Talk:Holodomor/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Use Caution

As an uninvolved administrator I would ask that you pay very careful attention to the WP:3RR and WP:EW pages. Some of you are in block territory. You may only revert plain obvious vandalism and not issues of editorial content. If you need outstide help please let me know. JodyB talk 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Genocide

Burpelson AFB makes a sensible point . However the current heading is very pointy (worse that I changed it to) and an example of "begging the question". I suggest something like "As a genocide", "Classification as a genocide". The whole section is a little worrisome - it does deal with counterclaims but quite strongly dismisses them (my sourced reading says; the main body of scholarly work is fairly evenly divided over whether it can be defined as a genocide) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How about "Genocide question"? - Burpelson AFB ✈
Yep, seems reasonable. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I would actually support reducing the size of that section since there's a whole separate sub-article about the genocide question If there's info here that is missing from the main article, it should be moved there, and only a 1 or 2 paragraph summary should be here. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I noticed that. Agree on the reduction of the section; it could be summarized into two paragraphs - the sub-article has a little more info on the countries positions (plus what we currently have here, in its entirety). [BTW WP:BRD at its best here I think, thanks] --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

false edit summaries

To TFD:

Please do not call my edits "POV edits" without basis, as you did here [1]. It's obvious to anyone who looks that the concept of Holodomar is not confined to just "Ukrainian historiography". This work is non-Ukrainian [2]. This work is non Ukrainian [3]. This work is non Ukrainian [4]. This work is non Ukrainian [5]. This work is non-Ukrainian [6]. This work is non-Ukrainian [7]. This work is non-Ukrainian [8]... shall I continue? Like I said, there's more than 3000 hits for the word, most of them by Western scholars. Hence, pushing such an assertion into the lede is completely unsupported by sources. I have not edited this article so far and I've only made this edit after a thorough look through the sources. On the other hand, this is your 3rd revert of November 2nd, which may lead someone to believe that you're "fence hugging" in terms of the 3RR restriction - in addition to using false edit summaries.radek (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly James Macenko and Robert Conquestchuk are Ukrainian nationalists in disguise.--Львівське (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion above - it is POV, it may of course be the correct POV but Wikipedia is not about truth, neutrality must be observed. TFD (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vessel for your to exact "truth"--Львівське (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

radek, the terms used to describe WP articles are supposed to be neutral. The term "Holodomor" is only used in far right, extremist and fringe writing. We should use the terms used in neutral sources. I have read your links and here are my comments.

  • Norman Naimark's book Stalin's Genocides defines the Ukrainian famine as genocide, which as explained is a fringe view.
  • Ludwik Kowalski's book Hell on earth is self-published.
  • Deathride is a popular book published outside the academic press.
  • Lami in Religion and power in Europe refers to the "great artificial famine" and puts "Holodomor" in brackets.
  • Averting crisis in Ukraine is published by the Council on foreign relations, not an academic source.
  • Europe: I Struggle, I Overcome is the autobiography of a Belgian politician, Wilfried Martens.
  • The Evolution of Strategy refers to the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide", which as explained is a fringe view.

TFD (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"The term "Holodomor" is only used in far right, extremist and fringe writing." TFD, I think you just completely outed your bias and extremist take on this position. To say that the majority of scholarly work is "far right extremism" is just total nonsense. Also, taking reputable scholars and historians and using this blanket statement, "they say its genocide, therefore they are fringe writers and inadmissible" reeks of POV pushing on your behalf to limit sources only to those who fit your ridiculous worldview--Львівське (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
which as explained is a fringe view as perhaps "explained" (more like "asserted" without proof) but not shown. Where's your sources? And do you know what a circular argument is? You are saying that "The Holodomor is only used in far right extremist sources. Hence any source which uses the term is far right extremist. The fact that all these sources are far right extremist proves that it is only used in far right extremist sources" - which is logical nonsense. Apparently Princeton University press and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others are "far right, extremist, and fringe" (actually CFR has been accused by the John Birchers of being part of the liberal conspiracy but nm). Please stop making stuff up.radek (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
As you are well aware, mainstream writers do not use the term "holodomor" (except in brackets). They may be wrong, but please do not pretend they do anything else when the evidence clearly shows they do not. TFD (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No I am not aware, simply because it's not true. As shown above. If you're published by Princeton University Press, you're a mainstream writer more or less. You are continuing with simply making unfounded assertions of your POV without any backing what so ever.radek (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
And the edit under contention - you changed the subject again - was not about whether the Holodmor is genocide or not (on that sources DO differ), but whether the term is used "only in Ukrainian historiography" which it very obviously isn't.radek (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No the issue is the normal terminology used, which is not "holodomor". TFD (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The edit which you reverted was about "Ukrainian historiography". Don't try to change the subject.radek (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, it is in fringe historiography, which includes "Ukrainian historigraphy". We should not mislead readers however in believing that it is a mainstream view. TFD (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. No that's not my point at all.radek (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You have a point of view term you want for the article which is not what mainstream writers use. We are supposed to be neutral and not take sides on ethnic issues. You and I both know that. TFD (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Another completely unsupported assertion. The term is in fact used by mainstream writers, as shown by sources above. We are being neutral when we include it. We are being POV if we weasel it. And it's not an ethnic issue. That's what I know. I have no idea what you know.radek (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right about his circular logic. / Be neutral, use mainstream writers / These mainstream writers are right-wing frige writers, find neutral writers who support my POV/ He wont be happy unless the word "holodomor" is censored from the article on the holodomor--Львівське (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree with the thesis that Holodomor is used by far right writers only (see, e.g. [9]). However, such notable scholars as Ellman, Davis, Tauger or Wheatcroft prefer to use the term "Soviet famine" (or "Great famine") instead. Since the latter words are too common in literature, I have been unable so far to make an adequate google scholar search to show which term is more common in English literature. However, it is more or less clear that "Holodomor" is gradually becoming popular.
However, the issue with the word "Holodomor" is different. Its usage generates a circular argument, which can be formulated as follows: "Since the word "Holodomor" is used to describe the famine in Ukraine only, then Holodomor was the event totally unrelated to the Soviet famine of 1932-33". Some proponents of this type arguments go even further claiming that Holodomor was the act of genocide (by contrast to other Soviet famines).
That is why we have to decide if we will be able to harness these ultra-nationalistic POVs in this article (which requires us to make Holodomor a daughter article of the Soviet Famine article), or, if we will see that that is impossible, the article should be moved. Since both names seem to be about equally abundant, both variants are formally acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I am not saying that only writers on the far right use the term Holodomor, just that it is not a neutral term. I have checked the first page of your link to Google scholar showing how the term is used and the results are below. It shows that the term is used in Ukrainian historiography and law, but is not used by mainstream scholars.

  • "Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture": "Of the murder of Jews in Ukraine the books are silent, choosing to highlight the genocide directed against Ukrainians instead."[10]
  • Why Holodomor is a Genocide": Ukrainian non-academic source[11]
  • "Ghosts of the Holodomor": about prosecution under Ukrainiain Holodomor laws[12]
  • "THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINATION OF LEGAL LIABILITY FOR CONVICTING HOLODOMOR": Holodomor laws.[13]
  • "LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE 1932–1933 HOLODOMOR": Holodomor laws.[14]
  • "Deleting the Holodomor" (no abstract)[15]
  • "The Holodomor": "subsequently termed the “Holodomor” by Ukrainian historians".[16]

TFD (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


What counts is whether a person looking up the topic might logically use the term, or any term used in a redirect. The fact, moreover, is that the word "Holodomor" has made the NYT and other major RS newspapers, has made it into UN resolutions, into Congressional resolutions, into EU papers etc. Thus is it reasonable that users might use the term, and it is that which governs the simple fact that the word exists as a likely search term. Collect (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the term is used but it represents a particular view of the event. I suppose we could have too articles, one about the famine and one about the use of the term "holodomor". TFD (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
By ignoring the largest body of accepted scholarly work on a subject that is also pushing a POV--Львівське (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The largest body of scholarly work does not use the term "Holodomor" except to describe one interpretation of the events. If you want to persuade people that this is the correct interpretation, the best way is present the topic in a neutral way and allow readers to judge for themselves. Trust the reader to make reasonable conclusions. It is very off-putting to readers to be provided with one-sided articles and leaves them with a sense of mistrust. TFD (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Holodomor will lead to this article in any case. Unless you propose a deliberate POVfork? That is contrary to WP policy. Collect (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It would not be a POV fork because it would be about the Ukrainian famine while this article would be about a unique interpretation of it. We have for example articles about the murder of John Kennedy and about 9/11 and we also have separate articles about unique interpretations of those events. TFD (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is there an academic consensus to call the Ukrainian Famine 1932-3 "Holodomor"

Is there an academic consensus to call the Ukrainian Famine 1932-3 "Holodomor", or is it a term that implies a unique interpretation of the events? TFD (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"The term used today in Ukraine to designate this famine, Holodomor, is explicit: it combines the words holod (hunger) and moryty (to kill by privations, to starve, to exhaust). Thus it clearly emphasizes the intentional aspect of the phenomenon. The description of the 1932-3 famine as a genocide is not, however, universally accepted among historicans who have studied the question, whether they be Russians, Ukrainians, or Westerners." (Oxford handbook of gencide studies, 2010)

"[The term] first appeared in print in early 1988 in an article by another writer, Oleksa Musiienko (Kul´chyts´kyi, 142). The word soon passed into English, if not into dictionary English, then at least into the lexicon of the English-language publications of the Ukrainian diaspora." (Himka, John-Paul, "A central European diaspora under the shadow of World War II", 2006)

