviets. Your claim that this is the worst article only under cuts your credibility and exposes your bias. Define your arguments for NPOV – not mixed in with the many reasons that you are using to justify deleting the bulk of this article. Bobanni (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One more "denialist"

For both the Ukrainian diaspora and the Ukrainian national movement in Ukraine, the Famine issue has functioned as a rallying point. From the 1930s to the 1990s, anti-Soviet Ukrainians outside the USSR pointed to the Famine as proof of the criminal and anti-Ukrainian nature of the Soviet regime. Within these circles, the Moscow government held responsible was seen as both Communist and Russian. The lesson drawn was that only an independent Ukraine would have guaranteed against such tragedies and could avoid them in the future. The refusal of the Soviet government to admit that a famine had occurred, much less to admit that it bore responsibility, transformed all discussions of the Famine into an ideological confrontation. The issue was particularly important in right-left polemics, because if the Soviet Union was seen as comparable in evil to Nazi Germany, all discussions of the Eastern Front of World War II took on a different coloration. At the same time, Ukrainians in the diaspora found the Famine an important means of questioning the stereotype of “Ukrainians” as victimizers (Nazi collaborators, pogromists) rather than victimized. Attention to the Famine also made more explicable why some Ukrainians would have little loyalty to the Soviet Union in 1941 or might at first have viewed German rule as even a possible improvement. The debate on the Famine also influenced discussions of the Holocaust for these issues, as well as for the significance of the tragedy in explaining the brutalization and demoralization of Ukraine’s population prior to the war. By the 1980s the Famine had become a central focus of identity and rallying point for diaspora Ukrainians who aspired to establish an independent Ukrainian state. … For the Ukrainian national movement, the Famine issue served as an effective vehicle for undermining the Communist authorities and the Soviet mythology in eastern Ukraine. The national interpretation of the Famine current in the Ukrainian diaspora spread in Ukraine as the country opened up to contacts with the West, and the projects of the 1980s in the West legitimized and served as models for activities in Ukraine. … Despite the financial crisis in Ukrainian scholarship and publishing, scholarly and popular writing on the Famine, including indictments of the tragedy as a Soviet or even Russian genocide against the Ukrainian nation, continued.

(Frank E. Sysyn isthe Director of the PeterJacyk Center for Ukrainian Historical Research, University of Alberta.)Jo0doe (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoax or may be a printing missmatch from Congress Comission 1984

[13]

The resolution passed by the Conference adopted the grain procurements quota Moscow insisted on-356 million metric tons—and simultaneously called for an end to so-called leftist distortions.28 Only the former would long remain a priority.

So does anyone from poll members can explain me a difference between 356 million metric tons and 5.8 million metric tons. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

350.2 million metric tons

Bobanni (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe's source references 356 million metric tons. It's a typo, I recognize the number, it's 356 million poods. At just over 61 poods to a metric ton, that calculates out to 5.83 metric tons. Problem solved. —PētersV (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

  • Propose merge. I don't believe that this is an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Obviously the famine itself is worth an article. The different views and positions - denialist, academic, condemnatory etc. etc. - on the famine can be covered in the main article. There is no comparison with Holocaust denial because that question has been discussed by numerous third-party sources, quite separately from the issue of the Holocaust itself. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree. We can haggle over the most recent purveyors of denial, but the heart of the article is the denial of famine by the Soviet authorities (preventing foreign aid as in earlier famine) and the restriction of movement which (depending on how you look at it), prevented the effects of famine from spreading or doomed the Ukrainians. That denial was promulgated and even much later, the Soviet leadership conducted an anti-Ukrainian campaign in response to Ukrainian charges. This is all far too much to go into the Holodomor article. —PētersV (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree. First, the issue of Holodomor Denial is both historic and current. It was denied throughout the soviet era, for various reasons. Now, it is still being denied, as evidenced by the Brazillian senator who thinks it was all invented by nazis (see section below). Second, I completely agree with Moreschi in that the Holodomor article itself is too unweildy, and should be broken into more sections which can look into this topic in more detail. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian denial of Holodomor

