Talk:Holodomor denial/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

simplify the repetitive intro

Major edits need to be discussed - Inaccurate summaries such as simplify the repetitive intro to explain wholesale deletion of properly statements as well as changing the meanings of others is wrong. Reverting so you can properly explain your rationale. Bobanni (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you disagree with my edit summaries, please state clearly what pieces you want back and we shall discuss it. Reverting is inadmissible approach: I am not a vandal and you do not own the article. Timurite (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• One thing I immediately see may trigger revert response is my significant shortening of the definition of Holodomor. I done this because it is article intro, and it must be concise definition of the subject of the article. Holodomor has its own article one mouse click away (wikipedia is not paper), and you don't need detailed, referenced, definition in the introduction of article on a different topic. Timurite (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• I also merged together several sentence which say the same only obviously inserted by different people whoi didn't care to read what was already written and didn't bother to make smooth, consistent flow of the text. Timurite (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• I also deleted a protrait of a person. There are dozens of important people involved both in holodomor and denial. Their facebook will not help in understandint the concept. Timurite (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Now, it is your turn to point which important info I removed you think. Timurite (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Old version Today, no serious academic scholars claim that the famine did not take place, but the very fact of the famine's existence is still disputed by fringe writers and organizations. The causes, nature and extent of the Holodomor remain topics of controversy and active scholarship and whether the Holodomor was a genocide is controversial.

Timurite version The famine's existence is still disputed by some, despite a general consensus. The causes, nature and extent of the Holodomor remain topics of controversy and active scholarship.

Removed no serious academic scholars claim that the famine did not take place

Removed whether the Holodomor was a genocide is controversial.

Removed The term "Holodomor" (Ukrainian: Голодомор, often translated as "death by hunger")

All these are key to the article not simplify the repetitive intro Bobanni (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why...

Petri, WHY are you putting stuff based on non-reliable sources, which YOU KNOW are unreliable into the article [1] [2] and at the same time keep putting in some weird stuff about some goat, among other weird things, into it????? Please stop. Your actions are clearly disruptive. It's fine to put in stuff from reliable sources ABOUT the likes of Dyukov and Tottle into the article but not those guys themselves. It's also not fine to accompany these unreliable sources and weird statements with very POVed commentary of your own. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

GPU

From Boriak, Hennadii (Fall 2001). "The publication of sources on the history of the 1932-1933 famine-genocide: history, current state, and prospects". Harvard Ukrainian Studies 25 (3-4):

The GPU documents reveal that a high degree of attention was paid to subjective aspects of Famine events. In particular, there are descriptions of the political opinions of the peasants, workers, and intelligentsia, as well as of the frightening phenomenon of cannibalism. According to Ruslan Pyrih, the analysis of available documents proves that as food shortages rose and mass starvation increased, the GPU became the most important agency responsible for collecting and summarizing statistical information. At the height of the tragedy, in the spring and beginning of the summer of 1933, this agency became the only likely source of such information. The facts reported in the GPU documents are highly reliable, and they are consistent with our view of the historical setting in which they occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.134.200.174 (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC) + Text The true number of dead was concealed. At the Kiev Medical Inspectorate, for example, the actual number of corpses, 9,472, was recorded as only 3,997. also does not exist at Harvard Ukrainian Studies 25 (3-4):- as claimed

From same source:

Second, in view of the scale of the Famine, only the GPU organization with its broad network of agents and unlimited power could secure—or falsify—a complete body of information about the Famine-Genocide.

In spite of the fact that the birth and death records (metrychni knyhy) were for the most part destroyed by order of the GPU, and that information about the causes and scale of death has been falsified, some registry books for 1932-1933 have, nevertheless, survived.

~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Famine Kharkov girl and goat 1933.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Famine Kharkov girl and goat 1933.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources needed!

In the section "Communist Party of the USA," the same two sources are cited several times throughout the paragraphs, numbered 40 and 41. 40 leads to a 404 not found page, while 41 leads to a POV-written letter, rather than anything resembling a direct source of information. 41 alone cannot support what is written in this section, hence it will be removed until an editor can provide sources.

96.54.203.195 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No improvement as of December 2011 Faulty (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the section is that is copied verbatim from this source: [3]. So while the info is legit the text needs to be re-written and paraphrased. Volunteer Marek  10:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Alteration of sourced content (without new attribution) by user with IP address 68.53.88.130?

I was checking back on some mechanical edits I had made to this article when I noticed another user has made changes to sourced content without providing new sources. Could the original editor or someone else familiar with the sources cited take a look at this. For example, the assertion that President Kravchuk was a controversial color-revolution figure, is not supported by any source and seems to be contradicted by the material in this article as well as the Kravchuk article. Wasn't the color-revolution president Yuschenko? I went ahead and reverted some of the edits of the IP address user on the grounds they don't include sources and seem to be POV statements contradicting the sources in the original material. Other edits of the IP user that seem less controversial I left intact. Paavo273 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian Law

Presumably the law criminalising denial was never passed and this was because of change of government. If this is the case the article should make it clear. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned up the draft law verbiage and provided continuity narrative regarding the change in position of the office of the President of Ukraine. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Was it a matter of it not being passed or a matter of its selective application? There are many laws the current government chooses not to enforce. Hell, the Kharkiv Accords violated the constitution. --Львівське (говорити) 01:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Claims and evidence

Should we mention that certain people who deny the holodomor in reality deny that it was caused by excessive demands from the Soviets? Ukraine has apparently had multiple famines before the holodomor due to natural causes and there r claims that kulaks were partially to blame. People like Douglas Tottle have written about this and apparently have acclamation. socialistguy - when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs. Thank you (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Socialistguy, you have already started a section on the Holodomor on exactly the same theme. Please abstain from WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy should I just delete this section? socialistguy - when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs. Thank you (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No need. You've received a couple of responses, therefore there's no reason to remove it. The comment on the other talk page can stay also. As noted, your being a new user means that you're allowed plenty of scope with good faith mistakes/misunderstandings. We all know that getting one's head around policies and guidelines is seriously steep learning curve (and that without having to check through talk page histories, etc.). There's certainly no harm done to your reputation, so happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

NO Original Research

As per this discussion [4], the paragraph about Jeff Coplon is original reasearch and the source used is regarded as unreliable by the wikipedia community, ask User:My very best wishes for clarifications. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to have bothered you with my deletions. There are other users (not me) who thinks the article of Jeff Coplon was an unreliable source and should not be cited or used in any form, in addition the paragraph dedicated to Jeff Coplon as been labeled as OR by the very same user. Thanks for having clarified it. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Actually, I think that providing direct quotations of Coplon and summarizing his views on this page is adequate. The source is good enough to document claims by Coplon (there is no doubts that he said it), but using claims by Coplon to discredit notable academics is wrong. He is not a sufficiently good source for that. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here is what you wrote [5]:

The section Denial_of_the_Holodomor#Jeff_Coplon is nothing more than an editor's opinion about Coplon, based on two articles written by him. Those two articles (and an article by Wilfred Szczesny, presented as "other similar writings") are the only sources given. I would call that a textbook example of WP:OR. Ssscienccce (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC) ; edited 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure. 'This paragraph is OR based on precisely the same unrelaible source', only by someone else and on a different page. Note the url which leads to website of Grover Furr, a notorious Stalinist apologist.'My very best wishes' (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• It has become now apparent that you were dead wrong, the source is reliable, and moreover there is no WP:OR. I noticed you used WP:OR and "unreliable source" as an excuse for deletions in other articles. It is now apparent that things cannot work in the way you do. You cannot delete the edits of the others because solely along your own personal point of view WP:PPOV sources are unreliable or you are making up in your mind a WP:OR original research is ongoing. Keep it in mind and admit you have been wrong: the sources on Denial of the Holodomor#Jeff Coplon are ok. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please check WP:RS. Questionable and highly biased sources, such as that one, have a limited usage. For example, quoting David Irving may be fine on a page about him, but not on the page about Holocaust. Same with using Coplon as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, sorry but you are wrong. The article of Coplon is just a recollection of historians opinions and facts taken by other sources that he uses to put forward his personal own point of view, thus the citations from historians he interviewed and facts he reported can be cited (specially if the are present in other reliable sources or/and if hey are supported by other sources too). In fact nobody put in this very page also the opinions of those historians and label them as "holodomor deniers" as everybody knows they are not deniers of anything. Also, in that particular case, what is reported concerning uniquely that particular book and author (and not the more general question) also can be reported as part of "criticisms" occured to that particular book, stating "according to journalist Coplon". But as an exercise let's do this: I could even drop his source completely, let's see what happens. However, let's talk about it in the appropriate place. Now is clear that the Jeff Coplon's source belongs to this one article here. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems clear that the section about Coplon is OR. It needs a RS confirming that his article denies the Holodomor. I've added templates. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This source does make such connection [6]. Is it reliable? Well, one could reasonably argue that Cathy Young is definitely more famous than Coplon. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly would argue that this goes to demonstrating that Coplon is notable enough for the subject per WP:TITLE as his opinions have undoubtedly generated enough discussion to merit inclusion. On that note, however, the inclusion of opinions is judged on an article by article basis. In context, his opinions - as currently depicted - has been demonstrated to be neither OR, nor UNDUE. Note, however, that the inclusion of Coplon in this article is not a blank cheque for inclusion of his opinions on related articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I fixed this paragraph. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that this is actually far better than the protracted quotes and overemphasis of his importance as a serious player in the Holodomor Denial stakes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR in the "Modern Denial" section.

I have been bold and removed the massive WP:OR in the Modern Denial section. Feel free to revert/discuss. I am not particularly knowledgeable about the topic. The main problem is that there is no definition of "modern denial" present. The lead for the article states explicitly that the causes of the famine and its classification as genocide is a valid historical question. This does not constitute Holodomor denial by itself.

• Coplon: Cathy Young does not state that Coplon engaged in Holodomor denial. Moreover, she is a journalist, and it is not clear why her opinion is important. Coplon explicitly states that there was a famine and that Stalin was partly responsible. Please find a respectable scholarly or otherwise source which makes the claim. The last paragraph in the section is a duplicate of the last paragraph in the previous section.
• Stephen Merl: Same. There is no source at all which states that this is Holodomor Denial except a discussion at a mailing list. Please find a real source. Why does this guy deserve space anyway? Who is he? There must be thousands of nutcases around the world.
• Mario Sousa probably qualifies. I read his stuff. But there is again no source for the claim. Who is this guy anyway. Does anyone pay attention to his ravings? Still, I have left the section untouched.
• John Puntis: I do not know much about the Stalin Society. It probably can't be good. But again, this section is pure WP:OR. I have left it untouched for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reverted per WP:BRD. According to Kathy Young, "In January 1988, the Village Voice ran a lengthy essay by Jeff Coplon (now a contributing editor at New York magazine) titled "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right." Coplon sneered at "the prevailing vogue of anti-Stalinism" and dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime. Such talk, he asserted, was meant to justify U.S. imperialism and whitewash Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis." Hence Coplon dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime. Consider a journalist who dismissed as absurd the idea that the Holocaust had been created by the Nazi regime. Would he qualify as a Holocaust denialist? Now, if you think that Cathy Yang was wrong, please bring other sources, but not your personal opinion, and not the writings by Coplon himself. Stephen Merl was sourced by previous contributors. Unfortunately I do not know German to check, but AGF previous contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am happy that you are discussing stuff, but you have seemingly not read a word I wrote. Firstly, the last paragraph of the Coplon section is simply repeating the last paragraph of the previous section, yet you have restored it. That should be removed independently of the merits of the case. Secondly, have you looked at the Stephen Merl section? There are two sources, one is Merl himself, and one for a discussion on a mailing list. Unless Merl calls himself a Holodomor denier, there are literally no sources there. Btw, who is Stephen Merl and why should we care? There are thousands of nutcases all over the world. Why does it matter if some random guy says some random stuff? Thirdly, regarding Coplon, the main point is that the concept of "Modern Denial" is nowhere defined. Unless Cathy Young calls Coplon a Holodomor denier, you can't interpolate your own opinion that Coplon is a "denier". Lastly, why is the opinion of Cathy Young important? She is not an expert, nor does she give any quotes or evidence from the Village Voice article to state that he denied that the Communist regime caused the famine. By the way Jeff Coplon seems to be alive, so this unfounded accusation that he is a "Holodomor denier" without any sources at all would also violate WP:BLP. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Merl - agree, removed. This can be included back only if better sourced (or if someones who knows German can verify the refs). I also removed some stuff from Coplon section. Speaking about quotation by Cathy Young - this is reliably sourced and not a BLP violation, but just a normal discourse/discussion. Note that Coplon is also a journalist, but less notable than Cathy Young. Does the quotation by Young about Coplon belongs to this page? I think that yes, it does - as something obvious/self-evident (see my previous comment). Yes, this is partly a matter of judgement, so you are very welcome to submit an RfC about it, but I still believe this is something which obviously qualify as a Holodomor denial. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. According to US Library of Congress subject headings, the "Holodomor denial" literature includes works that "diminish the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or assert that it did not occur" [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• The US Library of Congress source you cited does not state what it means to "diminish the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933" neither cites Coplon. It is still your own opinion that it refers to Coplon. If you can find more proof then you could state "According to the US Library of Congress" but for the moment the paragraph on Coplon should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flushout1999 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote in here [8], Coplon never said the famine did not occur but instead only denied that it was a "genocide" and that it was "planned/premeditated", as most sovietologist historian do (for example R.W. Davies and S. Wheatcroft [9], but even the later Robert Conquest [10], [11] pag.3 note 6),, but also, it is not clear at all what is that makes different a "holodomor denier" journalist denying human premeditation in the famine, from a respected historian denying the very same premeditation!

Actually it seems to me that confusion arise because in the article it is not stated very well if to be "holodomor denier" means one person denying just the existence of the famine itself (like Walter Duranty did), or if it means one who denies that it was "planned/premeditated" or that it was "genocide", without denying its existence. Anyway such interpretations of the term "Holodomor Denier" should be correctly referenced writing "according to.." as there is no general/international consensus on whether the famine was planned or not, and on wheter was genocide or not.

It must be noted that Coplon in "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust" (here:[12]) states "Stalin and the Politburo played major roles" and "[Responsability for the famine] has to be shared by the tens of thousands of activists and officials who carried out the policy and by the peasants who chose to slaughter animals, burn fields, and boycott cultivation in protest". He is clearly not saying at all "[I dismiss] as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime".

We are clearly in front of a misinterpretation from Cathy Young. Coplon does not say "it was not created by", Coplon says "it was co-created by", so that he recognizes the responsabilities of the Party and the State.