  • Not consensus since sources do not say it is. TFD (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Consensus The word is a well known and widely used term for the famine as a whole. Though the motives, events, narratives, and politicization of the Holocaust is a subject of scholarly debate, the name of the event and the broadness of the topic are two separate matters. In the case of the Holodomor, though the arguments towards genocide, intent, scale, politicization, etc. are subject to debate, there is no need to ignore the widely accepted name of the event regardless of your POV on the history the article discusses. The Ukrainian famine of 1932, the Ukrainian Holocaust, the Great Famine, the Terror Famine...these are all names for the same event, but Holodomor is the most widely in contemporary use and should remain the title of this article.--Львівське (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Found in current reliable sources Including Washington Post, New York Times, The Times etc. There is no need to assert any "academic consensus" where a word is in sufficiently common usage in RS publications. Collect (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • RfC is flawed to begin with. First, instructions for filing a RfC specifically state the the statement requesting the comment needs to be brief and neutral [17]. We have neither here as TFD plucked two quotes supposedly favorable to his POV to start the RfC off with, therefore possibly prejudicing any outside comments. Second, and more importantly, an "academic consensus" is not what is required for this article to be under its present title. What is required is that English language sources use the term extensively to describe the subject of this article. Which they do. Some, particularly older sources use "Ukrainian famine" - in a google books search "Holodomor" beats out "Ukrainian famine" (any famine, not just this one) three-to-one if we're looking at post 1992 sources. This appears to be intentionally moving the goal post for article title. Of course all of this has been covered in the discussions above. Fourth, we've already had a requested move above which failed to get any traction and had strong consensus against it - hence this appears to be a form of forum shopping (first an rm, and when that doesn't get you your way, an rfc). Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Consensus, for all intents and purposes. Upon having a move request soundly defeated, adding a RfC in an attempt to overturn it immediately afterwards looks awfully desperate. I'd call into question your own POV. At any rate, Marek's point about "Holodomor" outnumbering the generic "Ukrainian famine" in post-1992 sources counts for more, I think, than anything else. This term is clearly here to stay; any attempts on your part to fight against this are fated to be rearguard actions with little hope of long-term success. Elmondatott minden, ami elmondható - all has been said that can be said. Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not consensus – Propaganda term promoted by the John Birch Society. The causal appearance of the neologism in Western "reliable sources" like the Washington Post, New York Times, or The Times do not establish or reflect academic consensus. –– Petri Krohn (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting claim. Alas, "John Birch Society" and "Holodomor" in Google finds absolutely zero sources linking the two. Nor do any NYT etc. articles using "Holodomor" also include "John Birch Society." Nor does Googlebooks find even a single book with both terms in it! Sorry there - the fact that Putin hates the term does not mean the JBS created it! Collect (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Second Collect here. Huh??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this point has been made clear. The John Birch Society was probably the first non-Ukrainian source to use the term "holodomor" followed by far right organizations. The term was later picked up by other right-wing organizations such as the World Anti-Communist League, and later by more mainstream right-wing groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the Claremont Institute. The point is that it supports a certain narrative of history, which is not generally accepted by mainstream scholars. TFD (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think is more of a "Huh?!??!?" kind of statement. What are you talking about? Do you have a single source which links JBS with the usage of the term Holodpmor? And who cares about JBS anyway. To the extent they ever had any significance it was way back in 1960's or something, long before the late 1980's when the term under discussion was first introduced. At this point in time they are a footnote to a footnote to a footnote to a footnote to a footnote to a footnote in history and politics (if even that). AT BEST, and let me stress that, AT BEST, all you can argue here is that there's some crazy group of people out there who maybe used the term too at some point in time. But who cares. That does not imply that everybody who uses the term is crazy too - in fact, the sources listed above clearly show that the term is part of mainstream academic discourse.
You are running buck wild with your confusion and logical fallacies here. The earth is round. I'm pretty sure that the John Birch Society also believes the earth is round. But the fact that the John Birtch society believes the earth is round does not mean that "earth is round" is some kind of "extremist idea". Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that the term is most commonly used by extremists and rarely by academics. Extremists use the term because it looks like the unrelated term "holocaust" (in fact they originally called it the "Ukrainian holocaust") and the use has been criticized by Jewish organizations for holocaust trivialization. TFD (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that the term is most commonly used by extremists and rarely by academics - No, that is not a "fact". You are either lying (jeez fukn christ, there's a multitude of sources listed above which very obviously show the opposite) or you are so out of touch with reality that your comments should be completely ignored and your further attempts at disruption at this (and other articles) should be subject of sanction under Wikipedia's content guidelines. Per tendentious editing - if something is presented clearly and supported by sources but one editor insists that 2+2=5 and keeps starting RMs, RfCs and pointless discussions to the effect that 2+2=5, that is tendentious editing and after a certain point it is not required of other editors to continue engaging that disruptive editor in discussion. That's where we're at this point it seems. An extremist editor such as yourself cannot hold consensus hostage. You have not provided a single source to support this ridiculous assertion (which falls flat on its face in terms of plain common sense and even a superficial familiarity with sources), while at the same time you've nit picked every nuance and off hand comment in things written by everyone else. Additionally you've been beating a dead horse and forum shopping here (and elsewhere) first asking for a RM, then when that didn't work, asking for an RfC, and now it looks like you're intent on keeping up with this disruption. Give up already. That's a clear cut abuse of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. At the same time it has been shown time and time and time again that the term is widely used in both academic and non-academic literature (of the non-extremist kind - like Princeton University Press) in English language sources. Either way, there's no point in any further discussion with you. I have no interest in discussing things with someone acting in bad faith, nor in engaging in a Battle of the Wits with the unarmed. I don't have time to figure out which one of these applies here. Regardless, move on. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
@ Marek, I guess you have not read my post on the topic on TFD's talk page: James Perloff – John Birch Society - Creationism – Holodomor. The surprising thing is that there are at least two references or links in the article with a direct connection to the JBS. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss James Perloff as irrelevant, after all he is the authority used by the official site of the Security Service of Ukraine.
On other matters, I have been systematically going through the Google News archives from the 1970s and 1980s to see when and where the variations of the terminology originate from. It is becoming ever more clear, that Holodomor is inseparable from the 1980s concept of the "Ukrainian Holocaust" as expressed in for example this 1983 article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Who cares. Like I said. I'm sure the John Birch Society believe the earth is round. That does not imply that everyone who believes the earth is round believes all the things that the John Birch Society believes. Simple logic folks. It's not that hard. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The assertion that Holodomor is a term used exclusively by "extremists" is just absurd given the academic use of the term in the world. The arguments presented on this discussion page about it only coming to use in 1988 are just as weak, considering the word "Holocaust" wasn't used in Russia until the 1990s - would someone make the claim that the .ru wiki not have a Holocaust page? Terms become more popular, it's a given, its the evolution of language and the globalization and linguistic transcendence of terminology. TFD, in my opinion, is just trying to ruffle feathers and vex users here, there is no way his claims can be taken seriously, he has no once backed up his ridiculous claims of extremism and that it is a fringe word in academics. You see Ukrainian historians and academics in the diaspora use it more than others not due to the fact Ukrainian historians do most of the research in this field, just as Jewish historians have dominated Holocaust historiography, Americans American historiography, etc. To write off respected historical literature as "nationalism" or even worse "extremism" serves as nothing more than provocation, not legitimate deliberation. --Львівське (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a link to "favorable" reviews of Perloff's book that "exposes the subversive roots and global designs of the CFR. BTW Jewish historians do not dominate Holocaust historiography any more than Ukrainians dominate studies of the famine. TFD (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
TFD, that simply isn't true. That's like saying Canadians don't dominate hockey. Come on now, don't deny every fact in the world just to support your POV.--Львівське (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Consensus The word is a widely accepted, on both the historiographic and the journalistic levels, regardless of its origins. --Galassi (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant- see WP:Title and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming which make no mention of "Academic consensus" indirectly or otherwise. Rather WP:NPOV states "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement." Per Petri, the Washington Post, New York Times, and the Times - which are all reliable sources use this. End of story. BTW, there is no consensus anywhere, outside of Russia, to call the Holodomor anything but "Holodomor" - so please don't require something of your fellow editors that you are not prepared to provide yourself if the tables were turned. Smallbones (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, there is no academic consensus to call it Holodomor. Please present a more careful analysis of Gbook and Gscholar results. GBooks gives a result estimate on the first page that can be off by an error of magnitude. These first-page estimates were cited above. WP mirror books (e.g. Icon Publishing) also need to be excluded. The first page of an EN Gbook search of holodomor -inpublisher:Icon says about 1340 results. [18] But the final result is 257 hits. [19]. En search, ukraine famine 1933 -inpublisher:Icon, 309 hits. So the Gbook results are actually about the same. In Gscholar: ukraine famine 1933 -inpublisher:Icon, EN, since 2000, 1000 final results. [20]. For Holodomor, same constraints, 160 final results. [21]. Novickas (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
'GBooks gives a result estimate on the first page that can be off by an error of magnitude - yes, and I believe I was one of the first people, at least in the area of Eastern European topics, who've pointed that out [22]. Hence, I'm quite aware of this possibility and all the gbooks searches above, and the associated statistics (like the fact that "Holodomor" outnumbers "Ukrainian famine" 3 to 1 in modern sources) already account for that. Pay attention and actually click on the links provided. And do a proper search - they're not the same. A better question is, what are you doing here, except following me around and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing itself? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Follow up: Not putting "Ukrainian famine" in quotation marks runs the risk of the searches picking up the words "Ukraine" and "famine" which are not about this topic. This is particularly relevant for the gscholar search. Novickas claims "1000 final results" for "ukraine famine 1933 -inpublisher:Icon, EN, since 2000" but even cursory glance at the results shows that this search is deeply flawed.
  • First, obviously including "EN" does not filter out non-English sources. For example, this is obviously not in English: [23]. Nor is this [24]. And this [25]. You (general "you") can find more examples yourself. In particular, since the French word for "famine" is "famine", you're picking up a lot of French language works.
  • Second, obviously pretty much ANY work which uses the word "Holodomor" is going to use the words "famine", since that's what it was, and "Ukraine" since that's where it happened. Hence, it is really just BY CONSTRUCTION that the set of hits for "Holodomor" will be a proper subset of the set of hits for "ukraine" and "famine". So the search as made above tells us nothing about the usage of these terms.
  • Third, and also fairly obviously, you're going to pick up works which have nothing to do with the subject of this article but which just happen to have the word "famine" and the word "Ukraine" in them somewhere. For example this [26], or this [27] where the word "famine" appears nowhere near the word "Ukraine". Again, it's easy to click through and find other examples of which there are a plenty.
  • Fourth, a click through the searches cleary shows that many of the sources are listed several times.
Basically all that the search shows is that there have been numerous works which have used the word "famine" and "Ukraine" in the same text in SOME - often completely unrelated context. Using ""ukrainian famine" 1933 -inpublisher:Icon, EN, since 2000" gives only 149 results (and even there some of them are not relevant). Using ""holodomor" -inpublisher:Icon, EN, since 2000" gives 167 results, obviously all of them relevant. And for all we know these overlap with the 149 for the famine one (the diff being accounted for that some Holodomor hits don't use the words "ukrainian" and "famine" consecutively". Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No academic consensus per Novickas. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Please articulate. Novickas raises the possibility that gbooks searches were flawed. But the possible flaw he highlights is something that has already been accounted for in the gbooks searches above and something that people are actually aware of. Essentially, he hasn't bothered to actually check the searches themselves - to see if they were subject to this flaw or not - but just simply assumed that they must be flawed because, well, because it was me who made them (i.e. me). His contention is frivolous. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for asking for an articulation. He provides comparative outputs, ruling out known bad publishers, for the English language; these are persuasive for the RFC in themselves. Moreover, in a slow moving field such as "historiography" the ten year search depth is far too shallow. Given the relatively recent interest in the term Holodomor, I find that the searches presented by Novickas confirm my previous understanding. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
2010-1992=18>10. Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Consensus - the word is widely used by academic, government, diplomatic and other sources and no reliable or even notable sources arguing this term was presented. Some researcher prefer to use term Holocaust, some Shoah, some Genocide of Jews by Nazis, etc., that does not meant that anything wrong with any of those terms Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This RFC is dedicated to assessing academic usage, so that is what I focused on. Novickas (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
An interesting issue. I tried to quantitatively estimate your assertion. I got:
  1. For "Holocaust" 306,000 results [28];
  2. For "Shoah" 23,300 results [29]
  3. For "Holocaust -Shoah" 288,000 results [30] (frankly, the latter result is not completely clear for me)
  4. For "Genocide of Jews by Nazis" 3 [31]
  5. For "Holocaust -"Genocide of Jews by Nazis"" 177,000 results [32]
  6. For ""Genocide of Jews by Nazis" -Holocaust" 2 results [33]
The conclusion is obvious: "Holocaust" and "Shoah" are almost completely mutually exclusive, whereas "Genocide of Jews by Nazis" is hardly a separate term at all. One way or the another, the term "Holocaust" is far more common than other, cso we can claim that there is academic consensus about this term. By contrast, as Novickas demonstrated, the term "Holodomor" is not predominant, and even not the most widespread in the literature. Moreover, the scholars that consider Holodomor in a context of wider Soviet famine (Ellman, Wheatcrofty, Tauger, Davis et al) as a rule do not use this term. The latter fact implies that not only this term is not predominant, it is politically charged.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Consider post-1992 sources. And 1992 was 18 years ago. That's more than half a generation. Academic scholarship evolves slowly, but not THAT slowly. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Your request Holocaust -Shoah was read as "with all of the words Holocaust without the words Shoah".[34] TFD (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Correct. And?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Holocaust returns 306K hits, not 366K. TFD (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You are right, 306, not 366. That explains the search results, but does not change the overall conclusion: consensus does exist on the term "the Holocaust", whereas the same approach applied to "Holodomor" shows that no such consensus exist in that case. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
While the book from the Princeton University Press does indeed call a chapter "Holodomor", the author uses the term the "Ukrainian famine of 1932-33" throughout the chapter, not "Holdomor", and says that Holodomor is a Ukrainian word, but then does not use it again.[35] Could you please provide a source indicating that "Holodomor" is the generally accepted term used in academic writing. TFD (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous sources within this discussion page directed at you, read up. Quit provoking and asking for sources if you aren't going to bother reading them--Львівське (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, your logic doesn't stand to reason. Holodomor is the word the author you are speaking of uses as a term for the ukrainian famine of 1932-33. So what if he uses the long form in his writing? When I wrote on the Holodomor I used Holodmor in the opening paragraph and in the conclusion but stuck to other descriptive words such as "famine" when speaking of the event in detail. It's the equivalent of using other adjectives (like, 'the genocide' rather than saying 'the holocaust' every time you bring up the topic in writing). It was a famine, of course writers are going to describe it as such in their text--Львівське (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
He does not use the word as a term for the Ukrainian famine. He writes, "The Ukrainian word Holodmor derives from a combination of...." Anyone can Google search, but what you need is a source that says this is the generally used term. TFD (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
No, a source is not needed explicitly stating something is common use when common use is already proven. For you to support your argument, you have to find some legitimate sources stating that Holodomor is a fringe term, or not common use.--Львівське (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure it is correct to claim that "Holodomor" is a fringe term. The problem is that at least two terms are in common use in scientific literature: "Soviet (Ukrainian) famine" and "Holodomor", and the former seems to be somewhat more common. In addition, the latter term is almost always being used in parallel with the former (e.g. [36]), whereas the former is frequently being used separately from the latter. Moreover, if we restrict ourselves with scholarly articles only written by Western experts and published in peer-reviewed literature, "Holodomor" is being used not frequently. If we also take into account that the term "Holodomor" is politically charged (and, therefore, not neutral), we need really strong arguments in support of the present article's name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
In almost all historical writing, most of it is by people in the area affected. I find, for example, zero Ukrainian articles on US post Civil War Reconstruction. By the standards you suggest, since almost all writing on Reconstruction is by US scholars, the term "Reconstruction" is clearly not in wide enough use? When a term makes it into major US newspapers, and into substantial numbers of books (see section below), that is enough for me. Collect (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Unclear consensus - but more importantly very irrelevant. There is no stipulation for the term to have academic consensus to be used within the article or as the title. This RFC is really side-stepping the actual discussion by setting up a non sequitur, whereby any conclusion on the academic consensus is irrelevant to what you want changed. Over and over on articles such as these I see consistent presentation of waterfalls of sources, long winded discussions on single sentences or words and "lawyering" to remove POV which really doesn't matter (or begs the question). Instead of endlessly messing around on talk someone please go and improve this article (and any others). Is the term POV? Slightly, but it has been fairly widely adopted and there is actually precedent for the use of mildly-POV terms where their usage is widespread and common. For me the term does no sufficiently advance an open political front for it to be worth arguing over --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the characterization of this RFC as irrelevant. If the finding is that there is no academic consensus to use the term Holdomor, this would support an article name change to the more neutral 'Ukrainian famine (1932-1933)'. Names are important. We are encouraged to use neutral article titles in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, on the basis that 'Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.' We need to compare usage in reliable sources, preferably English ones per Wikipedia:Article titles, and Gbooks and Gscholar analyses are valuable tools to that end. (We might agree that assessing comparative reliable source usage using regular Google searches is extremely difficult.) Holodomor clearly is used by reliable sources; the question is whether it's used so often as to overwhelm a more neutral title. At this point it doesn't seem to rise to the level of Boston Massacre or the other examples given at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming. Novickas (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me also add that per policy neutrality requirements cannot be superseded by editors' consensus, therefore the politically charged name "Holodomor" must be changed to the more neutral name 'Ukrainian famine (1932-1933)' (or similar) unless it will be demonstrated that it is much more common that all other names. That can be done using the procedure similar to that I used for the Holocaust. Re google search, it, by contrast to gscholar, is hardly a measure if self-published, governmental or highly politicised web sites and similar dubious sources are not filtered out.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide proof that this is a politically charged term to the point that its neutrality is compromised? IMO, the interpretation of events can be politically charged, but the name itself is not. It depends on context, and assuming the article is written neutrally then the name should be presented equally as neutral.--Львівське (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The question is not correctly stated. We have different terms to describe this famine, and none of these terms is absolutely predominant in the literature. In that situation, to support some particular term, it is not sufficient to prove that it is widely used. It is necessary to demonstrate that it is more common that others and it is preferable for some additional reasons (e.g. it is more neutral). The argument against neutrality of Holodomor is quite simple: leading scholars who do not separate Ukrainian famine from wider Sofiet famine (i.e. the scholar who do not support politicised nationalist interpretation of Holodomor) do not use it routinely as a name for the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine. What are your arguments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
leading scholars who do not separate Ukrainian famine from wider Sofiet famine (i.e. the scholar who do not support politicised nationalist interpretation of Holodomor) do not use it routinely as a name for the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine., I am still finding this weak. Because academic use is reasonable apathetic as to which term to use (many use both). And in widespread RS (which are equally important) Holodomor is marginally the more common term. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If the finding is that there is no academic consensus to use the term Holdomor, this would support an article name change to the more neutral 'Ukrainian famine (1932-1933)'., ahem. Please note this is exactly my point about the non sequitor. Academic consensus is irrelevant to that issue. In fact, if everyone took a moment to actually take a look for sources things are pretty evenly divided amongst academia - although "Ukranian Famine" appears to edge things out by having "better" literature associated with the term. It's kind of difficult to dispute such a conclusion.. The real issue is how neutral Holodomor is as a term, and whether it is widely used enough to belay such problems. And I think the answer is a strong yes; it is widely used in Western media (and recognized academically), it appears to be the common name in Ukraine, academic sources cite it as a "political term" but not a very strong one. I am struggling to find a RS that identifies this as a particularly non-neutral name. Fortunately while the talk page is filling up with endless argument Small Bones has done some great copy editing. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There was a requested move - it was turned down, that should be the end of it. Someone who wanted the move to happen, saw that his POV was not winning, so this discussion was created, with the terms of reference adapted to maximise his probability of winning. In the West the academic community was infested with communists, socialists, etc during the Cold War. Progress in the academic community depends on support from peers, which helped communists, etc. progress their careers. Many of these people are still in academia, and exert an influence on who gets appointed today. Western academics are therefore very much less likely to be critical of Stalin than normal people. And of course, communists are inheritently dishonest about their politics (if you think about someone who is prepared to murder millions for the cause, will also be willing to lie for the cause). Of course, lots of Western academics seek to minimise the Holomor, and to deny its nature. I dare say if we asked for consensus amongst former Russian KGB personnel we would get the same result.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be mistaken. The RfC was started in order to determine the wording of the lead. TFD (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain how you would like the lead to be reworded? That would help me and maybe others decide whether it's worthwhile to invest in a more exhaustive Gscholar results analysis. Novickas (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
For one thing, the word Holodomor should be italicized, if it is bolded in the lede. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's good to know, though it is not at all apparent from your phrasing of the RfC. Except... I don't think the lede ever stated that there was an academic consensus here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@Toddy1. If you really believe that "In the West the academic community was infested with communists, socialists, etc," and "Many of these people are still in academia, and exert an influence on who gets appointed today," I simply cannot understand why are you still editing Wikipedia. We have to reflect what the reliable sources say, and peer-reviewed scientific journals (written by "communists, socialists, etc") are the most reliable sources available for us. If the sources are Communist, we are doomed to promote Communist views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is somewhat of an aside, but that is not true. A RS comes in three parts - one of which is the writer. If the writer is notoriously communist, and if that asserts a bias on his writing, and particularly if the publisher is partisan or open to communist literature, that undermines the source and makes is potentially unreliable (except, of course, in terms of the communist perspective). But all of that is irrelevant :P --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
That was not my point. To believe that some concrete scholar is communist and to claim that scientific journals are infested with communists (and therefore are not reliable) are two quite different things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It is. Europe-Asia studies, Soviet studies, Journal of contemporary history and similar journals are scientific (scholarly, academic).
If you believe that peer-reviewed journals are not the most reliable sources, then you should modify the policy first, because the current policy states that they are.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is sort of messed up