This brazilian site: [[14]] that is from a brazilian newspaper has a denial of this genocide.Many brazilain congressists claims that Holodomor is just a fraud.To example, the brazilian senator Inácio Arruda, tells that Holodomor s just a nazist invention.The e-mail of this senator is: inacioarruda@senador.gov.br <inacioarruda@senador.gov.br> Cicloys2 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)cicloys2

The newspaper is Stalinist, see Revolutionary Movement 8th October. It's rather typical that Stalinists deny Stalinist crimes.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that this brazilian newspaper has, a bad quality.The site [[15]] really has the article(in portuguese).I think that the e-mail of brazilian senator Inácio Arruda is inacioarruda@senador.gov.br , not inacioarruda@senador.gov.br <inacioarruda@senador.gov.br> Agre22 (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)agre22

Walter Duranty and The New York Times

I'm not a native speaker, but I believe that the paragraph should be rewritten. Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly needs to have the repetitiousness removed and to have its facts organized. Also, imprecise language such as "while the famine wass raging Duranty this and that..." needs to be clarified with dates, etc., as does the whole section need to be put into better chronology. —PētersV (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
In Conquest's book, Reflections on a Ravaged Century, he notes that Duranty was probably being blackmailed by the Soviet secret police at the time. The grounds for the blackmail were sexual, apparently. This should probably go in. Moreschi (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there's any more on that. I've read through some of Duranty. When he writes scathingly regarding the starvation in Germany after WWI and British and French indifference, he is a completely different person from someone who would run interference for Stalin's famine cover-up. The righteous-indignation camp will never be assuaged (no excuse whatever the excuse). However, this is the first morsel that would explain this disconnect between his earlier (re: WWI) versus later (re: Ukraine) comments on famine victims and the disconnect between his private statements versus public reports on the famine in Ukraine. —PētersV (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Going back over the book, I'm unable to ascertain just where Conquest is getting this from. Because Reflections is essentially his (wonderfully entertaining, brilliantly informative and thought-provoking) ramblings on where the 20th century went wrong, there aren't any footnotes. So it could be Conquest has a good source for this, or it could be that it's just rumour from the grapevine. Either way, it makes sense of Duranty's actions, and I find it hard to believe Conquest would include it in his book with no basis: note, however, that his wording is "Duranty...who seems to have been blackmailed by the secret policy" (my italics). Evidently he's not completely sure. However, this factoid is definitely worthy of insertion, with appropriate caveats provided. Moreschi (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not shy but I don't hold out much hope my Email to the Hoover Institute will shed further light. :-) PētersV (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagging without discussion

Regarding the new {{Dubious|date=October 2008}} tag with the comment NONE of these sources DEFINE "Denial of Holodomor" as such. False sourcing marked, is the problem that:

  1. the sources do not use "Holodomor" to refer to the famine in Ukraine?
  2. the sources to not indicate that Soviet authorities denied famine was occurring with respect to representations of the situation to those outside the Soviet Union?
  3. some other issue?

Please clarify so we understand what is actually meant by "dubious" and exactly what is "not defined" by individual source being called into question. It would be helpful if such tagging were accompanied in the future by an article talk page notation/justification. Thanks! —PētersV (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