The situation created in this section is deeply troubling, as the conclusion "Jeff Coplon=Holodomor Denier" can put in the position of being "Holodomor Deniers" many sovietologist historians. In my opinion, since such statements are clearly crossing the boundaries of defamation and since Cathy Young is using a primary source that does not say at all what she states (so that her article fails verifiability), the part on Jeff Coplon should be deleted, as well as all the parts which refers to people that never denied the famine existence. This will probably need a close examination of the sources cited in the section. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: It is indeed a WP:BLP violation because it is in the section labeled "Modern Denial", which is nowhere defined. The section calls Coplon a Holodomor denier, which Young does not. Look, the article was written in 1988, and many people then, and still some people now assign responsibility in different ways. For instance, see this 1991 this Slavic Review article even questioning the category of the "man-made" to the famine. Also, the categorization of the event as genocide is very much disputed, with many good faith people disagreeing. See this article from 2009. If this kind of stuff is deemed to be denial of the Holodomor, a large part of historical scholarship would be deemed denial. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking about genocide, we have a separate page, Holodomor genocide question. This page is about a different, although related subject. If you think this is a BLP violation, please post a question on WP:BLPNB. No, I believe this is obviously not a BLP violation, but merely a sourced comment by a well known journalist. Does this info belong to this page? That's why I quoted subject headings by US Library of Congress. Yes, this thing does belong to the subject, which I think is a matter of trivial judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is useless arguing more. I will wait for comment by other people, or open an RfC if necessary. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that there is a new academic revisionist approach which has continued to ignore eyewitness accounts, research in Poland and Ukraine, and the research commissioned by Western grants and begun by Conquest, and with no students of this line of enquiry being supported by Western academic institutions. I'm afraid I'm about to pack it in for the day, but am more than happy to pursue this discussion further when I'm tired. As you've said yourself, Kingsindian, you're not familiar with this subject matter (is it safe to assume that the "Holodomor genocide question" is the article you found Tauger's piece in?). Personally, I don't even see how a subject this complex could even be well defined enough to set up as an RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I don't understand your reply at all, sorry. Perhaps you mean "when I'm not tired"? Have a good rest, and we will continue the discussion later. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Quite! Thanks, I'll log out now and return when I'm not cross-eyed. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's stay focused. We only disagree about Coplon. Kingsindian seem to argue that Coplon is so non-notable that his views should not be quoted anywhere including this page. Yes, this is something I probably can agree with. However, I would argue that Cathy Young is sufficiently notable to use her publication for sourcing on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing that Coplon is non-notable. I was arguing that about the other people though. I am arguing that nobody calls Coplon a Holodomor denier, including Cathy Young. Absent such a description, it is WP:OR (not to mention violating WP:BLP) to put him in the "Modern denial" section. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, as clear after reading the entire text, she explicitly uses expression "Holodomor denial" in her article and considers Coplon and Getty as people who belong to the same group as the famous "denialist" Walter Duranty (she mentioned him in a paragraph before Coplon). My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just replying to your comment about my argument - my argument is not that Coplon is non-notable. If you are arguing that J._Arch_Getty is also a Holodomor denier. Are you going to add him to the article? Pretty soon you will have half the historical scholarship on this page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not going to add anything here. I only responded to your comments by fixing a couple of paragraphs that need be fixed (I agree), but complete removal of the paragraph about Coplon is hardly justified, unless you argue that he is a totally non-notable writer, which you do not if I understand correctly. Speaking about the "deniers" in general (no matter if this is Holocaust, Armenian genocide or Holodomor), they do include academics and journalists. This is nothing unusual. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I am saying that if you claim that Cathy Young calls Coplon a denier, then also calls Getty a denier. If that is your position, he should be added to the article, since he is vastly more significant than Coplon - Getty being a historical scholar at a major university, who writes right up to the present day. It was meant as a reductio ad absurdum. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the difference between Coplon and Getty. Coplon is someone barely notable. I could not find any 3rd party sources about him except this article by Young. So whatever she tells about him should be included per WP:NPOV. If you can find other sources about him, they too should be used per WP:NPOV. As about Getty, his work and views are described in a larger number of publications, so one should really look through all of them to provide an adequate description. This is something I have no time to do, but you are very welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Find me one respectable scholar who calls Getty a "Holodomor denier". Cathy Young would not make such a ridiculous claim about Getty, yet your position is that Getty and Coplon are in the same category. But, as I said, it useless to argue more, your mind is made up. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your argument works against you because describing Getty as a revisionist historian/denier is not at all ridiculous, but probably a common place. For example, this book published by other academics in Oxford University Press describes his views as [13]

"similar in many ways to the line taken by the revisionist school in Germany, with its opposition to moral condemnation of Nazism, its call to "historicize" Nazism, and its objection to such crude terms as "heroes" and "villains"".

.

In other words, there is no source which calls him a "Holodomor denier". Perhaps you should read WP:OR again. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the article by Young (currently quoted on this page) does describe him and Coplon as modern-day followers of well known Holodomor denier Walter Duranty. However, to include Getty on this page one must check not only her article, but a lot more sources about his work to comply with WP:NPOV. That is what I said. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes -- I'm sorry but it appears that you don't read at all what we are writing you.

• 1) Coplon in "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust" (here:[14]) states "There was indeed a famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s." so that it's really clear from his articles that he never denied the Holodomor.
• 2) He also states "Stalin and the Politburo played major roles", so that he recognizes the responsabilities of the Party and the State. He is clearly not saying at all "[I dismiss] as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime" as Young states [15]. We are clearly in front of a misinterpretation from Cathy Young. Cathy Young is using a primary source [16] that does not say at all what she states (so that her opinion about Coplon fails verifiability).
• 3) Also Coplon writes: "By any scale, this is an enormous toll of human suffering", so that he is clearly not at all "diminishing the significance" of the famine.

You and Hyrina told me earlier that this source was good as a primary source here (but in first place you said yourself this was WP:OR [17]) and that this was not a good secondary source for other articles. Now it is evident it is the other way around: this source is absolutely not good at all in order to show that Coplon is a "Holodomor Denier". The part regarding Coplon should be deleted and the other parts as well need a close verification of the sources.

I understand that in your personal POV you are sure he is a "holodomor denier" but this is not reported in any source you are citing. If you don't find a reliable source this is just a WP:OR because the conclusion "Jeff Coplon=Holodomor Denier" is not contained in the references given, thus should be deleted. In fact, as stated by Kingsindian, nobody calls Coplon a Holodomor denier. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(a) no, it is contained in the reference (see my comment above), and (b) in this and many other comments you are trying to disprove something that RS tell which qualifies as WP:OR, even if you were an expert on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry but I read all the Young article, both pages [18][19], and I could only find this: "In November 2006, the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill proclaiming the Holodomor a genocide and making Holodomor denial "unlawful."" It is not written at all "Coplon and Getty are Holodomor deniers", neither it's written they are so for the Ukrainian parliament. Also, as I wrote above, Coplon doesn't deny the Holodor existence and doesn't diminish its significance. Coplon being in the "Modern Denial" section is not supported by any evidence, thus is WP:OR and should be deleted. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• It is abundantly clear what she means because she tells about them as modern-day followers of Walter Duranty. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy looks to be busy elsewhere, so I am going ahead with the edit. As far as I can see, there is only one editor My very best wishes who wishes to include the material about Coplon labeling him a Holodomor denier. There seems to be no consensus for this, and per WP:ONUS, the burden for consensus rests on the editor wishing to keep the content. Feel free to discuss this more here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, you are busy trying to rush through changes on the pretext that I am busy elsewhere. Yes, indeed, that has been so. This, however, is not an RfC, an AfD, or even an RM where there are time constraints placed on discussions regarding content, therefore the fact that you have decided that Coplon probably isn't a Holodomor denial (having admitted that your knowledge of this subject is highly limited) is false consensus. Two against one does not make for consensus, nor does it accommodate NPOV. As has already been pointed out (several times over) by My very best wishes, we have an RS in Young calling him a Holodomor denier... therefore there is no BLPVIO in need of being quickly eliminated. It is attributed. Any other arguments need to wait until I'm not bogged down in edit warring on other articles and IRL issues.