It was Petri Krohn who inserted the "John Birch" source into the article's lede and the comparison with the Holocaust [37]. At the same time, it's pretty clear that Petri's well aware that this was NOT a reliable source since he (rightly) calls it propaganda here [38]. So why is a user purposefully and knowingly inserting non-reliable sources (which he himself calls "propaganda") into this article and then turning around and calling them unreliable? This seems like a blatant attempt at either making a point in violation of WP:Point or a cynical back handed tactic of trying to discredit the article as a whole through the inclusion of some crazy people's opinion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The source is perfectly adequate for sourcing the statement, namely that some people believe the Holodomor is comparable to the Holocaust. The JBS and its publications are a reliable source for opinions of people associated with the JBL. Now, if you want to show that Holodomor is comparable to the Holocaust, then you have provide better sourcing.
As to James Perloff – he is one of the most visible proponents if the Holodomor = Holocaust view. In fact the same article was already linked in the article. The fact that the official site of the Security Service of Ukraine uses the same content, all but makes him the state historian. (Or is it just the PR blunder of the decade.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. – When I used the source, I did not yet realize, that besides being a long time contributor the the JBS magazine, he is also a wacko anti-Semite conspiracy theorist and a notable creationist. Then again, are any on his side of the issue really any better? -- Petri Krohn (talk)
Don't be daft. You are not using him to source his views (which at any rate, are irrelevant here) but to pretend to source a claim. Who cares what he thinks? Don't put any more junk into the article just to make it junky on purpose. Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Besides, I'm sure there are various credible scholars who have pointed out the Holocaust/Holodomor view. Heck, I'm doing Holocaust in Ukraine research right now and finding enough mentions of scholars connecting the two.--Львівське (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I avoid would contemporaneous writing (Duranty, Muggeridge) and current fringe writing (Perloff), and use instead reliable writing about them, where relevant. TFD (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

The estimates from 2 to 10 million contradicts Soviet famine of 1932–1933, where an estimate of up to 8.5 million total deaths was given. (Igny (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC))

I do not see a real contradiction. This article [in its current form] is not about the real famine, but about the imaginary genocide – as told by the nationalistic Ukrainian narrative. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (Updated 03:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC))
That you are a Holodomor denier, extremeist, and have such fringe views, this should disqualify you from participation in this article. By approaching it from an angle that is is an "imaginary genocide" and want to turn the article from an event of famine into one about the ukrainian narrative (which you think is false), this makes you incredibly unqualified to approach this article from a neutral manner--Львівське (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are free to start a new article at The Holodomor in nationalistic Ukrainian historiography and move your favorite content there. As I already explained above in my response to the Red Baron's brother, this article cannot adopt the nationalist narrative as it is not endorsed in reliable scholarly sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't get it. This article is about the man made famine in Ukraine. It is about the terror that occured during the event. It is about the genocide, and it should neutrally represent those who are for it and the neo-Soviets who are against it. The Holodomor is not a nationalist invention, but a historic event. Though a victimization narrative has been adopted in Ukrainian NATIONAL historiography (so has the Holocaust for Israel), that doesn't take away from the FACTS of what happened. Please take your sovok conspiracy crap elsewhere if you are going to fight reliable sources and consensus every step of the way because it is not becoming disruptive editing.--Львівське (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The genocide claim is presently covered in Holodomor genocide question. Are you saying that the Ukrainian point-of-view should be expanded? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That was a split of this article. That article should be condensed and due weight should be given to the most legitimate conclusions currently out there --Львівське (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro wording

I'm not going to propose a concrete edit for this one, given the ideological minefield evident above, but I must point out that the intro sentence as it currently stands "The Holodomor refers to..." is nonsensical: it mixes up use and mention. The Holodomor was an event. Events don't "refer to" things, and certainly not to themselves. Only expressions refer to things. This needs to be changed either to "The Holodomor was ...", or to "The term Holodomor refers to...", or yet something else.

Unfortunately a very common mistake. I know this happens in a lot of articles, but it's still wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You stepped on a mine. The majority of the debate above is whether the term "Holodomor" which exists within a particular historiography is adequately representative of the position of the general historiography for the term to represent the event, and, what the event is known as commonly to English language readers. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears that is definitely sufficiently used in English language RS sources. More than ten uses in NYT articles. PM of Canada went to the memorial, getting many mentions in the Canadian press. Though the Russians choose to emphasize the symbol of the Latvian Air Force during World War II was… a swastika and assert that this is all irresponsible and morally indefensible actions in countries which in 1941 to 1945 were allies of the Axis, and where subtle pro-Nazi sympathies still exist. [39] Even The Times uses the term [40] and "Visiting a monument to what Ukrainians call the Holodomor, the Russian President placed the candle at the foot of a statue of a young girl clutching a sheaf of wheat." Seems that is more than sufficient. Collect (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Please let's not repeat that debate here. I see this has been under discussion elsewhere, and I have no opinion on that. My point is a different one, it is purely about linguistic correctness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
When we used politically charged terms, e.g., Reaganomics or The Gore Effect, it is normal to define them as terms and explain what the terms mean. In Collect's example above it says, "what Ukrainians call the Holodomor" and his first reference uses the term in scare quotes. When we use noncontroversial terms such as the Ukrainian Famine 1932-33, there is no need to do this. TFD (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Your inference that these are "scare quotes" is incorrect. This is dealing with a non-English word, something that hasn't entered the general English lexicon. --Львівське (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Even though I have an opinion; did everyone notice how—for the uninvolved editor—I characterised the debate without stating my opinion? This was to try to avoid duplicating the actual debate occurring in other sections here. It would benefit all editors to not duplicate the actual argument here. The very generous and kind uninvolved editor has been told politely by the editorial community, that their grammatical change depends upon the proper object of the article, an item under current debate above. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The correct term is "scare quotes". But as it is a "non-English word, something that hasn't entered the general English lexicon" then it should not be the title of an article. TFD (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
So now you want to ignore common use because it's non-English? Before you wanted to ignore it because it against your POV--Львівське (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well we use common English usage not foreign terminology. For example we write about "the United States", not "les etats unites", even though that is the term that is commonly used in France. This is an English, not Ukrainian, encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Invalid comparison. Holodomor is gradually entering the English lexicon, and I don't think that you can deny this. I originally learned of this famine under the Ukrainian name from non-Ukrainian sources, so to call it exclusively foreign is, in my opinion, risible. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
To quote Himka (2006) on this matter, " it first appeared in print in early 1988 in an article by another writer, Oleksa Musiienko (Kul´chyts´kyi, 142). The word soon passed into English, if not into dictionary English, then at least into the lexicon of the English-language publications of the Ukrainian diaspora."--Львівське (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly - a term used by the Ukrainian diaspora. TFD (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

<--1. The sentence has the words "at least" in it you know. 2. Initially it was just the English-language publications of the Ukrainian diaspora (soon after 1988), but then it was English-language publications in general (a bit after 1988, which is still 22 years ago). English-language publications are still English language publications. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