These sources describe the cover-up of Holodomor by Soviet authorities. Therefore, they indeed support statement made in the introductory part. Yes, this label should go, and I deleted it.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources indeed describe the cover up. That there was some form of a cover up is not disputed. However, the article claims that the sources define the DoH as an "assertion that the famine did not occur". Could someone add a quote which says so, cite it to a specific source and remove the sources that do not define the phenomenon of denial? You see, to say that some events took place is not the same thing as to define some term. When we, for the first time, introduce a term, we've got to show who and when introduced it and how it is defined. --Irpen 04:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you accept that sources which describe Soviet (or other) "denial" of the famine = denial of the Holodomor (the modern name for the famine) for those sources written before the coining of "Holodomor" or which simply choose to continue to discuss the "famine" in general and "famine in Ukraine" without using the term Holodomor?
   "Denial of the Holodomor" is not coining a term. It's a title that is simply a succinct description of an action. If you believe we need a title not using Holodomor and/or which one cannot easily infer as coining a term, say, "Denial of the ocurrence of the 1932—1933 famine in Ukraine," certainly a description of an action and not coining a term, then perhaps you could restate your objection? —PētersV (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's take a specific example of a pre-"Holodomor" source:
JSTOR: The Ordeal of the Russian Peasantry
As all foreign aid was refused and the Soviet authorities even denied that there was a famine, responsibility for this holocaust falls squarely on Stalin ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-0341(195510)14%3A4%3C295%3ATOOTRP%3E2...
by WH Chamberlin - 1955 ...
Applicable or not applicable to supporting the current title and if not, then why? —PētersV (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Whatever it is that is the subject of the article that gets bolded in the article intro is only a repeating of the article title. If we agree on the title, then perhaps the issue is using the phrase in the opening paragraph in a manner which lessens the probability someone will infer it to be coining a term. —PētersV (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Everything is already there: Stalin "had achieved the impossible: he had silenced all the talk of hunger... Millions were dying, but the nation hymned the praises of collectivization", said historian and writer Edvard Radzinsky. And so and so on. Sorry, but I can not go over the ten circle of arguments with Irpen. Biophys (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It's far too easy to tag something, offer little more than "it's wrong" and then not be held to any meaningful discussion of the issue. I went out of my way to present an opportunity (my examples and questions) for other editors to better understand the exact nature of Irpen's objection--which could then lead to a mutually agreeable remedy. Oh well, tag's already deleted, I don't see much point in attempting further dialog here. —PētersV (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, the source saying that someone denied the existence of famine is not the same as the source that defines what constitutes "Denial of Holodomor" and not just because Holodomor and the famine are not one and the same thing but because denialism is a political term whose definition extends beyond the dictionary. This discussion took place at this page several times. This thread above is just one of them. There are two ways around it. First, is to find a source that asserts the denial of H. being what the article says it is (and showing that such definition is widespread.) Second solution is to simply avoid making up some sort of a "definition" that is either unsourced or tautologous and rephrase the first sentence as simply a statement of fact about Soviet failure to admit publicly the fact of the famine. I tried that too. See this attempt out of several. But was of course reverted by Horlo and Martin. Maybe you find simply avoiding the contentious "definition" agreeable? --Irpen 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, please show me exactly which source on this page [[16]] that defines Holocaust denial as an idea. Once again, please don't try to play semantic games concerning denialism and denial - it didn't work before, and it won't work now. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, "this page" refers to a well-known academic subject, the Holocaust denial. This subject is studied "in its own right" and there are specific works related to the denial of the Holocaust. The references to this article are extensive and many of them are narrow sources devoted to a specific subject of the Holocaust denial, rather than even to the Holocaust itself. This article assembles a hodge-podge of the sources on the Holodomor itself, sources on Soviet propaganda, sources on Duranty, etc. Thus, the collection of the sources fail to establish the validity of the subject being separate of the necessarily discussion in the context of Holodomor. In view of that, you should find the subject defined independently of what you think it should be. Also, if you have anything to say regarding the Holocaust denial article, please do so at its own talk page. Holocaust and Holodomor are not related in any way. --Irpen 18:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, your example is precisely why the article is NOT named Holodomor denial, which would be a term, or Holodomor denialism, which would be a behavior or phenomenon. We had extensive discussions over the title and the current one was what was achieved out of consensus. The verb "deny" is used enough in reputable sources that representing it in the title is appropriate. —PētersV (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we may be actually on a way to solution here. Are you saying that the name of this page is merely a descriptive title rather than a term established in its own right? --Irpen 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, unfortunately, Irpen, I think that you are again missing the point here. Now, please use neither quotation marks nor phrases like "hodge-podge" to try to emphasise your position, because it doesn't. Please read through this discussion, and see why denialism is in no way connected to the verb deny in popular culture in the west. Each of the sources given clearly states how the existence of the Holodomor was denied. Please stop tagging. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Horlo, I read the discussion. Sourced indeed say that the existence of the famine was denied. I have no problem if the article says that in the lead section. However, sources do not define denial of Holodomor like the article attempts to. "Denial of Holodomor is a statement that the famine did not occur..." is a definition of the term, not a statement that the famine was denied. Unless the definition is sourced, we can't invent it ourselves. --Irpen 05:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction between lead and content.