On that understanding, I'm reverting your elimination of long standing content which has not really been well discussed with editors who actually know the subject matter. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I am not trying to "rush through anything" - after all I waited five days. The "long standing content" which you talk about had zero sources, and cannot be treated as stable. The newer version has very little, if anything to do with the old content. You are free to take as much time as you like, and if you want, I can create an RfC for this, but meanwhile there is no consensus, and the material should stay out, per WP:ONUS and WP:BLP. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You tell: "The newer version has very little, if anything to do with the old content". No, this is exactly the same claim as before, except that it has been rephrased, the previously unsourced text was removed, and the remaining text was properly sourced. Iryna was right. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's the old version, here is the new version. There is exactly one sentence common (Coplon's article was "inspired" by Tottle), which is again unsourced and plain WP:OR - the source is to Coplon's article which states no such thing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

changing the text of the rfc

Please stop. This has been objected to time and again. And there is no consensus for the new text either. It seriously mischaracterizes Coplon's position (it does not even mention his position on the famine / genocide among other things) And it is even different from the earlier version what happened to the Duranti stuff?. Please do not insert this again without getting consensus on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit was made in response to criticism by another contributor who agreed with this edit [20]. The only person who objects to this edit is you. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly the text is different from the one agreed to. Secondly, Flushout also disagrees with the text and gave their reasons. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, Flushout disagreed with another edit. I modified this text to satisfy the request by Flushout, i.e. to keep the original fragment text exactly as it was in the RfC. I am waiting however for Flushout to provide source(s) which support his latest edit [21]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You do understand that adding text to some other text can change the meaning and emphasis? You have completely ignored their and my flat request to not change the text and their and my reasons for opposing the new additions. Changing the text in the middle of an RfC is the height of disruption.Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, in my edit I did not change a single word in the text included in RfC. But given your non-cooperative approach, I would rather avoid editing this page for a while and possibly return later. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@ My very best wishes -- Just leave the section as it was at the beginning of the Rfc e.g. as you yourself edited the 1st of November [22]. You should have not a problem with that, as the text present in there it is your version of the section. It's quite clear that you finally aknowledged that the Tottle heading you previously supported was pure WP:OR however this cannot block the Rfc ongoing. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

we have reached an agreement that the rfc section will not be changed till the rfc finishes so this matter can be put to rest. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, even I would suppose to answer "no" to the question of this RfC ("Should the "Modern Denial" section contain the following?"). "No" because the beginning of the statement ("Tottle's book inspired a number of articles ") is not supported by any sources. But the actual question is very different: how this must be fixed? That was my suggestion based on comments by contributors who said "no" at the moment of the edit. This RfC does not really answer that question.My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is why an RfC is not a vote. Several people who have said "no", have indicated in their comments as to how it could be fixed. This includes removal, changing the text, attribution, changing the section title etc. When the RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor, they will summarize the argument and indicate the way forward. If people simply objected to the first sentence (rather than Young's description), they would indicate it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple. Three last commentators said that the text was not good as biased and insufficiently referenced. That's fine. Let's agree. Would including additional references and changing the text (as I did in my edit above) resolve these problems? My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As to how 'useful' this RfC is proving to be, and the calibre of evaluation of the sources, this is extremely revealing as to whose opinions are reflected. It's basically advertising for anyone who doesn't know anything about the subject at hand to make badly informed decisions as to the content. RfC's and specialised subjects make for bad companions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but I am busy and do not really care about anything here, even if people will delete all these pages. Good luck, My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I've had pretty much all I can take of it myself. The Holodomor article has also brought in a fresh wave of 'interest' in reworking it into oblivion (apparently it should be "Famine in Ukraine 1932-1933" because "Holodomor" is a 'neologism' and isn't recognised by some people's spell checkers). Frankly, I'm ready to leave these articles to the IDONTLIKEIT POV-ers. Let the RT Crusades begin! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not at all interested in this page about "useful idiots" and only get involved because of the effort by Kingsindian. If other people want to do something here, let them do it. Not sure if you realized how this works. You have a minor disagreement with someone, but the more you argue the stronger the resistance and the bigger the problem. Finally, everyone ends up wasting a lot of nerves and time. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I am afraid I totally disagree with you. I have opened numerous RfCs in the Israel-Palestine area, and it is my experience that the outside editors are the ones who make the most sense, and help break the deadlock. Specialists in an area are often entrenched in partisan positions and can't see the big picture (I include myself in this). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: That's fine. I'd consider it a problem if we always agreed on everything. It doesn't mean that I have any less respect for you as an editor, but I disagree as to RfC's on specialist topics. Whatever the outcome, I'll abide by it... mainly because I'm outta here on this and all of the Holodomor articles. I've been squeezed dry. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jeff Coplon in the "Modern Denial" section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against the text suggested in the RFC. The majority opinion is that the text is undue as its a single journalistic source. There are other concerns that include not specifically naming Coplon a denier, doing so may be WP:OR. AlbinoFerret 23:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the "Modern Denial" section contain the following?

Tottle's book inspired a number of articles such as Jeff Coplon's article "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust". In the article, according to Cathy Young, Coplon sneered at "the prevailing vogue of anti-Stalinism" and dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime. Such talk, he asserted, was meant to justify U.S. imperialism and whitewash Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis.".

References

11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• No: The concept "Modern Denial" isn't defined anywhere. There is no source which calls Coplon a "Holodomor denier" or anything like it. The only source cited is a journalist (Cathy Young) who does not call Coplon a "denier". Young is not an expert, and her assertion is flatly inconsistent with the text of Coplon's article ("By general consensus, Stalin was partially responsible."). If Coplon is labeled a "denier" based on this source, J. Arch Getty (who is also criticized by Young in the same breath) should also be labeled one, and he is much much more significant than Coplon. One of the few scholarly sources mentioning Coplon I found was this, (which is quite critical of Coplon and Getty), refers to Coplon simply as "author". It labels neither Getty nor Coplon as a denier. The Soviet authorities are the ones referred to as "deniers". Jeff Coplon is alive, so WP:BLP applies as well. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. In the quoted source Cathy Young describes Coplon as a modern-day follower of well known Holodomor denier Walter Duranty and she uses term "Holodomor denial" in her paper. Therefore, the inclusion is consistent with the source and does not represent WP:OR in my opinion. Yes, one could reasonably argue that Coplon is someone so unnotable that his views should not be mentioned anywhere, however I think that Cathy Young is sufficiently notable to use her article for sourcing here. Arch Getty is mostly known as a denier of Stalinist crimes in general (including Stalin being responsible for the Great Purge and Holodomor), rather than specifically for Holodomor denial.