...and now it's become the common term to use when speaking of this subject now. There are "Holodomor memorials", not "Ukrainian famine memorials", it is used in English speaking countries with regard to the event, ie. National Holodomor Remembrance Week (Canada), Ukrainian Holodomor Remembrance Day (USA).--Львівське (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, and you need sources anyway. That is like saying that kielbasa is now the English word for sausage. TFD (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't need sources, it's been hammered into your skull over and over again on this discussion page. If you don't think it's common use, or even usable in English, WP:PROVEIT.--Львівське (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Kielbasa is the English word for... kielbasa. Try again. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The Ukrainian word for sausage is kielbasa and we do not therefore change the name of the article sausage to kielbasa, just because that is what Ukrainians call them. TFD (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude, how do you counter "kielbasa is the english word for kielbasa" with "sausage is the english word for kielbasa". Your pseudo-argument doesn't fly.-Львівське (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't call me dude. I did not say, "sausage is the english word for kielbasa", I said "The Ukrainian word for sausage is kielbasa", i.e., "kielbasa is the Ukrainian word for sausage". If you step outside Roncesvalles and call a frankfurter a kielbasa people will not know what you are talking about. Just to be clear, English-speaking people outside the Ukraininian diaspora use the term sausage not kielbasa, except to refer to a specific type of Ukrainian sausage. TFD (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude, frankfurters and keilbasa are different things. Kielbasa, in english, is not a blanket term for all sausages - it's a specific term. If I walk into a portuese bakery that has a deli section and I ask for kielbasa, I will be given kielbasa. It has nothing to do with "Ukrainian", or regions. It's the english language.--Львівське (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Lvivske, dude, I hate to remind you your own (Judging from your name) language: Ukrainian sausage is kovbasa. Kielbasa is moc bardziej szlachetniejszy produkt. Smacznego :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I know, bro, but I didn't want to further confuse this discussion ;) Keilbasa, like pierogies, is said by Ukrainians when speaking English in Canada/USA despite them being Polska wordskas. This brings up another example though: Pierogi article shouldn't be renamed "Potato dumpling", the Polish word is by far common use and now an English word.--Львівське (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Aaand once again, we see exactly how poorly TFD chooses his analogies. His oh-so-clever "kielbasa" quip serves only to erode his own position. Just as kielbasa is used to refer to a specific sort of sausage, Holodomor is used to refer to a specific "sort" of Ukrainian famine. Moral of the story: if you are incapable of using witty retorts correctly, it is best not to even use them. Otherwise, you make yourself (and, by way of association, your position) look awfully silly... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf. – there is a linguistic problem. I have restored the original correct wording and tweaked it a bit. The sentence needs a context. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't actually fix the problem I described. It's still saying "the Holodomor refers to". If you want to use "refer to", you need some device that marks "Holodomor" as a word being cited, not a thing. Italics, or quotation marks, and/or the explicit phrase "the term ...". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
He sure didn't. He just used your statement as an excuse to reinsert his POV "in Ukrainian historiography" claim which is unsourced and in fact contradicted by the numerous Western English language sources provided above. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedias, Wikipedia included regularly twist the structure if the first sentence in order to get the keyword or article name into the beginning. The normalized form for the sentence would be the following.
In modern Ukrainian historiography, the manifestations of the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933 in the Ukrainian SSR are referred to as the Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор).
As you can see, the sentence makes perfect sense and there is no need for the "term" qualifier. The only change, besides the word order, is the change from refers to to → are referred to as – emphasized in italics. Can you or any one propose another way of modifying the word order without changing the meaning or too much of the vocabulary? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Between "is referred to as" and "refers to" is a world of a difference, syntactically and semantically. One is, indeed, correct. The other just isn't. That's not just a small "twisting of the structure". These two sentences syntactically just have nothing to do with each other. – I offered several relatively easy options that keep the term near the beginning:
  • without "refer":
    • The Holodomor [...] was ...
  • with "refer to"
    • Holodomor [...] refers to the famine...
    • "Holodomor" [...] refers to the famine...
    • The term Holodomor [...] refers to the famine...
  • other options:
    • Holodomor is a term [...] used to refer to the famine ...
    • The Ukrainian famine, also referred to as the Holodomor ...
I'll emphasize again that I am not taking any sides on whether the term ought to be used as our own primary handle for the historic event. For me this is still simply a matter of grammatical correctness over the use of the verb "refer". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct, the sentence structure requires italics. I would not use quotation marks or the "term" qualifier, as they would undermine the Ukrainian point-of-view. In fact, the as loaded loan word without universal acceptance Holodomor should always be italicized when used on Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is with the "in Ukrainian historiography" which I'm pretty sure you know is the claim under contention. I'll reword it better. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Claims made in the lede which are not made in the body require proper RS citations. Ledes are not the place to insert assertions which are not cited. Collect (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would use the following sources:
  • "The term used today in Ukraine to designate this famine, Holodomor, is explicit: it combines the words holod (hunger) and moryty (to kill by privations, to starve, to exhaust). Thus it clearly emphasizes the intentional aspect of the phenomenon. The description of the 1932-3 famine as a genocide is not, however, universally accepted among historicans who have studied the question, whether they be Russians, Ukrainians, or Westerners." (Werth)
  • " it first appeared in print in early 1988 in an article by another writer, Oleksa Musiienko (Kul´chyts´kyi, 142). The word soon passed into English, if not into dictionary English, then at least into the lexicon of the English-language publications of the Ukrainian diaspora." (Himka)
TFD (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Leave your OR and WP:SYN out of this. Your understanding of the word is flawed. It was a man-made famine, that is an indisputable fact. It was forced hunger as part of collectivization. That is also a fact. The word does not mean anything outside of those 2 previous statements: death by hunger. You are inferring that since starvation was forced on the population that that equals a genocide narrative, and that is incorrect. The Holodmor as an event and the arguments that it is genocide are two separate things. I see what you're trying to do here, discredit the word as "fringe" so that you can push your POV, but I'd say 9/10 editors are smart enough to read between the lines of what you're trying to pull here. "Holodomor" is the local, and now widely accepted title of the 1932 famine in Ukraine, get over it.--Львівське (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
And for what it's worth: [41] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Presenting reliable sources with no interpretation qualifies for neither Or nor SYN. In fact one of those quotes was provided by yourself. LvR, that you for pointing out the example from the White House. This has become a political issue, which should be mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Holodomor is shorthand for "The Ukrainian Holocaust". The "death by hunger" etymology is a backronym. It was created and popularized in deliberate effort to capitalize on the Holocaust narrative, to further a nationalistic, ethnocentric, and anticommunist agenda. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Man made famine – again)

I agree that the contention that this was a "man made famine" is pretty indisputable and this is found in the sources (there's actually a theory in economics which posits that virtually all famines of the modern world have been man made - so this kind of claim is not particularly controversial). But beyond that there's different levels. It could be "man-made" through sheer incompetence. It could be "man-made" deliberately but directed at "class enemies" rather than along ethnic lines. Or it could be directed at a particular ethnic population (here, Ukrainians). Pretty much all sources discuss all three and where they differ is in which aspect they emphasize. "Soviet apologist" sources tend to stress the incompetence part and usually construct some kind of a "it was man made but just a accident" kind of narrative. "Holodomor was a genocide" sources tend to stress the last one - that it was directed at a particular ethnic group. They got more sound evidence than the Soviet apologist sources but since this kind of thing is hard to prove this interpretation is not universally accepted. A lot of sources deal with the conundrum by ... discussing other sources. At any rate, trying to introduce the article with some kind of "Holodomor is just a Ukrainian word for death by hunger" narrative is pretty silly in light of what the sources actually do. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree.--Львівське (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
See what Werth says in the The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (2010): We can distinguish two main interpretative trends. In one camp are historians who see the famine as having been artificially organized by Stalin's regime in 1930 to break the back of the Ukrainian peasants' resistence... to destroy the Ukrainian nation in its 'peasant-national' specificity.... These historians adhere to the genocide thesis. In the other camp are historians who, shile recognizing the criminal nature of Stalin's policies, consider it necessary to study all the famines of the years 1930-3... as a complex phenomenon in which several factors, ranging from the geopolitical situation to the imperatives of industrialization, played an important role alongside Stalin's "imperial intentions". For these historians, the term 'genocide' is not appropriate.... A third position is emerging...[that the famines] appear to be direct but unforeseen, unprogrammed, unintentional consequences of policies inspired by ideology...."[42]
None of the mainstream positions that do not accept the term "genocide" are Stalinist and in any case we are supposed to report all mainstream views not just one single narrative.
TFD (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Um..the quote you cite in the end actually uses those words "A third position is emerging...[that the famines] appear to be direct but unforeseen, unprogrammed, unintentional consequences of policies inspired by ideology.." towards all the Soviet famines (such as the Kazakh one) but if you read the book a it more the authors state that later, the Ukrainian famine was unique in taking a turn from being an unintentional one as the Kazakh famine towards becoming an intentional famine (unlike the other Soviet famines). Stalin came to believe that Ukriane was becoming a center of resistence and so he decided to intentianlly amplify the effects of the famine, sending activists and armed detachments from Russia to grab every bit of grain, etc. Basically that source states that the Ukrainian famine became unique within the Soviet Union.Faustian (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ugh. Ok. At this point I am finding it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation with you (that'd be TFD). What Werth is saying is essentially the same thing as what I said and in fact that was one of the sources I had in mind (the differences between what I said and what Werth said to the extent they're there are due to the fact that I was also considering other sources). Yet, somehow you try to present Werth as disagreeing with my statement, which is not true. So here's what Werth says:

  • There are historians who see the famine deliberately organized by Stalin with the intention of more or less killing Ukrainians. They are in the "Holodomor was genocide" camp
  • There are historians who see the famine as a result of Stalin's criminal policies but they don't see it as necessarily directed at the Ukrainians, although they admit the role of Stalin's "imperial intentions" in the famine. I.e. the ethnic aspect was a factor but not the only one.
  • There are some other historians who are "emerging" who think that the famine was a consequence of "ideology" (i.e. what I called "directed at class enemies" above) and that lots of the specific policies which caused it where made as events unfolded (i.e. the "natural" causes of the famine occurred. Stalin saw them and decided that this was a good way to get rid of potential political problems as well as to quiet down Ukrainian nationalism. He, obviously, didn't cause bad harvests. But when they happened he took advantage of them - in other areas of the Soviet Union affected there actually WERE relief efforts aimed at preventing people from starving. In the Ukraine on the other hand, grain in the whole state was confiscated and the whole state cordoned off so that no outside food could get in to relieve the hunger.)

Under any of these lines of thought it was a man made famine and that's what Werth says - and which is what I said.

I never said that only non-Stalinists call this "genocide". Stalinists obviously don't. Even among mainstream authors there's disagreement whether or not this was a genocide (which has a pretty high bar for inclusion in the definition). And this is what the article as she is currently written rightly reflects.

But this has nothing to do with the lede and the first sentence, specifically, with whether "Holodomor" is specific to Ukrainian historiography or not, or whether this was a man made famine or not. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see your confusion. The term "holodomor" is associated with the "Holodomor is genocide camp", therefore not neutral and the usage of the term must be explained. TFD (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec) – In fact, Holodomor is the "Holodomor is Holocaust camp". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's right. I think you're confusing your universals and particulars. Everyone who's in the "Holodomor was a genocide" camp uses the term "Holodomor". But not everyone who uses the term "Holodomor" is in the "Holodomor was a genocide camp". P->Q does not imply (not P)->(not Q). Those who are of the opinion that "Holodomor was a genocide" are a proper subset of those who use the term "Holodomor" to describe the events that this article covers. You've been contending that the description of the Holodomor as a genocide is non-mainstream. This is not true in itself - more accurately, those who describe the Holodomor as a genocide are PART OF the mainstream but do not compromise all of it. But even if that premise was granted, it does not follow from that premise that the term "Holodomor" itself is non-mainstream.
I think you need to work your own confusion about this topic out first and get a little bit more precise, before we can actually discuss the sources here. Otherwise it just seems like you're responding to things that nobody ever said and it's hard to respond to that. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The "Holodomor is genocide" view is not mainstream and mainstream writers refer to the events as the Ukrainian famine. If I am wrong, then I invite editors to find sources that contradict this. TFD (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not true as evidenced by sources provided above. It is also irrelevant to what this talk section is about - the lede. Please start a new section if you want to discuss this. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
...and the reason they avoid the word Holodomor is that they understand that it is a propaganda term aimed at undermining, Russia, Russians, Russophones, and the Russian language (or dialect). One must be extremely naïve not to understand this. Any historian not pushing a political POV will avoid it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If the term "Голодомор" is 'anti-Russian propaganda', as you claim it is, then why does the Russian wikipedia article use it in the title? Your argument is rather spurious... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, not true, per sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Re:Any historian not pushing a political POV will avoid it.. That is No true Scotsman fallacy. (Igny (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC))
Yes :-) Per WP:RS, any source that does not agree with you is unreliable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope that is meant for TFD who's been using precisely that kind of logic throughout this discussion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You should not make personal attacks. I do not recall any reliable source I have rejected at all. Could you please provide an example. TFD (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Back to the Holo-this, Holo-that issue. A relevant policy is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Contentious labels, also known as WP:LABEL. To quote: "The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix -gate suggests the existence of a scandal." Likewise, the prefix Holo- indicates or suggests genocide comparable to the Holocaust. Definitely a word to avoid. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, this is a very silly comment. "Holo" is not a prefix, it is part of the word Holod the Ukrainian word for hunger. This seems to be straw-grasping.Faustian (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, that doesn't necessarily say to not use such labels at all, it says don't use them if they aren't "widely used by reliable sources". Holodomor is becoming more and more widely used, and I don't think that this can be rightfully denied... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

that occurred during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 / a part of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933