There's clear contradiction between article's lead "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the 1933 famine claiming millions of lives in Soviet Ukraine, known today as the Holodomor, did not occur" and much of it's content. If Soviet denial of very fact of famine should be here, it is not clear what are Tottle (who recognized the famine but denied it was intentional act of genocide), Coplon (those very work is titled "A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right" and who obviously recognizes famine) and Merl and Puntis (who, according to article, heavily relied on Tottle and, one should assume, recognized the famine as well) doing in the article.Asks questions (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

According to reputable sources, Tottle does dispute pictures of the famine, makes anti-Soviet fascist/Nazi conspiracy allegations, etc. Disputing that famine is not genocide does not imply full acknowledgment of the extent of the famine in Ukraine, something Tottle clearly does not do. Hope that helps. Welcome to your first edit and response on WP. —PētersV (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the better source than one's eyes? And Tottle's work is avaliable [17]. Take a look at the 4th paragraph "This book does not claim that no famine took place in Ukraine, or that there were not hardships related to the collectivization programs of the Soviets." Isn't it as clear contradiction of the article's lead as one could imagine? Therefore I suggest that either Tottle, Coplon, Sousa (who takes the same road of recognizing famine but concentrating on it's coverage in Western sources, see his work on the net) Merl, Puntis be removed, as none of them denies famine or lead is changed to extend denialism charge to anyone who dares to oppose cliches. And besides, how old an event have to be to merit "modern" attached to it? It strikes my eye that "Modern Soviet Denial" paragraph describes an event which is 25 years old, and USSR is almost 20 years dead.Asks questions (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Coplon, for example, contends numbers as low as several hundred thousand for the total that died, that it's all mainly a Ukrainian fascist plot, etc., etc., along Tottle's lines. Again, "a famine" that denies the extent of famine, attributes lies to Ukrainian fascists, etc., still constitutes a denial. Perhaps we might lump those sub-texts under "Charges of gross exaggeration of famine and of fascist Ukrainian plots" to address your concerns. Still merits article inclusion.
   Finally, 25 years ago is 1983, sorry, that's definitely modern. Perhaps you're not old enough to think so, but it is. As for the demise of the USSR, its, and Stalin's, propaganda lives on, so the timeline is irrelevant. Again, hope this helps. —PētersV (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I do feel I should point out that I read your last post as indicating Tottle, Coplon, Sousa, Merl, and Puntis are among the ranks of those who "dare to oppose cliches." Bringing a bit of POV to the mix, no? —PētersV (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Since what time trying to establish the number of victims became "denial"? And "several hundred thousand" does not look too low to me to try to tar him with "denialism" sticker and lump together with Irving and similar figures. You are absolutely correct that he (as well as Tottle, Sousa, Merl, Puntis) is more interesting in unearthing propaganda machine which used horrific event to advance political purposes of ones who perpetrated propaganda campaign. Does it make them "denialists of famine" (again, if one defines Holodomor as "famine" and not "racist plot to kill all Ukrainians")? I doubt so. So, my proposal still stands. Either Holodomor should be redefined as "intentional genocide" in the lead or Tottle, Coplon, Sousa, Merl, Puntis should be removed. Asks questions (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
PētersV, I'd like to know when "modern" stops. I took a liberty of looking at your home page. Would you think that description of atrocities perpetrated by Latvian collaborators against Slavs and Jews is appropriate under "current attitude toward ethnic minorities in Latvia" header? Me neither. I'd like to stress that I really don't have anything against keeping the stuff in article, it is highly relevant. But is it modern? Asks questions (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Responding to POV accusation (as laughable it could be when it is voiced by somebody like Vecrumba, this page is my witness), I would say that probably most NPOV definition of Tottle & Co. is "dissidents". Somebody who oppose established views. They might be right or wrong, this is outside of the conversation's scope. Anything else runs the risk of tarring or praising, and switch from one to another can occur pretty quickly, as political winds change. Same applies to "nationally enlightened" Ukrainian historians and Conquest, who are held in high regard by many editors of the article. Asks questions (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Conquest continues to be cited by scholars writing on the Holodomor. Pretty easy to find on places like JSTOR. Neither do Davies and Wheatcroft (our current holy grail) disavow Conquest's research. —PētersV (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Depending on the textbook Modern is usually post WWII. Some scholars refer to the XXth century as Modern. Others to POST WWI.