P.S. This has nothing to do with BLP violations, and even not a negative material about a living person. If someone (like Coplon) holds a view that the claims by Ukrainians and many others about the famine being created by the Communist regime "was meant to justify U.S. imperialism and whitewash Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis", it is his right to have such view. This is something he openly tells in his publication, but we should cite 3rd party source (Cathy Young) to avoid WP:OR. (My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• No I think a version of this can and probably should be included, but not in the form presented above. First it should not have its own heading. It should be included as a paragraph or even better part of a paragraph under the Tottle heading. Also it says it inspired a "number of other articles", but only one is mentioned so this should be reworded or more examples found. We don't need to rely on secondary sources to present this information, primary ones are fine as long as we don't try and interpret the information, so I don't see any harm in saying exactly what he says. This is probably more important when the secondary source seems to have some degree of political motivation. I think inclusion of Coplon saying that "Stalin was partially responsible" would add balance to Youngs comments. Also the middle and last sentence proposed above is pretty much directly lifted from the article so needs to be changed in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be wrong because "Stalin was partially responsible" is not the proper summary or the point of the publication by Coplon. His main idea is reflected in the title In Search of a SOVIET HOLOCAUST. A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right. And saying something like "Nazi were partially responsible for the Holocaust" would still be a denial. Any comments by 3rd parties on the subject like that would be "political", so Young is a fine 3rd party source. I agree that quoting the original paper by Copmlon (as in old version) may also be fine, but only if this is done properly. My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So, this is now fixed in line with you suggestion: to include something that Coplon is actually saying. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks a lot better. Still not sure if it deserves it own heading. Maybe some of the less notable authors could be combined, but in general I am happy with how it is now[23]. AIRcorn (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes provisionally, this is a question of weight and phrasing as much as yes/no. I don't see the need to define 'denial', the definitions apt to each individual of specifically to what extent and what aspects they are questioning the 'general view' are within/should be within the text of each individual. Whether a less problematic section title would help, I am not sure, since the whole article is about 'denial. I endorse the first part of Aircorn's post. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Yes This is good material. Cathy Young's piece is excellent. The reader will find the right sources with this inclusion, and will be able to draw her own conclusion. SageRad (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• No Please read what I wrote above in [24] on this page. Also we need a clarification on what it means "diminish the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933" according to the US Library of Congress [25]. If someone find a list of works collected by the US Library of Congress as being "Holodomor Denial Literature" then we could insert it at the head of the Modern denial section: "According to the US Library of Congress these authors and works etc." and cite Coplon accordingly if he is regarded so by the USLC. If no one finds such piece of evidence or anothere evidence on the same line, then we are still in plain OR, as we are still in front of an editor's interpretation. Cathy Young is a very poor source which misinterpreted the original source, not sufficent in order to do that. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Yes Addressing concerns raised: "Cathy Young is a very poor source which misinterpreted the original source..." is what I call a POV and OR argument for exclusion, and yet another entry in the chapter of the prolonged circular arguments. Flushout1999, what you are doing is Wikilawyering: tweaking at WP:BURDEN, WP:OR and WP:BLPVIO in order to counter the intent of policies is bad form. Either you have overly exacting standards for BURDEN, or you're so determined to redact what you don't want that you can't let it go. Regarding the Library of Congress, I see no claims that what they have catalogued is an exhaustive list of Holodomor Denial literature. What they have is, in fact, only the tip of the iceberg (and that's English language publications alone). The section on Coplon has been reworked incorporating intext attribution to Kathy Young in clear terms, plus Coplon's own essay in terms that don't even begin to reflect the temerity of the language of his essay. Where do we go next? Do I ask you to prove that Coplon is not a Holodomor denier? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• No. Summoned by bot. I'm not opposed in principle to any reference to Coplon's article. However, the text as proposed looks like copyvio (taken from Young's article), and is obviously hostile, not neutral, in regards to Coplon's article. Just adding the phrase "according to Cathy Young" doesn't open the way for anything that might follow, from an editorial perspective, including replicating her various accusations. -Darouet (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

And I've seen no rebuttal of Kingsindian's excellent points. -Darouet (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• No. Summoned by bot This is a rather hostile characterization of Coplon's position, and especially given that Coplon is still alive, is rather problematic. Attribution is required at the very least (according to Cathy Young...) but even that is questionable, given that she is a journalist, and not an expert on history. Surely there are better reviews, or even just other reviews, of Coplon's work? I am no expert on this topic, but this might be a place to start. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• No. Undue to include this person with only a single source mentioning them in passing. If they are included it should be noted that they made this statement before the archives opened up as Young also notes. Brustopher (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• No. Summoned by RfC bot. Agree that it's undue weight, and I think the entire "modern denial" section is far too long as it is. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• This is loaded question. Should this stay or be removed? Neither. This should be improved by providing more references, more context and rephrasing, and this could be done long time ago [26], unless Kingsindian submitted this RfC and used it to stop improvements (see discussion below [27]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My objection was to changing the text in the middle of the RfC. Incidentally, you agreed to refrain from changing the text, so I don't know why you are complaining now. I did not submit the RfC to stop improvements. The "improvements" (which I oppose for reasons already stated) came after I started the RfC. I waited 5 days to start the RfC; no "improvements" were made in the meantime. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Starting RfC on every insignificant question one disagrees about is not helpful and waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion here. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Where exactly does Young call Getty and Coplon modern day followers of Duranty? I could not find any phrasing in the article like this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It tells: "Meanwhile, the famine remains little known in the West, despite efforts by the Ukrainian diaspora. Indeed, the West has its own inglorious history with regard to the famine, starting with the deliberate cover-up by Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty. In the late 1980s, the famine gained new visibility thanks to Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (1987) and the TV documentary Harvest of Despair, aired in the United States and Canada. A backlash from the left was quick to follow. Revisionist Sovietologist J. Arch Getty accused Conquest of parroting the propaganda of "exiled nationalists." And in January 1988, the Village Voice ran a lengthy essay by Jeff Coplon (now a contributing editor at New York magazine) titled "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right." Coplon sneered at "the prevailing vogue of anti-Stalinism" and dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime. Such talk, he asserted, was meant to justify U.S. imperialism and whitewash Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis. " My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You could have just said: "it is my interpretation of the article". Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, this is something she tells. She does not call them "followers of Duranty". She describes them as followers of Duranty. I think the meaning of the text is very much clear, especially for someone familiar with the subject. And remember, it was not me who included Coplon into this page in 2007. People who did it knew this subject better than me. But I am ready to agree with any outcome of this RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, the introduction of the content was in order to provide a context for an uninitiated reader to comprehend the evolution of the denial debate, bearing in mind the fact of there having been a famine having been suppressed by the Soviet Union, and perpetuated as good coin by the Western media, for many decades. Had there been a Wikipedia prior the disintegration of the Soviet Union, suggesting that a little bit of a famine (outside of a little bit of a drought hiccup) would have been tossed out as WP:FRINGE. Context and a reticence to let go of 'traditional historical ideas' has played a major part in international perception on behalf of scholars and journalists, remembering that journalists have acted as the 'voice' of selected scholars where evidence has had ample time for the NKVD to clean house (60 years of it, in fact). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: The issue is that "evolution of the denial debate" is nowhere defined. And where does "denial" end and legitimate scholarship begin? These are not matters to be decided by Wikipedia editors. Listing Coplon in the "Modern Denial" section is simply another way of calling him a "denier". That should not be done absent explicit evidence, preferably a lot of evidence. The fact that Getty, (who is a major Sovietologist, who has published a book with Yale University Press in 2013) can be labeled a denier based on the same argument is simply another indication of how the whole thing is absurdly WP:OR. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, this is a circular argument already qualified for you by My very best wishes. Both are cited by Cathy Young. You say that you can't see it, therefore it's a projection of her intent (or how she perceives them in the context of her article). Both MVBW and I read it as being so deeply implicit to the article that it's explicit. I doubt that there is any footage of a knock-down brawl on Jerry Springer with her yelling, "You're a Holodomor denier" at either of them. It seems that you won't feel convinced until you encounter anything so absolutely explicit. Honestly, there's no point in going over and over the same ground because we're going to have to agree to disagree without malice or disrespect for each other's positions. I think we should leave this for the RfC before we all need a couple of aspirins and a lie down. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly legitimate to expect someone to be called a "Holodomor denier" or something like it in sources if one is to be labeled one on Wikipedia. This is a matter of basic decency, not to mention WP:BLP. Compare the people mentioned at Holocaust denial, the references are to court cases, historians, scholars etc. labeling them, instead of Wikipedia editors. But, as you state, it is useless arguing about this more. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you would nor argue if someone was described as a Holocaust denier for telling that Nazi were not responsible for it. But that is what Coplon is telling: Soviet authorities were not responsible for Holodomor. My very best wishes (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes -- As I stated above in the article Coplon states "Stalin and the Politburo played major roles", so that he recognizes the responsabilities of the Party and the State. He is clearly not stating they were not responsible. The problem here seems to be that, for you and Cathy Young, he is not stating "Soviet authorities were the sole responsible for Holodomor" implying planning. But, again, most of sovietologists says the same of what Coplon says. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm writing this while also suffering from irynaharpyitis (drooping eyelids), however my initial reaction is to note that the section is called 'denial', not 'deniers'. To that extent it is legitimate to note any questioning of the generally accepted version. Just as other classic 'denials' include those who question details, not simply deny the whole event (Srebenica denial includes those who question the scale, those who question massacre/simply war, question premeditation, and those who do not deny the event, but deny 'genocide' is apt … ditto holocaust denial, did AH know?). How exactly this should be phrased, and whether the proposed text is justified, I would need to be more awake to express an opinion on, but including the info seems legit. Pincrete (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the Young comment because whoever put it in just copy pasted it from her article. She actually says very little of substance about Coplon himself. She just describes what he says in his article instead of actually critiquing it, so I am not sure how to present this in this article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