i guess this is currently a he said / she said of what statement is more weaselly. It was part of the Soviet famine, yes, but it was also unique. Enforcement was different, aid was different, scale was incredibly different. Russia was largely unaffected by the Famine (especially ethnically homogeneous regions), while you cross the border to Ukraine and its a very different type of famine. To argue that 'the holodomor didnt happen during the Soviet wide famine, but was part of it' implies an equal scale and even distribution of a wider famine, which just isnt the case.--Львівське (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with L'vivske. The first wording does not imply that the Holodomor was unrelated to the Soviet famine, it implies that it was indeed synchronous with the larger Soviet famine, but with distinguishing characteristics that set it apart from the other affected regions. The latter wording, however, implies that it was an inconsequential part of the larger phenomenon. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It follows the general Soviet historiography of universalizing events (like the Holocaust, which was "a part of Nazi occupation of the Soviet Union")--Львівське (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not sure it was unique. For instance, Kuban population (considerable part of which, by the way, were ethnic Ukrainians) was affected at the same extent and according to the same scenario. Generally speaking, the North Caucasus issue is a kind of Catch 22 for Ukrainian nationalists: if they define Holodomor as the famine that affected primarily Ukrainian nationals, the geographical scope of Holodomor has to be expanded beyond the present borders of Ukraine. However, if they go beyond the geographical borders of former Ukrainian SSR they inevitably encounter a vast amount of scholarly works that tell about mortality among Soviet (not Ukrainian) peasantry, so Holodomor becomes indistinguishable from the Soviet Famine of 1932-33. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think acknowledging the the situation in the Kuban (which is adjacent to the most dire areas affected) really complicates anything. That it happened in the Caucasus supports the view that it was anti-Ukrainian, and that it affected other non-Russian minorities supports the goal of destroying minority national resistance to Stalin.--Львівське (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Good. That is exactly what I mean. Please, demonstrate now that predominantly non-Russian minorities were affected in the areas with considerable amount of Russian speaking peasant population.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Indistinguishable" is a bit too dismissive, IMO. A quick, non-scholarly comparison of these two maps 1 2 to this map 3 indicates to me that Ukrainians suffered disproportionately in the famine. At any rate, the North Caucasus region was not exactly a hotbed of pro-Communist sentiment either: 1940–1944 insurgency in Chechnya. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Just as Jews were not the only targets for extermination in the Holocaust, so were Ukrainians not the only targets for extermination in the Holodomor. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as we turned to non-scholarly comparison, could you explain me why hadn't been a Donetsk oblast affected? The most plausible explanation is that it was an industrially developed region with large amount of Ukrainian worker population. Furthermore, Rostov oblast (populated by Russian speaking Don cossacks), Crimea (populated by Russian and Crimean Tartars) and Ukrainian speaking Poltava oblast appeared to be equally affected, whereas Ukrainian speaking Vinnitsya oblast had been affected less severely than Stavropol kray or lower Volga (Russian speaking regions). In connection to that, can you consider an alternative explanation, namely, that the most severely affected regions were major grain producing regions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it all depends on what is the topic of this article. The real events as portrayed by reliable sources, or the nationalistic narrative of the events? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
What makes literature describing the Holodomor as genocide "unreliable" (since that is clearly what you are insinuating)? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
He clearly just abides by the fictional Soviet narrative of absolute denial of the Holodmor. It wouldn't surprise me if he thinks the Holocaust was a myth as well.--Львівське (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well as of now, the current version of the first sentence of the lede does not question uniqueness of holodomor, it questions its isolation. It is really a matter of finding an RS stating that the holodomor was not a part of the wider events, that it was isolated from the famine in other republics, and necessarily explains why. Then and only then you might have an argument here, until then, your point is just another attempt to push a very narrow Ukrainian nationalistic POV, shared may be by a handful of you. Also I d' recommend removing dubious tag because it is unclear to what part of the sentence it applies. (Igny (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC))

Again, calling scholarly consensus "narrow Ukrainian nationalistic POV" just doesn't fly. This just pushes your own POV by blatantly ignoring prominent scholars--Львівське (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did not even ask you to prove the "scholarly consensus" to me. I am asking you to find a single RS stating that this holodomor was not a part of of the wider famine and was somehow isolated from it. (Igny (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC))
James Mace comes to mind off the top of my head, 1--Львівське (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Taking into account that the book your ref has been taken from has a title "Fraud, famine, and fascism: the Ukrainian genocide myth from Hitler to Harvard", and whereas the author (Douglas Tottle) unequivocally characterises this POV as predominantly Ukrainian nationalists' POV, your statement sounds somewhat ambiguously...--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Read the quote before arguing aimlessly, jeez. Tauger cites Mace and tries to argue against him. Mace is a respected source on this, Tauger is not. The relevance of the link I provided doesn't change (I'm quoting Mace, not Tauger), but that you want to associate your views with that of a crackpot like Tauger does say a lot. --Львівське (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I have read the quote, thank you. The ref provided by you states that the idea of the famine directed against the Ukrainian nation is the myth of Ukrainian nationalists.
Re "Tauger cites Mace and tries to argue against him. Mace is a respected source on this, Tauger is not." It is not clear for me how the latter statement can be derived from the former one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and the persona arguing this (Tauger) is a schmuck. Ipso facto, those who argue that the famine was not isolated, and that it was the creation of "Ukrainian nationalists" are also schmucks. --Львівське (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, can your brilliant syllogism be extended to other areas? For instance "The person arguing that the Earth rotates around the Sun is schmuck, therefore he cannot be considered as a respected source..." --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion between Douglas Tottle, a journalist who wrote a Stalinist account of the famine and Mark Tauger, an academic whose viewpoint is largely rejected by other scholars. But James Mace himself does not seem to have published his theories in the academic press. TFD (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, typo, I meant Tottle; I don't see what you mean about James Mace though. Are you saying a prominent historian is not a RS?--Львівське (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
We look at the publications. For example, Michael Ignatieff is a noted historian and a leading expert on human rights. That does not mean that his editorials and political speeches are reliable sources for the subjects he discusses. On the other hand, when he returns to Harvard, any articles he writes for academic journals will be. But they of course will be peer-reviewed and subject to scrutiny of the academic community. Do you know of any papers that Mace published in the academic that are relevant? TFD (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. The quote provided by Lvivske says that

the famine stopped precisely at the border of Russia and Belorussia.

Is James Mace denying that the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 took place at all? That millions died outside Ukraine? Is that the "scholarly consensus" you were referring to, Lvivske? (Igny (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC))

Categorizing the famine as "Soviet wide" is a Russian denial myth. The famine targetted Ukraine for the most part, but also the ethnic republics within the RSFSR and Kazakhstan, Armenia, etc. to stamp out non-Russian opposition. There was no famine in Russia proper ,but the Kremlin likes to pretend there was.--Львівське (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Then why does Holodomor occur during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, according to your edits, if it's just a Kremlin myth? Why not, say, it occurred during Great Depression or something else more real? (Igny (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC))
Are you inferring a correlation between Soviet collectivization and the Great Depression?--Львівське (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I am just trying to understand the logic behind this edit of yours. (Igny (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC))

Re "Categorizing the famine as "Soviet wide" is a Russian denial myth. The famine targetted Ukraine for the most part, but also the ethnic republics within the RSFSR and Kazakhstan, Armenia, etc. to stamp out non-Russian opposition." I believe the quote below (which belongs to the notable Russian nationalist Massimo Livi-Bacci) brilliantly demonstrate this point. Based on the analysis of the writings of such notable Russian nationalists as Conquest, Graziosi and Maksudov he concludes:

""The highest death rates were in the grain growing provinces of Poltava, Dnipropetrovsk, Kirovohrad and Odessa, usually with from 20-25 percent, though even higher in many villages. In the Karnianets-Podilsky, Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Donets, Kharkov and Kiev provinces, it was lower-usually some 15-20 percent. In the far north of the Ukraine, in the beet-growing area, it was lowest-partly because the forests, rivers and lakes held animal and vegetable life which could be used as food" (Conquest, 1986: 250). Outside Ukraine, famine raged in Moldavia, North Caucasus (particularly in the Kuban region), in the lower Volga region, and in Kazakhstan, where the nomadic population suffered the loss of sheep and cattle (Conquest, 1986; Conquest et al., 1984; Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 1984; Graziosi, 1991; Maksudov, 1989)." (Massimo Livi-Bacci. On the Human Costs of Collectivization in the Soviet Union. Population and Development Review, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 743-766)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Did it really "rage" in Moldavia?: 1 ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Conquest, yes, although I am inclined to treat his conclusions (all conclusions), which were made based of limited amount of documentary support, with cautions. However, the major point is that the sources do not describe the famine as something specific for Ukraine. That means that these western scholars are supporters of the Russian denial myth, according to Львівське.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the question was ever "Was it specific to Ukraine?", rather, it was "Was Ukraine disproportionately affected?". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The question was quite concrete: is "categorizing the famine as "Soviet wide"" a "Russian denial myth"? Concretely, was it directed against non-Russian minorities? The sources I am familiar with give a negative answer.
Re "disproportionately affected", you state this question incorrectly. Disproportionately to what? If the famine was a result of confiscation of grain, obviously, the major grain producing regions (Central and Southern Ukraine, Kuban, Stavropol kray, Lower Don and Volga) were supposed to be affected, whereas the northern provinces specialised on milk and meat production, or industrial regions, such as Donetsk region were not. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
PS. Regarding Kazakhstan, the famine was a result of collectivisation (that resulted to high cattle mortality), not of confiscation of sheep and cattle. The nomadic economy appeared to be extremely vulnerable towards mechanistic implementation of the collectivisation policy. Taking into account that no appreciable separatist tendencies existed in Kazakhstan (by contrast to some other republics in Central Asia) during this time, it is hard to imagine that the famine was organised intentionally to fight non-existent separatism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you trying to claim that separatism in general was non-existent? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean under "in general"? Speaking "in general", separatism exists in almost every modern state, including the UK, France or Spain. Yes, it also existed in majority Soviet republics, however, the very fact of separatism means nothing, because its scale must be taken into account. I can believe that some Kazakh bays supported independence, however, basmachi movement had almost no support in Kazakhstan. In Ukraine, the separatist tendencies were specific for its western part only, and the Eastern and Southern parts were strongly pro-Bolshevik (remember also that disproportionally high amount of Soviet bolsheviks had Ukrainian, I mean Ukrainian and Jewish-Ukrainian roots). In Georgia, the society was separated: a part of the society was strong supporters of Communists (and, consequently, Gergian membership in the USSR), whereas another one was separatist (and I cannot tell which tendency was dominant during those times).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Some sources

Here are some sources from Google News archive. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Search for "Ukraine famine" in 1932–1933

This list contains practically all sources in Google News form 1932–1933 that contain the words "Ukraine" and "famine" that have any usable content available for free. Many more sources can be found by searching for "Russia famine". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Updated 07:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, who cares and what's the point of this? You're linking to 1932 sources. And ...? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Just watch and learn. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're in the process of writing a paper for academic publication I'd be happy to proof read it for you, whatever I may think of the merits of your thesis, just email it to me. But Wikipedia's not a place for that. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Next we'll be using Duranty as a source, lol --Львівське (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, I have just located one or most likely two of his reports. As you all well know, the John Birch Society accuses him of being the original "Holodomor" denier. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
...then again, other accuse the Hearst newspaper group of being the original "Holodomor fabricator." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh, who cares? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Walter Duranty's reporting is now considered unreliable. But the problem with using Bircher type sources is that we cannot tell what is true, which is why articles should use reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm sure there is no short supply of sources discrediting Walt.--Львівське (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
But the problem with using Bircher type sources - LOL. Yeah keep making stuff up. Princeton University Press = "Bircher type sources". Sure. Seriously. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not used any of these nor have I yet suggested we use any of them. Contemporary news reporting is however an important part of the historiography. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not used any of these nor have I yet suggested we use any of them - that's good of you... Don't. Since that would violate basic Wikipedia's content policies. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I replied about the use of sources in the section above. TFD (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

An article in Soviet Studies in January 1964 describes contemporary Western reporting. The Google News results listed above contain most of the stories referred to. The article was reprinted in the Ukrainian Weekly in 1983 and is available on-line. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent news

Yes, my dear, we know that Janukovych denies the Holodomor. But other world leaders, such as Barack Obama, do not. Anybody with even a cursory knowledge of the politics of the issue knows that. You're not providing new information. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yanukov still uses the word Holodomor, though, he just uses it in a universalized, "pan-soviet" sense and denies the ukrainian character of it --Львівське (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
@ Red Baron – You have tricked yourself into making a very important concession – you are saying that the Holodomor is not the famine in Ukraine in a generalized sense, but the "factually correct" interpretation and narrative of events – including the 10 million victims and the genocide aimed at Ukrainians. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot tell this "factually correct" version of the story, as it is not universally endorsed in reliable scholarly sources. In adherence to Wikipedia's core policy of neutral point-of-view we must also take into account the apologist "commie lies" – or as we say on Wikipedia – the other point-of-view (which unfortunately seems to dominate most of the scholarly literature). As this article cannot endorse the "factually correct" story, it would be wrong to give a "factually incorrect" content to the factually correct name. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh, what? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. (and I am the Red Baron's brother, fyi) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Odd stuff