Currently we are in the Post Modern era which starts either in 1991 or 2000 depending on the textbook. Bandurist (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflict with my answer to Vecrumba. Hmm, I'm still unsure, but this is one possible way of looking at the issue. Asks questions (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
One more question. Same story is basically repeated in "Soviet Union -> Campaigns of disinformation" and "Modern denial -> Modern Soviet Denial". Two facets of the same attempt by Soviets to suppress/discredit information spreaded by Ukrainian emigre organizations. Both parts are very relevant, but shouldn't they be merged? Asks questions (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) Responding to POV accusation (as laughable it could be when it is voiced by somebody like Vecrumba, this page is my witness)...
Hmmm, familiar derisive tone. Well, let's see, you're not Des Grant aka Mark Street, wrong geo-political arena.
Leaves only one other choice. Welcome back Vlad Fedorov! I truly missed our spirited jousts. Why not just use your own account since you've been un-banned? —PētersV (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Ah, perhaps you've managed to get blocked already?
Ah, a possibility not considered, RJ CG. I'm sorry, are you blocked at the moment? —PētersV (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct to assume that you have no other arguments against proposed content change but your personal dislike of editor who proposed it? In case I'm wrong, please voice your arguments. Asks questions (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear RJ CG, we've had our disagreements, however, I have to say that I have no "personal dislike" for any editor I have dealt with. Because of the denial of scope and tarring as Nazi fascist accusations any contentions by Ukrainians regarding the famine, I believe editorially that Tottle & co. still belong in "Denial of...". If someone came along and contended that only 100,000 Jews died at Hitler's hands, they would still be Holocaust deniers.
   Per your points, I do concur that they should be grouped under a more descriptive subheading than merely an inventory type list.
   Finally, I'm constantly amazed at how many people accuse me of, let's see... Russophopbia, anti-Semitism (that's a new one), bitterness, hatred, dislike (milquetoast is so unbecoming!). Furthermore, I do keep my personal opinions and editorial opinions separate, so there is nothing "personal" in anything here. I am quite glad to discuss any topic with any one based on reputable sources based on verified facts. My only standard is that those sources be faithfully represented in discussions and when used as materials in articles. That also means that I firmly believe that Baltic/Central/Eastern European history needs to be represented based on facts, not on "NPOV" = represent version 1 (usually "nationalist") and version 2 (usually "pro-Soviet", "Soviet/Russian apologist") equally regardless of who actually brings sources to the table. —PētersV (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, please stick to the issues at hand. Does Tottle deny that the famine took place or he says that there was no famine at all? --Irpen 05:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tottle & Co.

It seems to me that Tottle, Coplon, Sousa, Merl and Puntis do belong in Holodomor genocide question, as all of them clearly recognize famine (even if question number of victims) but challenge "Holodomor was genocide" POV. Therefore I propose to move material dealing with their writings to Holodomor genocide question. Asks questions (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As indicated above, denial of scope also merits inclusion under "Denial of...". —PētersV (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can lay off the issue for a day or two and see what other folks think. —PētersV (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Your personal definition of denial is very interesting, as your personal opinion. However, as long as Holodomor defined as "famine" in the lead, anyone not denying famine has no place in this article. Clock is ticking and no one but Vecrumba voiced opposition to move so far. Asks questions (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Denial has a wide definition. The Holodomor is a term which is however quite specific.
Most of the modern "deniers" use a revisionistic approach to questions related to the Holodomor, often trying to deflect the argument that has continually been brought up by the Ukrainian diaspora to include materials which are not directly related to the Ho0lodomor but namely attack the sources of the information. Indeed, if it were not for the Ukrainian diaspora little attention would have been brought to the Famine of 32-33 in general, as the Russian emigre press previously had very little comment on it, and even that which was published tended to be Ukrainocentric. It is only recently that the Russian press and the Russian emigre press specifically has taken a different direction, but this has its own specific reasons and causes. Bandurist (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole passage on Tottle here is very poorly done. It casually mentions that Tottle does not really write about the famine but rather about publicity campaigns carried on in relation to the famine, but it fails to mention that Tottle did quite legitimately expose the manipulation of photographs and related dates by such prominent authors as James Mace and Robert Conquest. Although Tottle is rarely given credit, most of the points which he made about photographs from the wrong time being attributed to a different time and sometimes even being attributed to two different alternate times and places have been tacitly accepted. There was even a piece put out in a Ukrainian publication published out of, if I recall correctly, Canada where the author attacked Tottle but casually admitted that everyone knows about the mix-up of the photographs. When Tottle was writing in the 1980s there were major exhibits going around which used these falsified photographs as a basis for their message. So Tottle's basic point was correct. Although I sometimes disagreed with the tone Tottle used, there's no point mentioning him without giving credit where it's due. Tottle did expose a false manipulation of photographs during the Cold War. That was not simply "denial." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.137.134 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