She does not tell anything about Coplon, but she tells about his paper on Holodomor denial.My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Taking a minor tract of Cathy Young's article (complete with INTEXT attribution) is not a copyright issue. As has been noted, if you are concerned that it breaches COPYVIO, it needs to be addressed at the correct venue. As regards placing Coplon's position under the Tottle heading, Coplon has been published in his own right (i.e., Village Voice), therefore discussing him as a subsidiary of Tottle is equally OR as his writings/opinions have been drawn on in their own right. As an aside, I just want to add, "Oh, my aching head." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the correct place. It is literally taken word-from-word from the article so at the very least is a direct quote and should be presented as such. Since the lifted text contains two sentences and a quote itself this would not only be the height of laziness, but very bad form. Also it is the only two sentences in her entire paper that apply to Coplon's article so it is not a minor tract, but the only tract. As to the heading the very first sentence says that Coplon was influenced by Tottle so it is linked or something needs to change. You even have a paragraph under Tottle saying "other similar writings". Original research is being thrown around here like candy from a lolly scramble without too much understanding of how the concept works. AIRcorn (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's fix it. And I agree with one of your suggestions above: to include direct quotations from works by Coplon. However his main idea was not about Stalin, but about Holodomor being used as propaganda to feed "the right". My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To all: Firstly please dont change the text in the middle of a rfc otherwise how will people know? let it run for the full duration. Second please keep in mind that this is the page for denial and not for general discusion of the holodomor. There is already a page which discusses the genocide question and the causes of the famine. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Current version still contains the phrase that was questioned in the RfC. We are making some progress and work to improve this page. Please do not use RfC to freeze wrong version. There is no such requirement.My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you Calling the version you wrote yourself earlier the wrong version? And please dont cite iar to make changes. Let people comment on a stable version. There is no hurry. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was wrong version. I fixed it to satisfy criticism by another contributor who agreed with changes [28]. Now you are reverting it back without providing any valid (content-based) arguments. This is not constructive. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

can someone else comment here? How exactly is one supposed to ask for comments if people change the text in the middle of the rfc? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone agree already do not include the beginning of the phrase ("Tottle's book inspired a number of articles ...") - removed. However, the quotation of Young remains exactly as it was in the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian is correct, you should not change text while discussion is on going. Also, Coplon's criticism of Reagan and Ukrainian nationalists does not constitute in itself "Holodomor Denial", and the citation given about New York state schoolchildren is totally out of contest: Coplon calls disinformation the act of stating that the famine was "government-planned and -controlled".[29].

In agreement with Coplon are even Stephen Wheatcroft and the later Robert Conquest: "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 interest” other than feeding the starving first – thus consciously abetting it”", "Wheatcroft opposed the genocidal famine concept almost as soon as Conquest’s The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine hit the shelves. In fact, he considered it his personal merit that Conquest abandoned this claim. He focused on this when addressing the roundtable, repeating the conclusions from the book he co-authored with Davies: the Soviet government was then struggling to overcome a famine partially caused by its political course, but this famine was unanticipated and undesirable." (from here: [30]). -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not include any statements unsupported by any sources ("Tottle's book inspired a number of articles") - as you just did [31]. This is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop claiming that your earlier version [32] of Jeff Coplon's section is not yours. Stick to the procedure and wait for end of Rfc discussion. Your earlier version was WP:OR (as you are stating now) and we have still this discussion ongoing because of this. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• This edit summary... It was not me who included this part of the phrase. But OK, let's consider this to be my mistake. I fixed it per comments by other contributors. Now, you revert it back over my objections. Why? To prove that I am a bad contributor? My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Read again what I wrote earlier and above. We are in the middle of a Rfc discussion. Tottle's heading in the section is a minor problem and to drop it does not resolve the main problem about the Jeff Coplon's section. Until discussion is not over the Jeff Coplon's section should remain untouched.

Did you read what I wrote above about Stephen Wheatcroft and Robert Conquest? We need a clear definition of what means to "diminish the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933". If you think anybody denying that the famine was government-planned and -controlled is a "Holodomor Denier" or is one who engaged in Holodomor denial, then you should consider also these two historians as Holodomor deniers. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Everyone is responsible only for his own edits. You made this edit. Hence I am asking you: what was your source for including this phrase "Tottle's book inspired a number of articles such as...". If you can provide such source(s), then fine, I agree in advance with this. However, if you can not, please stop making WP:OR around here. I do not make any claims. As already noted above, according to US Library of Congress subject headings, the "Holodomor denial" literature includes works that "diminish the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or assert that it did not occur" [33] where claims by Coplon obviously belong, in addition to other sources, such as the paper by Young. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Pincrete: When you say that denial need not be wholesale to be denial, I of course agree with you. The question is who decides the boundary? Coplon's position is stated clearly in his article: "There was a famine, Stalin and the politburo played major roles in it, but this did not constitute genocide." Who decided that this position constitutes Holodomor denial? Read the last sentence of the lead which flatly states that these are matters of active scholarship.

 There is already a WP article dealing with the genocide question. I have no problem if Coplon is mentioned there.

To add to the absurdity, I mentioned that Getty (along with many other scholars) holds the same position and this would make him a "denier". But I now read that Getty is "a modern day folllower of Duranty", an assertion even Young doesn't make. Anyway , why would we take as gospel the offhand view of a non-expert journalist over the viewpoint of a major sovietologist who wrote a recent book on Stalin published by Yale University press? This is of course not to say that Getty is right but that this is a perfectly legitimate position to hold. @Aircorn: In addition to the above comments, I would like to bring to your attention that pretty much every new sentence in the version you said you were happy  with is OR. See my comments on Duranty above. The characterization of Coplon 's position on the nazis etc. is also a fantasy. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly the problem is with the section title, which could be construed as judgemental, whereas the text is reporting 'degrees of questioning'. I can't comment on 'Getty' as I simply don't know. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Pincrete: As you yourself said, the whole article is about denial and in any case no proposal has been made to change the section heading. There is a separate article about the genocide question. The inclusion of Coplon here is meant to be judgemental. As to Getty, Coplon quotes him (among others) in his article and Young criticizes Getty in the same breath as Coplon in her article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explanation for my recent removal of information (copied from my talk page)

I have unhatted the discussion because it is relevant. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(From User talk:Brustopher)