Its interesting the Historian claims that the theory of the famine aimed against the Ukrainian nation was born in the United States in 1984. In fact this contemporary source and others tell that the Ukrainian Holocaust / genocide / Holodomor movement was up and running by the time of the 50 years celebrations in 1983. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a historiographical claim, rather than a "popular use" or "comparative use in English" claim. Historiographical claims should not be sourced to newspapers. Newspapers rarely if ever correctly report historiography, and never possess the editorial oversight capable of providing adequate review of historiographical issues. The standards for history are publication in peer reviewed conference proceedings, peer reviewed journal articles, and books and book chapters published by academic presses and major prestigious non-fiction presses. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Books? [43] about three thousand from Google Books, making it clear that the term is definitely used in books. Scholar? 441 examples. Many of which are decidedly not "propaganda" books. Doctoral theses. More. And WP has no such requirement for article titles in the first place. [44] has Russian delegates saying "We must acknowledge that the Holodomor was not only in Ukraine, that Russians, Poles, Kazakhs and other peoples suffered in this ..." which implies that the Russians at the OSCE conference used the term. What we have is: WP does not require titles to be found in academic publications. 2. The term Holodomor is found in academic publications in any case. Collect (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Collect, This thread is not about the word Holodomor, but about the famine = genocide theory in general. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for showing a misapprehension of the basic issues. The issue here has always been about "Holodomor" and not about the side issues you ascribe. Collect (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Petri, please familiarise yourself with WP:TALK: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject". Discussions about "the famine = genocide theory in general" are "general conversation about the article's subject". If you want to discuss the theory itself, go publish your thoughts elsewhere. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Naimark on Stalin's Genocides

http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Genocides-Rights-Against-Humanity/dp/0691147841 is finally out. Feel free to cite.--Galassi (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Food aid

Please explain repeated removal of a referenced section. "Communist propaganda" is just as bad argument as if I would say that this whole article is one big "underkilled Banderovtsi propaganda". The question is whether there facts are true or false. Lovok Sovok (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the question is not whether these "facts" are true or false but whether the info is verifiable with secondary reliable sources. It's gonna take me awhile to read it but even a cursory glance suggests that these are in fact primary sources. What would be needed is secondary sources which discuss these documents and based on them state what the text being inserted claims. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This just reeks of the Jo0doe tactic of using non-English primary sources to push garbage into articles. If the Party was providing aid, I'm sure there's a historian out there that can mention it, we don't need to rely on 1st hand interpretations of primary sources.--Львівське (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the info is garbage, it's simply primary sources and as such not supposed to be the basis for article content. Assuming that the orders are correct and reflect reality is original research on the part of the editor who out it in. Better to find a reliable secondary source who read these archives and then stated that such aid was distributed.Faustian (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I meant the way its inserted as gospel is garbage, not the documents themselves. Primary sources can be invaluable in the right context. If history were written by what Soviet archives say is "the truth" then Soviet history as we know it would be flipped upside down.--Львівське (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand your position about "primary sources". If you read contemporary Soviet decrees about establishment of Gulag camps, you would think they were resorts. Still there was indeed food aid from the state. However, as I remember, this aid was available only in areas which "fulfilled their obligations before the state" (i.e., I guess, almost nowhere). So I agree, the references should be from professional historians who brought various pieces of historical puzzle together. I will try to search for some. Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are not acceptable as verification in historical articles. Only professional historians are capable of reading archival sources to produce original research. Wikipedia is neither a historian or a site for the promulgation of original research. Good removal. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The removal is outrageous !!!
Check this Princeton University Press.source [45] p 237-239
Or
R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. ISBN: 0-333-31107-8
Or at least [46] - this led on February 25, 1933, to a seed loan from Union :stockpiles of 20,300,000 poods of grain to Ukraine and another 15,300,000 poods to the North Caucasus Territory, specifically to the Kuban.
Professor Pyrih book is not a “garbage”!!!

This source introduced by Novickas is a reliable source on the food aid:

  • Wheatcroft, S. G.; Davies, R. W. (2002). "The Soviet Famine of 1932–33 and the Crisis in Agriculture". Challenging traditional views of Russian history. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 69–91. ISBN 0333754611. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

-- Petri Krohn (talk)

Edit war over characterisation as genocide at first line

My understanding is that this article is primarily about a famine that some also consider a deliberate genocide, an issue that is disputed. The introduction should be made as neutrally as possible, and the question of genocide raised in context of the famine event. Can the disputing editors please explain why the status quo ante should not now apply. RashersTierney (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Virtually all genocides are debated by some. This is mostly debated by Soviet/Russian revisionists, and another part skeptics. The Armenian Genocide is debated by Turkey, the Holocaust has its share of denial as well (however marginal). Why does this article have to be the exception to the rule when compared to other genocide articles?--Львівське (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly my sentiment.--Galassi (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Because the fact that Holodomor is a genocide is a minority view. (Igny (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC))
...in the historiographical wasteland that is Russia, sure.--Львівське (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not so much that it is debated "by some", but that it is not accepted as such by a wide spectrum of historians as stated at this (neutral?) source. The former wording is in keeping with NPOV policy. There is no question of minimising the possibility, (and in the later period, probability according to this source), that the famine was deliberately exacerbated by Stalin to be genocidal in effect. RashersTierney (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Just how wide is that wide spectrum? My impression is that the specrum tilts in the direction of genocide, and that includes the US gov. position, as well as that of Lemkin, who coined the term.--Galassi (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
When I was doing research on this subject I wanted to compare both historical narratives and the pro/con to the genocide debate, and I had a really hard time finding legitimate historians who were against the genocide classification or that it was intentional. If anything, the view that it was a Soviet-wide famine and nothing more is the most marginal of views only parroted by politicians.--Львівське (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The contemporary scholarly position on Lemkin and Eastern European genocides (non-German-aligned-initiated) is that Lemkin bent his term to suit the needs of his funding bodies, which included and then became solely Eastern European emigre communities. I forget the quote which is at the article formerly known as Communist Genocide, but to paraphrase: whatever Lemkin touched turned to genocide. Lemkin is not part of the contemporary scholarly mainstream or consensus wrt Eastern European genocide. However, afaik, some credible contemporary scholars consider the Soviet Famine to be genocide. For goodness sakes, don't rely on the US Government—which is not a historian or mass-death academic—for anything but the opinion of the US Government, which as the sole surviving super-power is notable but most definitely needs to be attributed when used. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
"Lemkin for Hire" accusation sounds like a tall tale to me. You better source that.--Galassi (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No worries Galassi, exceptional claims require sourcing, see the heavily cited section Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Origin_of_debate from the impeccable historiography article Weiss-Wendt, Anton (2005). "Hostage of Politics: Raphael Lemkin on 'Soviet Genocide'". Journal of Genocide Research 7 (4): 551–559. doi:10.1080/14623520500350017. http://www.inogs.com/JGRFullText/WeissWendt.pdf. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The actual quote was, "Like King Midas, whatever Lemkin touched turned into 'genocide.' But when everything is genocide nothing is genocide!" (Weiss-Wendt, opcit, 555-556). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Has the W-W opinion been seconded?--Galassi (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Excellent question. Weiss-Wendt 2005 was cited by two journal articles to date in google scholar (an extremely limited humanities citation tool), DC Peifer (2008) "Genocide and Airpower" Strategic Studies Quarterly (FUTON) to answer the question, "Committee members engaged with drafting the convention devoted much discussion and debate to defining genocide. What distinguished genocide from other forms of mass death, such as famine or war? How should the crime be defined so that the Soviets—guilty of their own mass murders—would not obstruct the treaty?" (Peifer 98); and by I Katchanovski (2010) "The Politics of Soviet and Nazi Genocides in Orange Ukraine" Europe-Asia Studies (FUTON of a pre-press) to answer the question, "Raphael Lemkin, who is credited with formulating the concept of genocide and advancing its adoption in 1948 by the United Nations in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, regarded as genocide mass murder, deportations, and assimilations of Ukrainians, Jews, Estonians, and other ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union. (See Weiss-wendt, 2005)." These both appear to be scholarly uses of Weiss-Wendt accepting his article as a full scholarly representation of the standard of genocide term use historiography. Weiss-Wendt's claim regarding Lemkin's motivations is the assignation of genocide are part of his scholarly representation of the standard of genocide term use historiography. This is well within the standards of citation of approval of sources in the humanities, which rarely if ever achieve the citation density of hard sciences, and the humanities is where people nail academics to the wall for stuffing up. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The 'pro-genocide' contributions above present the issue as if what occurred was either a famine or a genocide. That is a false premise. The sole issue is how this article is to be introduced to unfamiliar readers in a neutral way. The initial description as a famine does not in any way prejudice the question as to whether or not it amounted to genocide. It is simply familiarising readers with the subject in a neutral way (WP:NPOV) . For the record, I have no horse in this particular race, as between Russian and Ukrainian historiography. Also, the initiating editor, who violated WP:3RR has apparently 'disengaged' from debate. RashersTierney (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The instigators of edit wars rarely have intention to join debates, or they join under a different, more established, account. (Igny (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Re "Virtually all genocides are debated by some. This is mostly debated by Soviet/Russian revisionists, and another part skeptics." This statement is obviously wrong. The article contains the clear and unequivocal statement of Ellman, who described Holodomor not as genocide (in its strict definition). He argued further that it might fit a definition of loosely defined genocide, however, such genocide is not something outstanding, so most Western countries were also involved in such "genocide". By no mean Ellman, Wheatcroft, Davis or Tauger can be considered "Russian nationalist", therefore, I revert the last edits which was supplemented with absolutely misleading edit summary.

Re: "Has the W-W opinion been seconded?" The Ellman's opinion on loosely defined genocide (the quote from the article is below)

"Based on this analysis he concludes, however, that the actions of Stalin's authorities against Ukrainians do not meet the standards of specific intent required to proof genocide as defined by the UN convention (the notable exception is the case of Kuban Ukrainians).[1] Ellman further concluded that if the relaxed definition of genocide is used, the actions of Stalin's authorities do fit the definition of genocide.[1] However, this more relaxed definition of genocide makes the latter the common historical event, according to Ellman.[1]"

conveys the same idea: if everything is genocide, nothing is genocide. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is that The Holodomor was a genocide (argue for or against it as you will) and the way some users are trying to bend this article is to turn it into the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 article. The Holodmor is more than just the regional term for the famine that occurred, and the article should reflect what the word means, that it is a very exclusive and separate part of the overall famine that occurred. --Львівське (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the interpretation of Holodomor as genocide is a national POV. This idea, as well as the idea that this famine was directed against some concrete nation, is not supported by many Western scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
While the Holodmor is very much the product of a national narrative, the statement you're making that it was not directed against a concrete national / support by western scholars is an outright lie. The fact that the goal of the famine by Stalin was to destroy nationalism and resistance to Soviet rule has got to be the absolute most agreed upon aspect of the famine in western studies.--Львівське (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
"Based on this analysis he concludes, however, that the actions of Stalin's authorities against Ukrainians do not meet the standards of specific intent required to proof genocide as defined by the UN convention (the notable exception is the case of Kuban Ukrainians)."(Michael Ellman, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663-693.)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
What's your point? Ellman's questioning of intent trumps all? Or what?--Львівське (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
No mainstream writer classifies this as genocide. The comparison with the Holocaust does not hold. Notice that there is a category "Ukrainian communists"[47] but no category for "Jewish Nazis".[48] Genocide has a narrow meaning. TFD (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Jewish cooperation with the Nazis is one of the major causes for the number of deaths that occurred (Arendt). Your analogy doesn't hold. Russian Red Army troops were used to enforce the perpetuation of the famine, not locals.--Львівське (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Before we label an action "genocide" we need a reliable source that says that is the consensus view in academic writing. Can you provide that? BTW could you mention what writing by Arendt explains her view of Jewish cooperation with the Nazis? TFD (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Having read this conversation it does seem to me that there a re ligitimate historians on both sides of the genocide/nongenocide issue, and thus the word genocide does not need to be in the first sentence. On the other hand, scholarly consensus seems to be much stronger that it was a man-made catastrophe. Perhaps it can be described that way, without qualifiers ("proponents claim...") into the first sentence as a compromise? Perhaps the first paragraph can read:

In modern Ukrainian historiography, the Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор; translation: death by hunger) refers to the manifestations of the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933 in the Ukrainian SSR. During the man-made famine millions of inhabitants died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.[3] Some proponents of the use of the word even consider the events a genocide comparable to the Holocaust.[1][2] Estimates of the total number of deaths within Soviet Ukraine range from 2.6 million[4][5] to 10 million.[6]