GENOCIDE

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

The principles upon which this policies is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

The point of view that the HOLODOMOR was a genodical event is a significant event is supported by many reliable sources. Removing these valid references reduces the article to a discussion of denial of a environmental event.Bobanni (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the excessive talk page of Holodomor discussing why wikipedia cannot regard Holodomor as genocide! --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I repeat the point of view that the HOLODOMOR was a genodical event is a significant event is supported by many reliable sources. According to Wikipedia policy this cannot be overruled by editors' consensus. Bobanni (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yet other no less reliable sources consider Holodomor to be not Genocide. You can't passingly call Holodomor Genocide while there is no agreement on that even if your particular source that does. Whether Holodomor was a Genocide is a matter of judgment, not a statement of fact. --Irpen 05:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be in the article about Denial of the Holodomor as Genocide. Bandurist (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the European Parliament "recognises the Holodomor (the artificial famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine) as an appalling crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity" [18] the denial of the subject has changed it's meaning in the territory of EU. It's not simply about the denial of the occurrence of the famine any more.--Termer (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the article was and still is about those who have communicated the position that there was no famine at all (or greatly exaggerated), not about whether it was intentional. —PētersV (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Boris Borisov

Note mainly for Alex, I watch Russia Today all the time, trust me, when they complain about something on air or on their website, it's not a parody. It's state run Russian media, they have no sense of humor about history. —PētersV (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today denies the Holodomor again

“Forced industrialisation was a historicaly justified move” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.96.212 (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Patriarchy and Genocide

Just recently the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy announced that The Holodomor was a Genocide see: here and link here. How do we include this info without setting off another revert war with the Holodomor Deniers? Bandurist (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

A major problem with this article is the use of dubious sources. Wikipedia strives to reflect consensus among qualified academicians. Neither Radzinsky nor Conquest are professional historians. Conquest currently works for a right-wing think tank called "The Hoover Institution". Radzinsky is a playwright whose material is not aimed for a scholarly audience. And Pipes is hardly a respected historian. That his work has been ridiculed by the academic community means that he Pipes does not reflect consensus. Kwinkt (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed Duranty

The assertion that Duranty denied that there was famine in Russia is incorrect. Duranty acknowledged that there was a food crisis and correctly estimated the death toll at about 3 million. Duranty was also correct in attributing the deaths to disease. The Russian archival data has confirmed his estimates. In an August 1933 article for the Times, Duranty wrote:

There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.

The food shortage which has affected almost the whole population in the last year, and particularly in the grain-producing provinces--that is, the Ukraine, North Caucasus, the Lower Volga region--has, however, caused heavy loss of life. Although it is pure guesswork to attempt any estimate of the loss of life so far, not so much from actual starvation as from manifold diseases due to lowered resistance and to general disease in the last year, approximations are now possible. Among peasants and others receiving bread rations conditions were certainly not better. So with a total population in the Ukraine, North Caucasus and Lower Volga of upward of 40,000,000 the normal death rate would have been about 1,000,000. Lacking official figures, it is a conservative to suppose that this was at least trebled last year in those provinces and considerably increased for the Soviet Union as a whole.