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Denial of the Holodomor, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Do not engage in mass removal of referenced content on controversial articles per WP:BOLD. Note that BOLD changes must be done with caution, particularly as the article is under WP:ARBEE sanctions. Being on a bot generated RfC list does not automatically entitle you to redact an article when the subject matter is quite evidently unknown to you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you for the very helpful template. I now realise that I merely meant to make some test edits and will use my sandbox accordingly. But in all seriousness I cannot see how what I did is wrong. I removed unsourced negative claims about BLPs (and there is no scenario, eastern europe or not) where this is a bad thing. The other things I removed were completely original research and based only on primary sources. This is once again a clear cut case of something being wrong. I know that I am young and naive in the ways of Eastern Europe, but I seriously have no clue how anything I did can be construed even remotely as BOLD let alone disruptive. Brustopher (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Self revert before you get caught up in an edit war. If you don't know the subject matter, read the talk page and the current RfC (the RfC bot being the only reason you involved yourself in the article). I am assuming good faith on your behalf... but you're correct, you don't know the subject matter. If you are interested in familiarising yourself with the topic, by all means do some serious reading up on the issues (and by that, I mean serious academics pertaining to the Holodomor in general). I'm simply trying to alert (but not alarm) you as to making assumptions over BLPVIO and who is relevant and who is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: As a talk page lurker, I'd point out to you that Brustopher is an experienced editor who is very well acquainted with BP:BLP and its discontents. He is, of course, correct in writing that WP:BLP and WP:RS apply everywhere. So, you will recall, does WP:CIVILITY. It is not customary on Wikipedia to require an advanced degree in the topic area in order to edit, or to demand credentials, and when you write that "you’re correct, you don’t know the subject matter,” a bystander might wonder whether you yourself are entirely in compliance with our scarred fifth pillar. One of Brustopher’s edits did remove an assertion about a BLP which did not, to my trained but non-specialist eye, appear to be supported; rather than asserting that he doesn’t know the field, wouldn’t it be better for everyone and the encyclopedia to add the pertinent reference? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:Well I've been studying Soviet history (mostly gulags) for the past 2 months at university but I've admittedly been doing a truly half-assed job at it, and the Holodomor's not really come up. I wouldn't say I'm a complete fool though. I made two kinds of removal. I removed statements which are unsourced and about living people. If these statements are true, and I just know nothing, then I'm sure people who know better than me will have no problem finding sources to support them. The second sort of thing I removed is original research about specific Holodomor deniers. For instance, Mario Sousa, a man so seemingly irrelevant that nothing of interest comes up when you google him other than this Wikipedia article, and the primary source it cites. Of course, yet again, this could just be me knowing nothing and Sousa could be a man of great notoriety in academic circles. Although if this is the case, it should once again be very easy for editors who know better than me to provide reliable secondary sources about him. Same for John Puntis who seems equally irrelevant. If this is a case of me being an ignorant fool, please prove it. It's delightfully humbling to find out that there's so much more to learn out there.Brustopher (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If I may, I think the pertinent point here is that the reader is bound to want to know the source for these critical assertions, and the absence of a source makes the article less authoritative than in ought to be. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In which case, I invite both you, MarkBernstein, and Brustopher to actually participate in the RfC. Also, please define 'experienced'. Yeomen ≠ experienced. I'm not, however, going to try to maintain a dialogue here. This is something for the article's talk page, not a user talk page. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As Iryna Harpy suggested I continue the conversation here.Brustopher (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I was myself planning to address the Douglas Tottle section next. It is filled with WP:OR. You will notice that Brustopher has removed some of the content I had also flagged as WP:OR. Great minds think alike. :P. That said, I would like to remind Brustopher that these areas are contentious, so one must tread carefully, so as to not step on too many toes inadvertently. I find it good to discuss more and edit the main page less. This area is also under a WP:1RR restriction. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sousa is a Swedish communist writer publishing in the net and Swedish Communist paper.

Puntis is supported by the Stalin Society. I'm not sure if the Society is notable.

Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I too do not see this edit as anything dramatic. First of all, the unsourced claims should indeed be sourced. Second, Mario Souza and John Puntis are indeed hardly notable (unless someone can bring secondary sources about them). However, I would like to caution against removal of texts on the ground that some sources are "primary". For example, making a reference to a book by Tottle in a section about Tottle is completely appropriate. Same about others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you there. I meant more in situations where someone (like Souza or Puntis) is added to the article based only on primary sources they have written. I guess I could have phrased it better. Primary sources can be used to supplement secondary sources when necessary. Brustopher (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Right. I agree. Supplementing secondary sources (like Cathy Young) by primary sources (like those published by Coplon himself). That is exactly what I did here [34], but was reverted by Kingsindian. If you can do it better, then fine. Please do. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So, the RfC was closed, and I certainly agree with the closer that text should not be kept as it was. It should be improved by providing more refs and context - possibly like in the diff above. However, anyone is welcome to suggest better improvements. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

My position is that the whole "Modern Denial" section is a mess - the concept is nowhere defined. "Modern" should refer to the era post-dissolution of the Soviet Union and the availability of archival sources which were not present earlier. Furthermore, my position is that Coplon is not a denier, and there exist no sources labeling him as such. He is barely even notable. This page should concentrate on scholars and people in positions of power, (like the Russian government) who were/are deniers and lay out their positions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"lay out their positions". Yes, that is exactly what Coplon did. The argument that he is not notabale is questionable given that we have a page about him. And he has been undisputably described as a follower of Durnanty (who do belongs to this page), if not an outright "denier". You are obviously entitled to your opinion.My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus

In fact, the article directly contradicts another article it links to, Holodomor genocide question, which states, "There is no international consensus among scholars or governments on whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine fall under the legal definition of genocide" for which two sources are provided. I will be replacing the statement about consensus in the lead for the sake of consistency and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolution Saga (talk • contribs) 04:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit because it seems to be a misreading. There is consensus on the famine, there isn't consensus about genocide. You changed the sentence about the famine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Material about Jeff Coplon

@My very best wishes: I am saying this for the last time. I have already asked at least 5 times for this content not to be included. By no stretch of imagination could the content you are trying to add be construed as having consensus or satisfying the RfC. There was exactly one person in the RfC who agreed with the change you made explicitly. If you wish to include this, it is very simple: open an RfC and ask people like I did. I even offer to create the RfC for you if you like. Keep in mind that per WP:ONUS it is the responsibility for the person who wishes to include content to find consensus. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, the older version was not good and therefore it had to be at least rewritten, expanded and better sourced. That is what I did to reflect critical comments made by several contributors during this RfC. I think that starting yet another RfC about a relatively minor disagreement (such as that one) would be disruptive and therefore will not do it. OK, I made my opinion clear. Let's see what other contributors think about it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian Actually, it's a bit of a non-RfC kind of RfC. The fracas was initiated by an editor who was something of a WP:POV warrior and has (wisely) disappeared since November. Editors who !voted and removed content during the RfC only involved themselves long enough to do so, !vote, then return to whatever areas of Wikipedia they work on. Of course uninvolved editors are welcome to join in an RfC... but how is removing content during the RfC is okay if it's content you don't want, but slapping MVBW's hand for trying to tidy content is a no-no according to your rule book. The RfC was closed by a non-admin who (wisely) only summarised points made in about the content to be included or excluded according to the RfC, but did not weigh in on conclusions to be drawn. Considering that this is an ARBEE sanctioned article, I would suggest that we request that an admin should be brought in to close and draw conclusions. Like My very best wishes, I found the 'in or out' phrasing of the RfC far too absolutist to be constructive. While I'm not bewailing the loss of WP:FRINGE Stalinist views, etc., I don't think it is constructive to push MVBW into some sort of WP:GRUDGE match by heading down the path of a tit-for-tat RfC competition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• More you go ahead with this issue (you simply cannot let it go), more it becomes apparent to everybody that throughtout this talk page there are two WP:POV warriors, one named My very best wishes, the other Iryna Harpy who both refuse to accept WP:CONSENSUS and are quitly disruptive and disrespectful of all the other editors. Two who are discussing here with the sole purpose to push their own point of view "Jeff Coplon=Holodomor Denier" while still failing to find even one single WP:RS reliable source stating that openly and not through one editor's interpretation (which is WP:OR original research). I invited you more than one time to find a reliable source in order to back up your claims if it was possible to do so, but it is now abundantly evident that simply this WP:RS it does not exist. Frankly I will avoid to discuss your personal goals you are trying to push forward here and which, by any means, I cannot know and frankly I am not interested with, but this is certainly not a constructive way to build a more complete and free encyclopedia based on mutual collaboration.
• PS: Also I would like to remember everybody that the discussion here was initiate by My very best wishes who, the first time he read the Coplon section (here:[35]), he labeled it (everybody could say now: correctly) as WP:OR, but right after changed his mind about it, starting being disruptive towards the other editors. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Flushout1999: There is no need to be belligerent. Editors are allowed to have POV, it is normal in politics areas. One tries to edit while keeping this in mind. By the way, there is no disrespect between me and Iryna Harpy, we just disagree on this, that's all. You might also want to read WP:GLUE. Right now, the status quo is that the Coplon material is left out. People who wish to include it are free to make fresh attempts to include it. See WP:CCC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right, we should discuss primarly on content and reliable sources (if they are going to be found). -- Flushout1999 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna. Sorry, but I would rather discuss content. Here is my last edit. Would you agree/disagree with such edit? It well could be that this material should be rephrased or possibly not included at all. What do you think? But whatever you think, this is not anything urgent since I probably will not be editing next week, so there is plenty of time. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I do think it is of merit, which is why I'm trying to open up some form of dialogue other than permutations on, "No, the RfC has ruled on this." You're addition did qualify Coplon's position and, while it could be tightened up (i.e., "... where he tried to associate those who continued to bring the Holodomor to the attention of the public with the Nazis..." would become "... where he associated those who continued..."), is significant to this article. I also don't see why Conquest's letter to the editor of the "Village Voice" isn't cited here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Conquest's letter is not cited because it does not say at all "Jeff Coplon is a Holodomor denier". You linked the letter, good, so everybody can read it. (Actually is far more interesting to read James Mace's letter in the same page, he writes: "no responsible scholar [...] would tolerate any attempt to equate the Ukranian famine and the Holocaust", and it must be noted he asserted that the Holodomor was a genocide. A good reminder for someone here). -- Flushout1999 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:

• Admins have no more or less power to close RfCs than anyone else. I myself have closed many RfCs. See WP:ANRFC point 3. If you really want to contest the close, you can open a thread on WP:AN - that is the proper way, as stated here.
• I do not know what you mean by "non-RfC kind of RfC". I have opened numerous RfCs in the Israel-Palestine area on this model, and nobody has ever complained. And I have no idea what you mean by but how is removing content during the RfC is okay if it's content you don't want, but slapping MVBW's hand for trying to tidy content is a no-no according to your rule book. All I asked was that the text should not be changed while the RfC is going on - and I objected to everyone doing this, not just MVBW. By no stretch of imagination can MBBV's edit be described as "tidy content"; look at the new text, and compare it with the previous text.
• We can cut through this whole discussion very simply: open an RfC with the new text, and ask people whether it should be included. I am rather baffled that you consider this a WP:GRUDGE behaviour. On the contrary, I suggested this there is no point in arguing, we have made our positions clear to each other. I am not going to change MVBW's mind, and they are not going to change mine. Time for WP:DR. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Given there's only one non-academic source mentioning him in passing that has been provided so far, I strongly oppose the mention of Getty in MVBW's proposed edit. Also if Coplon's contribution to the history of Holodomor denial is so important as to warrant an article section, there should really be more secondary coverage cited.Brustopher (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Brustopher (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The ultimate irony surrounding this BLPVIO issue is that we're not discussing content that has just been introduced, but content that, in going back through the history of this article, has stood since February of 2008. That's nearly 8 years of being mirrored, redistributed and used by numerous other sources as a tertiary resource... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It's probably more astonishing to see on how a section not properly sourced has been allowed to be present on wikipedia for 8 years for no apparent reason, while being quite defamating on this particular journalist. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with K and B, but would not waste my time on this right now. My very best wishes (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This has WP-citable sources and was written in virtually perfect English. When editors become censors--the Stalinists/Bolshevists, Nazis, or others in betw.--bad things R bound to happen. Your "RfC" above was garbage, as was the conclusion of the closing editor. Consensus is NOT a majority vote, especially not a 7-4 vote by a small cluster of like-minded censors. A real RfC would have a lot more contributing editors including non-idealogues, and even then would not be closed on a narrow "majority vote." That completely miscomprhends consensus.

It's not very clever at all to use WP editing rules as a small pack of coyotes might corner a fawn to defeat an editor's ability to contribute. I can say as a long-time WP editor and a native speaker who has taught research and writing, it would have taken me probably at least 1.5-2 hours to source and compose the material the editor has contributed. I imagine it would take a non-native English user, even a very proficient one like My very best wishes significantly longer. It's the gang-bang/coyote pack mentality that exploits the "anyone-can-edit" framework of WP to push a certain POV such as is at work here that wrecks WP for everybody. Paavo273 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You should perhaps check the history of the page. If you were Jeff Coplon, you might find it rather more serious that the allegation that Coplon is a "Holodomor denier" was in the article for 7 years, totally unsourced. The respondents of the RfCs were not "a small cluster of like-minded editors". Many people explicitly state that they were summoned by the RfC bot, and many others, including myself, have basically never edited an Eastern Europe article before. Since you are a long-time editor, perhaps you can tell us how the dispute should have been resolved. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Obviously, there was no consensus on the RfC not to improve the text in question, for example by providing better sourcing, rewriting, expanding, etc. Given that, I do not see any problems with my recent edit which represents improvement of this text. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So, I made yet another version, with the following changes: (a) no specific subsection was created for Coplon - as suggested by Brustopher - I agree, and (b) reference to the letter by Robert Conquest was included - as suggested by Iryna - the letter is obviously important as an additional secondary source about this. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that is not good enough, not by a long shot. I will once and for all list the various objections:

• The text is basically the same as earlier. There is a single sentence which is added, which expresses Conquest's disagreement with Coplon, nothing more.
• The old text is totally inadequate. Here are some of the deficiencies:
  • Neither Conquest nor Young nor anyone else calls Coplon a denier.
  • The text does not give Coplon's position on the Holodomor. His position is stated explicitly: There was a famine, Stalin and the Politburo played major roles. It was not a genocide.
  • It mischaracterizes Coplon's position drastically. Coplon does not "associate those who continued to bring the Holodomor to the attention of the public with the Nazis". He criticises some people, who he describes and/or names in his piece.
  • Young's position is also mischaracterized. Nowhere does Young call Coplon and Getty as followers of Duranty. Young is not qualified to offer a comment on Getty, a major Sovietologist, anyway. Getty does not need to evoke a journalist who died 50 years before to support his thesis anyway.
  • There is no evidence that Coplon is notable enough to be included here. If he is such a major an influential denier, why are there so few references to him elsewhere?

These flaws are major and cannot be fixed by some minor rephrasing. Furthermore, the repeated addition of essentially the same text is not good. Please keep in mind that I am not forced to argue the same points again and again. Get consensus first, please, before adding this again. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• You remove well sourced and relevant text [36] which is significantly different from the text considered in the RfC. This is a different text, it was placed to a different paragraph without sub-header, there are additional refs, such as Conquest, etc. You repeat the same arguments over and over again. Coplon was described as a follower of Duranty (this page) and therefore belongs to this page. Young is a notable author and therefore qualify to comment on anything, as long as her statements are reliably sourced, etc. No one's position has been misrepresented. But if you think it was, this text can be rephrased. You simply edit war to not include this info. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, this source [37] (page 9, quoted here in the context of Holodomoor denial!) also mentioned paper by Coplon as a continuation of the campaign by Tottle (who belongs to this page!) and something significant. This should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The randomly Googled source does not call Coplon a denier, or even name him. It simply says that Coplon cited Tottle in his Village Voice piece. That's it. What on Earth does this have to do with this topic? is anyone who cites David Irving a Holocaust denier? Raul Hilberg cited Holocaust deniers in his work, is he one as well? I fail to understand this obsession with a random person who wrote an article 30 years ago in which he explicitly takes the viewpoint of a large body of scholarship at the time (and even today) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC).

No, this paper from symposium on Holodomor denial does not simply tells that Coplon cited Tottle. It tells: "Eventually Tottle’s book lost credibility in all but the fringe Stalinist circles, but in the late 1980s material from it appeared in the American “Village Voice” [by Coplon] and various student newspapers in Canada, and did irreparable damage to Ukrainian-Jewish relations in North America." Hence it describes Coplon as a follower of Tottle and tells about an alleged "damage" made by his article to "Ukrainian-Jewish relations in North America". That's significant. As about another publication [38], it is entitled "Russia Denies Stalin’s Killer Famine". It does not tell directly about Coplon, but about modern Holodomor denial in Russia and as such should also be used on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Follower. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)