Also - why is the 10 million figure in this paragraph? It's something some politicians have said but is why outside the scholarly mainstream. This figure could be placed in the lead becuse it's notable that politicians have used it, but why is it in the first paragraph of the lead?Faustian (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If the 10 goes so should the 2.6, that was just one writer's own research and falls out of scholarly consensus. So do we go with the max range, or general consensus?--Львівське (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
We should go to a mainstream text on genocide and use it as a source for how the event is viewed, rather than going to various sources and having to determine the weight of each source. TFD (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
What does "man-made" mean? Caused by human mismanagement, or caused by people who wanted to starve someone to death? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Faustian, I have tweaked the first paragraph to better reflect your POV. It now reads:
In modern Ukrainian historiography, the Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор; translation: death by hunger) refers to the manifestations of the wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933 in the Ukrainian SSR. Proponents of the use of the word emphasise the man-made aspects of the famine, often arguing that they meet some definition of genocide – some even consider the events comparable to the Holocaust.[2][3] During the famine millions of inhabitants died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.[4] Estimates of the total number of deaths within Soviet Ukraine range from 2.6 million[5][6] to 10 million.[7]
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. – Searching for "man-made famine" on Google, indicates it is just another way of saying "genocide". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Can't it be both? the famine abroad was by mismanagement, the Holodomor narrative states that this catastrophe was exploited for the latter. Virtually every source in the world calls the famine "man-made"; this wasn't a drought, which calling it 'just a famine' makes it sound like.--Львівське (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It can be a drought and a famine. It can be a drought and a famine and man-made. It can be a drought and a famine and man-made and intentional. It can be a drought and a famine and man-made and intentional and genocide. It is important to differentiate the scholarly consensus on the nature of the Soviet Famine itself from the popular narratives of what the nature of the Soviet Famine was. One popular narrative was the official Soviet denialist line, which, as it does not accord with scholarly consensus, should be indicated to be ideological or fictitious or denialist. One popular narrative is the Ukrainian Holodomor narrative, which, as it accords with some scholarly opinions ought to be indicated to lie within the credible scholarly debate; but, it may or may not accord with the scholarly consensus. The article ought to write facts from the scholarly consensus and note major credible divergent scholarly opinions while attributing them to their source. The article ought to also report fully major popular narratives and, for the reader, evaluate their credibility on the basis of the full breadth of true current scholarly debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see where you're going with this, but it can't be both "man made" and a "famine", it's either a natural famine or a man-made famine; it's the latter, that's overwhelming absolute consensus to the nth degree. What are you debating here?--Львівське (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to reflect the scholarly consensus in the Soviet famine of 1932–1933. This article could concentrate on the Ukrainian narrative of the famine, its role in the national mythology of modern Ukraine and the politicization of the Holodomor issue. This article does not really need to state a single fact about the events of 1932–1933. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Only problem I see is that the "causes" section was turned into its own page, and a lot of that stuff is crucial the backing of the ukrainian narative....so what makes the cut to go back into a condensed version of the causes section--Львівське (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
At least in Australian English, famine implies widespread malnutrition or starvation as a result of lack of food; where as a man made famine is due to human causes but not necessarily intentional (environmental catastrophe can be a human cause); where as intentional famine is deliberately inflicted. I'm not debating that the Soviet Famine had the background of climate caused crop failure, but that the famine was caused by state policy with an awareness that mass death that would be caused as a result of policy.
I would much prefer that the Soviet Famine article deal with the historical incident, and that the Holodomor deal with the popular and historical narrative which began in Ukraine regarding the historical incident due to advantages to the English language reader. But this is basically a Request for Move and should be proceeded officially to allow other external editors to debate it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to do something about the lede. It is too verbose. (Igny (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

I do not see that we will get very far with this editor based on previous discussions about Jewish Bolshevism.[49] TFD (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please recognize that the Soviet government petitioned the World Economic Conference to more than triple there wheat export limit of 25 milliom metric tons to 85 million metric tons. Though there were doubts that the Soviets would be able to meet this new amount, it was allowed. The simple economics of this fails to be factored in anywhere in this article or this discussion. Being the 'bread basket' of the USSR, the Ukraine suffered to meet this new quota hence the HOLODOMOR.

As for the numbers, the United States recognizes the loss of 7-10 million lives in these 18 months of 1932-1933. The low estimate of lost lives under Stalin is 26 million overall(33 million is the high figure); a culmination of multiple smaller genocides in various regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Swiastyn (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read this

read a preface to 2010 revised edition http://www.amazon.com/Industrialisation-Soviet-Russia-Agriculture-1931-1933/dp/0230238556/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290022316&sr=1-1#reader_0230238556 The claims still foolish - On August 7, 1932 a law came into force that stipulated that all food was state property and that mere possession of food was evidence of a crime. - Name of Law pls- it's unknown to the world

November 1932 Ukraine was required to provide 1/3 of the grain collection of the entire Soviet Union -??? 18.5/3 = 6.1 millions!!! Only in November 1932??? Why 4.3 millions listed for whole 1932 harvest (D&W 2010 tables section ) ??? -You call that crap a "historical article"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.75.217 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Background

Some background info would be helpful - the historical resistance to collectivization by Ukrainian peasants, Stalin's unrealistic but significant for him fears about a Polish invasion (the famine occured after Stalin's non-aggression treaty with Poland, which to Stalin meant a free hand to do what he wanted in Ukraine).Faustian (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

An interesting contemporary parallel: 1933 Wisconsin milk strike. The relevant question here is to what extent this resistance to collectivization was expressed as a producer strike? Did kulaks stop producing because they felt they were not properly rewarded? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Parallel? I was unaware of any forced collectivization in Wisconsin. Collect (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is an interesting quote from Simon Sebag-Montefiore:

The peasants replied by destroying their crops and slaughtering 26 million cattle and 15 million horses to stop the Bolsheviks (and the cities they came from) getting their food.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


Interesting elison here. You miss out on Lenin's hatred of the peasantry became clear when a famine occurred in Ukraine and southern Russia in 1921, the inevitable result of the chaos and upheaval of the Revolution.
With his bloodthirsty loathing for all enemies of the Revolution, he said Let the peasants starve, and wrote ranting notes ordering the better-off peasants to be hanged in their thousands and their bodies displayed by the roadsides.
And also
Many centuries later, the brutal Soviet dictator Josef Stalin reflected that he would have liked to deport the entire Ukrainian nation, but 20 million were too many to move even for him. So he found another solution: starvation.
Now, 75 years after one of the great forgotten crimes of modern times, Stalins man-made famine of 1932/3, the former Soviet republic of Ukraine is asking the world to classify it as a genocide.
The Ukrainians call it the Holodomor the Hunger. Millions starved as Soviet troops and secret policemen raided their villages, stole the harvest and all the food in villagers homes. They dropped dead in the streets, lay dying and rotting in their houses, and some women became so desperate for food that they ate their own children.
If they managed to fend off starvation, they were deported and shot in their hundreds of thousands. So terrible was the famine that Igor Yukhnovsky, director of the Institute of National Memory, the Ukrainian institution researching the Holodomor, believes as many as nine million may have died.
For decades the disaster remained a state secret, denied by Stalin and his Soviet government and concealed from the outside world with the help of the useful idiots as Lenin called Soviet sympathisers in the West.
So thanks for proffering this nice reliable source. Collect (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder misquoted

at Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands...": Even Molotov was recommend that the quota for Ukraine be reduced. Stalin accept that recommendation… As of November 1932 only about one third of the annual target had been met

referenced at article

In November 1932 Ukraine was required to provide 1/3 of the grain collection of the entire Soviet Union

at Snyder 190,000 peasants

at article 190,000 Ukrainian peasants


From Archives in Russia on the Famine in Ukraine by Iryna Matiash at Harriman Review 2008 - A report from Yagoda to Stalin and Molotov, about the struggle against mass flight from the Ukr SSR, the North Caucasus krai, and Nizhno-Volga krai, Ukraine, and the North-Caucasus. 18,379 Ukrainians were detained, most of whom were turned back, and 23 arrested —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.134.200.174 (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Snyder was referring specifically to peasants from Ukraine in a section written by him about how the Ukrainian SSR was specifcially singled out. Nice try, anon. Or puppet?Faustian (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Number of victims

discussion

I think we need to pool together all reliable historians and other official statistics on this matter and fix the intro. There needs to be a differentiation between the consensus amount of deaths and the outliers (like 2.6m, 20m). Most agree it is 7-10...the article should represent the consensus among historians, and in the body, explain the breadth of views. The 2.6m figure is a mathematical estimate, and should be explained in the body, but not in the lead.--Львівське (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

agree with need and outlined process. We should avoid non-scholarly numbers here except when the non-scholarly opinion is independently notable and then we should probably shunt those off to a subarticle if a relevant one exists. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Same thing needs to be done with the genocide question. There is being neutral, and then there is ignoring consensus and giving undue weight to finge views. This entire article needs an overhaul from all angles, but I think organizing the death toll is most important and a good place to start.--Львівське (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have linked to an on-line version of Robert Conquest's book from 1986. (Only the introduction and the chapter on numbers is available.) Conquest list a number of anecdotal sources supporting his estimates. His main source is comparison of (unreliable) census numbers. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The census numbers should be explained in the book. From what I remember there is a conflict between the two censuses, one asking nationality, the other asking language. I have a .doc file with notes from his book from research I did a year ago, so I'll have to comb through for his (and others) figures, and hopefully I wrote down a good explanation for the numbers and how these guys came to their conclusions.--Львівське (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
They are. I thought you did read the link I gave: 16 The Death Roll. Or are you saying, you have the parer copy? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, the authors who maintain that Holodomor was an event separate from the Soviet Famine, nevertheless, are using the data for the USSR as whole to determine the number of Ukrainian victims. The number of 7.9-10 million corresponds to the famine victims in the USSR as whole (Michael Ellman. A Note on the Number of 1933 Famine Victims. Soviet Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1991), pp. 375-379), including Kuban, Volga, Central Black earth region and Kazakhstan.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This goes both ways. Those who say it was a Soviet wide famine of equal scale say "8m died" while including all the ukrainian deaths but not mentioning them by name. This is just like Soviet historiography when concerning the Holocaust, which teaches a universal view and that the Holocaust came from 'the fascists' and affected all of the USSR; 20m+ died during the "Holocaust" (didnt use this word until the 1990s but you get the point) and that there was no genocide or singling out of any ethnic minority [if you want a source for what I'm saying, check out Stefan Rohdewald "Post soviet rememberance of the holocaust and national memories of the second world war..."--Львівське (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Data is data and a researcher gets it wherever she can. That has no implications on the conceptual differences of various phenomenon. People study the impact of the Black Death on Europe as a whole and they also study how, for example, the Black Death impacted the political institutions of Wales (or whatever). One does not invalidate the other. So of course there's gonna be studies looking at the 1933 famine in the Soviet Union as a whole which also deal with the Holodomor as a special case. That doesn't mean that the Holodomor was not a special case not deserving of its own studies - and there are plenty of sources which in fact do exactly that. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
We are talking not about "conceptual differences" but about the numbers. If one wants to discuss Ukraine alone, (s)he must use the data for Ukraine only, not the data of those scholars (Western, not Russian/Soviet) who wrote about the USSR as whole and who did not speak about Ukrainian famine separately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if we're talking numbers then let's talk numbers. But then let's leave the whole question of "Holodmor" vs. "part of Soviet famine" alone. This is a good - and in fact scholarly and legitimate - discussion to have. Unfortunately looking at all the comments above that doesn't seem like the main bone of contention here. Peoples wants to argue about political semantics, rather than concrete things, like numbers. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Along the same lines, TFD stated above that the RfC wasn't about the name of this article but about something else (" The RfC was started in order to determine the wording of the lead" - i.e. it wasn't about article title being "Holodmor" vs. "..."). Can we then close the RfC? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Lvivske and I seem to be engaged in a low-level edit war today about the death toll. Comments, please. I reverted their change to the low end statistic from 2.6 million to 2.2 million ([50], adding an online version of the paper and a quote; their change back to 2.6, [51].) As support for my restoration of 2.2 million by Callin et al - currently used in the article as ref no.2 - I ask editors to read this online version of the citation to France Meslé, Gilles Pison and Jacques Vallin 2005 [52]. Quote: "What is striking in the long-term picture of Ukrainian life expectancy is the devastating impact of the calamities of the 1930s and 1940s (Fig.3). In 1933, the famine which had occasioned unparalleled excess mortality of 2.2 million (2), cut the period life expectancy to a low of under 10 years.[2]" (emphasis on 2.2 mil added). Note 2 reads "2.6 million deaths in 1933 instead of the normal 433,000 to be expected from previous trends." Is there some other way to read this reference as other than 2.2 mil caused by the event, or some other way to interpret their use of the term excess mortality? Novickas (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In the actual study by Vallin it's 2.6, in the one you're citing he also says in his footnote its 2.6 while 2.2 is "excess deaths". You're reading him out of context.--Львівське (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed here: [53]. Apparently in another paper (unfortunately not available on-line) Vallin listed 2.6 as the number of excess deaths: here goes from the Conclusion section of the article by Jacques Vallin, France Mesle, Serguei Adamets, Serhii Pyrozhkov, "A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s", Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3. (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264:
This reconstruction offers a foundation for a better appreciation and understanding of the severity of the crises that befell Ukraine during the first half of the twentieth century. The 1926 Census enumerated 29 million Ukrainians, yet that of 1939 still reported fewer than 31 million inhabitants, to Stalin’s great displeasure. This very low population increase was a consequence of the major crises of the 1930s. Soviet policy in this decade left the Ukrainian population severely damaged. The disasters of the decade culminated in the horrific famine of 1933. These events resulted in a dramatic fall in fertility and a rise in mortality. Our estimates suggest that total losses can be put at 4.6 million, 0.9 million of which was due to forced migration, 1 million to a deficit in births, and 2.6 million to exceptional mortality. [Skip the WW2 losses discussion that gives: 13.8 million losses, including a net out-migration of 2.3 million, a deficit in births of 4.1 million, and a loss of 7.4 million due to exceptional mortality] [...] However, overall, the consequences of the Second World War were even worse: [...] The exceptional burden of the two major mid-century crises is clear to see.