    • It was more complex than what you say. Duranty charaterized the situation as a food shortage that resulted in the deaths of millions of people. This whole controversy seems to be based on semantics. Whether the term "famine" or "food shortage" was used, the substance of Duranty's correspondence acknowledged disastrous conditions in the countryside. The use of the term "Holodomor Denial" is very offensive because you are suggesting that a famine in Russia was equivalent to the industrialized extermiantion of Jews, Russians, and others. And Wikipedia is not written in stone. An edit button for articles exists for the purpose of improving content. The sole purpose of the section on Duranty is to portray him in a purely negative light. Openly partisan sources such as the right-wing "Weekly Standard" will be removed. The most problematic aspect of the section is the use of selective quotes. Kwinkt (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The March 31, 1933 article in the New York Times is available for anybody to see what does it say exactly: RUSSIANS HUNGRY, BUT NOT STARVING; Deaths From Diseases Due to Malnutrition High, Yet the Soviet Is Entrenched. LARGER CITIES HAVE FOOD Ukraine, North Caucasus and Lower Volga Regions Suffer From Shortages. KREMLIN'S 'DOOM' DENIED Russians and Foreign Observers In Country See No Ground for Predictions of Disaster.--Termer (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
PS. Added 2 more sources to the section "The New York Reporter who covered up Stalin's crimes" and "The Press Corps Conceals a Famine" that should do the talking.--Termer (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Increasing acceptance of genocide

Currently the article says: "There has been increasing acceptance of the term "genocide" to describe the Holodomor, and a number of countries and international organizations have formally recognized it as such." (my emphasis). This is an opinion and it needs a source. The article is none the worse witout it so consider it moved to the talk page, until such time as a source is provided (WP:PROVEIT). --PBS (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It just looks like a WP:Weasel to me. It's not a fact but commentary. I don't see any reasons to keep it in the article. Instead, a number of countries and international organizations that recognize Holodomor as an act of genocide should be clearly listed and kept updated.--Termer (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, if the number is increasing, it is increasing. I don't think that stating that is opinion. If last year there were 200 chickens in the world and today there are 600 chickens in the world, it would be a fact to state that the number of chickens in the world is increasing. I did not see the statement in the article, but how about this: "The number of countries that have recognized the Holodomor as genocide has increased"? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20on%20famines%20and%20scholarship,%20H-Russia%2004.16.02,%20my%20p.pdf
  2. ^ Сергійчук В. Як нас морили Голодом 1932-1933 - Київський Національний Університет, Київ, 2006 с.322 (In Ukrainian) Serhiychuk, V. How we were tired by Famine 1932-33 - Kyiv University, Kyiv, 2006 page 322
  3. ^ Сергійчук В. Як нас морили Голодом 1932-1933 - Київський Національний Університет, Київ, 2006 с.323 (In Ukrainian) Serhiychuk, V. How we were tired by Famine 1932-33 - Kyiv University, Kyiv, 2006 page 323
  4. ^ Сергійчук В. Як нас морили Голодом 1932-1933 - Київський Національний Університет, Київ, 2006 с.324 (In Ukrainian) Serhiychuk, V. How we were tired by Famine 1932-33 - Kyiv University, Kyiv, 2006 page 324
  5. ^ Сергійчук В. Як нас морили Голодом 1932-1933 - Київський Національний Університет, Київ, 2006 с.324 (In Ukrainian) Serhiychuk, V. How we were tired by Famine 1932-33 - Kyiv University, Kyiv, 2006 page 324
  6. ^ Сергійчук В. Як нас морили Голодом 1932-1933 - Київський Національний Університет, Київ, 2006 с.325 (In Ukrainian) Serhiychuk, V. How we were tired by Famine 1932-33 - Kyiv University, Kyiv, 2006 page 325
  7. ^ Сергійчук В. Як нас морили Голодом 1932-1933 - Київський Національний Університет, Київ, 2006 с.324 (In Ukrainian) Serhiychuk, V. How we were tired by Famine 1932-33 - Kyiv University, Kyiv, 2006 page 324
  8. ^ Davies, R.W. & Wheatcroft, S.G. (2004) The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931 – 1933 (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan), p 441, n. 145.
  9. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Collectivization_in_the_Ukrainian_SSR
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor_denial/Archive_2&oldid=1091258383"