Faustian (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't see that one, but it certainly looks as if the 2005 France Meslé, Gilles Pison and Jacques Vallin paper retracts the excess mortality estimate down to 2.2 mil. I've already quoted it - what else is necessary? If we use it as a reference we need to cite its stats accurately. Novickas (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The 2005 paper does no such thing, the 2002 findings are the same. The 2005 paper even states 2.6 in its footnotes, and the wiki article paragraph on Vallin even differentiates between the 2.2 and 2.6 figures. Ultimately, the 2005 "Ukraine vs. France" mini analysis you're citing should be thrown out as its just a VERY small summary of the actual body of work--Львівське (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Remove your blinding POV filters when you read sources please. 2.6m total mortality minus 433k expected "normal mortality" results in 2.2m excess mortality due to famine. That is just 2nd grade arithmetic, really. (Igny (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
That indeed seems to be what the 2005 paper says. But the much more detailed 2002 work stated 2.6 million "exceptional mortality". 2005 could be a correction for 2002, but that's not 100%.Faustian (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
"Exceptional mortality" =/= "excess mortality". Exceptional may merely mean that it is exceptional compared to what could be expected from the previous trends. But I think the true meaning of it was lost in translation from French to English. (Igny (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

I finally found the original 2002 article (thanks to Petri). A relevant quote, p252

which means that the mortality effect of the crisis seems to account for 2.6 million of the total losses over the period 1927-38 (p.252)
again shows the total of 2.6 million for the period 1927-38 (p.253)

(emphasis mine) (Igny (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

You have the full article? Could you email me a copy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure if pdf downloaded from jstor does not contain personal info of the downloader, in particular the university I affiliate with. (Igny (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
Could you cut and paste the conclusion section with the numbers?Faustian (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you post a link or more than sentence fragments so that this can be cleared up? The conclusion I posted seems to indiate 2.6 million excess deaths in the 2002 article (vs., of course, 2.2 million in the 2005 article). Incidentally, Timothy Snyder's book just came out and he's giving a figure in the 3 million range (don't remember the exact number, don't have time to look it up now).Faustian (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

To whoever changed 2.2 as the lower end to 2.6 (this is not clear from edit summaries). I realize that another editor has asked for clarification of this number. But you can see that these scholars use 2.2 mil in this paper [54], citing Mesle, Pison, and Vallin's 2005 paper for that figure - during a 2008 presentation at the Leiden University. Title: Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933. Quote: "2.2-3.5 million die of starvation in 1932-1933". Novickas (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. since we're still awaiting clarification re stats/context from the 2002 Valinn et al paper, I posted a request for it at User talk:Academic38's talk page - they are the first person at Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR. (Presuming the editors in this category could read the Valinn paper too.) I have access to these things, have never been comfortable doing it for WP's sake, but will probably be willing to do it if other avenues are exhausted. Novickas (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your actions seem reasonable to me. Someone ought to reduce the upper limit also - no historian or demographer claims 10 million. I think Timothy Snyder mentioned the Ukrainian government's estimate of 3.9 million (Snyder himself guesses 3.3 million or so).Faustian (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I could not find a reliable scholarly source for 10 million estimate. Nearly all citations for 10 mil are linked to the estimates by Yuschenko's government, which include 6 mil unborn children per source I have just provided, which could indicate the consensus of under 4 mil direct deaths in Ukraine. (Igny (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

That's original research. Also, bear in mind that your reference, though legit, is only for government estimates of 10m, and is not a trump card over all other sources. I dont think it belongs in the lead until we have a thorough table going with all historians, demographers, or other reputable sources and then can come up with a definitive statement on what the figure is. ie. "historians consider it to be x-y while demographers state Z; the government of Ukraine says Q, blah blah blah" that should be pretty neutral IMO.--Львівське (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That is a wrong approach because you are not talking about historians here. You are talking about a handful of sensationalist journalists who picked up the Yuschenko's figure of 10 million victims and without further analysis or, in fact, any analysis were circulating this figure for it clearly suits their agenda. For example the following "analysis" from here speaks for itself. (Igny (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
Making such estimates is no exact science, particularly since the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. did everything it could to hide what was done. But even when considering the most conservative estimates, such as those of Kulchytsky who estimates 3.5 million people perished in Ukraine, one has to add the three million Ukrainians who also perished outside Ukraine in places like Kuban, the North Caucasus, Russia and Kazakhstan where there were heavy populations of Ukrainians as well... Their method was to review the national statistics from two Soviet censuses pre and post the famine of 1932-33 to reach the conclusion that, in addition to the victims in Ukraine, three million died outside Ukraine but within the orbit of the Soviet Union. So the numbers 7 to 10 million appears to be not far off the mark, at least according to most commentators
I'm not talking about historians? I clearly am.--Львівське (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I somehow missed that. Could you point me out to what historian you are talking about? As far as I could search I could not find a RS verifying 10mil dead claim. (Igny (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
Where are you going with this nonsense?--Львівське (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
A ot of the high numbers in the table are from obsolete sources, before the archives were opend up. The "high" number seems to be around 4 million. In my opinion, the figure of 10 million is notable and ought to be in the article as such because it's used by politicans, but it is outside the modern scholarly mainstream and thus shouldn't be in the lead or in the infobox about in the range of number of victims.Faustian (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the 10 million does belong in the lead - some readers will come here after reading the politicians' statements. Those who've come here after reading Canadian PM Stephen Harper's 10 mil statement of late October 2010 may well wonder why this article doesn't mention it. If I were coming to a WP article for the first time, after reading or hearing a striking statistic in the Canadian mainstream press - and immediately saw, in the lead, no mention of that number - I might well dismiss the entire article as unreliable. Novickas (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)



This one goes to Ingy for his manipulation of figures, but you can't discuss figures that give flat sums of deaths, and then throw in a figure that is excess deaths minus average deaths. There needs to be a constant among all estimates, and that is (for the most part) total deaths during the Holodmor.--Львівське (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Article lead

I have taken the liberty of removing "artificial" from the article lead - the causes of the famine are covered in the following paragraph, which effectively says that it may not have been artificial. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing there that indicates that this was a "natural" famine. Whether or not it was an attack on Ukrainian nationalism, the famine was man-made. Неурожай, от Бога. Голод, от людей. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
To call it a "famine" implies natural causes. Calling it either artificial or man-made clarifies that this was caused...by men, not nature. Also, I see no reason to remove the dubious/discuss tag when this is still being debated here.--Львівське (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Mike Rosoft. In a similar article, the Great Famine (Ireland), there is no reference to "man made" or "artificial" in the lead. TFD (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact that the Potato Blight was not "artificial" has something to do with it? Collect (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh? The 2 famines aren't even comparable. The potato famine was caused by blight, ie. natural causes. Ukraine was in a surpluss and soldiers requisitioned any and all food in order to starve out citizens (on top of regular wheat quotas). The Irish example was natural famine compounded by policy, the Ukrainian example was 100% artificially caused.--Львівське (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The indigenous Irish were deprived of their property, the property was used to grow grain exported to Great Britain, and emergency grain provisions collected from the population and stored in Ireland were not released to them during the famine. Some modern historians have seen this as a deliberate policy to exterminate the indigenous population and therefore "genocide" under the Hague convention. Some writers have blamed the ideology of the British government as providing an explanation for their actions. TFD (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there an analog in Ukraine to the natural potato blight in Ireland? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not WP:KNOW if there is, but some scholars draw a parallel.[55] TFD (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It may have or may have not been man-made. Stating "artificial" in the lead is the violation of WP:NPOV. Artem Karimov (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Calling it man-made is a historical fact accepted by all sides.--Львівське (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Artificial" does not predicate "intentional" per se. It just means that it was not a natural famine, and there is no real evidence to suggest that this was a natural famine (food surplus != natural famine). Whether it was just a consequence of poorly-orchestrated collectivisation or something more sinister, it was man-made. There is no POV in the word. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Still, "artificial" most often implies "intentional". It would be better to remove it to preserve neutrality. Artem Karimov (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Removing "artificial" would make it seem like it was a typical natural famine, which would be a complete lie. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Nope, it would be just a famine, "artificial" or not. Artem Karimov (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Reliable Sources say it was artificial, so lets not waste any more time on this.--Galassi (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
There are different RS here. Many of them do not recognize the famine to be intentional. Artem Karimov (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
They do recognise it to be artificial. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Consider adding your findings to the word "artificial" "man-made". Artem Karimov (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Also as shown by the discussion above "man-made" is another way of saying "genocide". Artem Karimov (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What discussion above? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Section one, Petri Krohn's reply. Artem Karimov (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
"Man-made famine" does not necessarily mean "genocide": [56] [57] [58]. It can, but not always. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In the links you presented, deliberate starving is implied either literally (Zimbabwe case) or not (IMF case). You have just fueled my position that man-made==genocide. Artem Karimov (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... after re-reading IMF case, probably you are right. Man-made may equal mismanagement as well. Artem Karimov (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Walker – Robert Green

It is amazing that the Thomas Walker/Robert Green hoax photos are still used in Holodomor propaganda. Here are some material on the hoax.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC) – Updated 08:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - Gareth Jones was banned from the USSR for exposing the Holodomor. Thomas Walker's articles did not in any way remove the truth of the Jones articles or reduce the stature of Jones. Thus your cite belongs in the Walker biography, but has really nothing to do with this article. "Rationalrevolution.net" however is not RS by a long shot. "Progress Books" is not a "recognized publisher" either - it appears at best to be a semi-vanity press for socialist and progressive authors. (Heck, its Facebook page specifies that it provides "free socialist books" [59] which, on its face, suggests that the book you provide is written to be distributed as a "free socialist book." Collect (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we do not have a Thomas Walker biography.
The difference in the stories seems to be that Walter Duranty writes that the famine was over by August or September 1933. Walker and other hoaxers claimed that it continued in 1934. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Favorably citing Tottle unfortunately really damages an editor's credibility on this topic.Faustian (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that this book was published by a socialist-sympathising publisher throws up a red flag for me (pun intended). It's like using books from Stormfront's book-club reading list to cite an article about the Holocaust. Very sketchy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
half of the books you use to justify the view of the famine genocide comes from sources with western and nationalist government backing. douglass tottle was not a tool of moscow, he was a historian on the subject matter. 71.84.144.67 (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Progress Publishers was the Soviet publisher of foreign language books, and this book was written with the approval of the Soviet government, but withdrawn after a policy change. It may be useful for research, but you would need to find the claims in the book published in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The publisher of Tottle's books is a Canadian publisher by the same name. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Technically, it may have been a different company, because it was owned by the Communist Party of Canada, but it was affiliated. TFD (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

One reuser of the Walker hoax in Chicago American seems to be The Soviet Story. See this trailer on YouTube, starting at 6'10" – The Soviet Story The Holodomor Ukrainian SSR Edvins Snore Letvia 2008 Also see the issue of Ukrainian Weekly linked to at the bottom of the Chicago American article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What photos are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And to spell it out, the article you link to above says that after Jones (legitimately) exposed the Holodomor, the Soviets most likely used Walker/Green to publish fraudulent stuff, and then had their agents within US expose Walker to discredit the very idea of the Holodomor. Sort of like as if an editor put crap sources from, say, the John Birch Society, into Wikipedia's article on Holodomor, so that they could turn around a little bit later and say "hey, look this article is based on crap sources, obviously the whole concept's bunk, let's just get rid of the article". This is a bit eerie in fact. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

...whoa...--Львівське (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
VM, I would like to see a source for that. TFD (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ummmmmmm, the source is the article which Petri links to. As in, to quote myself, "the article you link to above says that...". Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Where does it say, "the Soviets most likely used Walker/Green to publish fraudulent stuff, and then had their agents within US expose Walker to discredit the very idea of the Holodomor"? TFD (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Read the thing. Of course it doesn't say that exactly but that is the jist of the article. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources? The line "The stories of millions of deaths caused by famine in Ukraine in 1933 and 1934, supposedly caused by the effects of the Soviet system, were fabricated by Nazi propagandists in their propaganda campaigns against Bolshevism." sounds awfully dubious... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

VM is saying that they were actually fabricated by Soviet agents pretending to be Nazis and other anti-Communists so that they could later discredit these sources in order to hide the real famine. TFD (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

LvR, I was referring to the first source. The second source is obviously non-reliable junk - which is should be obvious to everyone, hence I didn't even bother commenting on it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The first source is unreliable - it is a self-published website. Ironically it confirms what the second source says - that some of the reporting and pictures were forgeries. TFD (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The first link to the Gareth Jones beatification site is "a Work-in-Progress Document - For Discussion Purposes Only and Not for Reprint", so we cannot use this "Thomas Walker was a Soviet Patsy" theory by Jones's great-nephew, Nigel Linsan Colley even with attribution. The page however also contains high quality reprints of The 'Thomas Walker' Conspiracy Photos from Hearst's newspapers in 1935. Please study the material carefully. We can safely assume that any Holodomor source that uses any part of this is Holodomor propaganda and thus utterly unreliable. Any claim made by such propaganda sources also becomes highly suspicious. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
First you propose a clearly iffy source from the "Progress Press" and now you defame Gareth Jones about whom no scandal existed? And call his work "propaganda"? What world are you using for such "facts"? WP does not thrive on such singleminded POV positions at all. Collect (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You must have misread what I wrote. I have not criticized Gareth Jones nor do I find anything objectionable on the web site dedicated to him. In fact I find it to be of high quality and value. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Eh? I thought I read you referring to a "Gareth Jones beatification site" which implies that you feel that the site is some sort of a "source that uses any part of this is Holodomor propaganda and thus utterly unreliable. Any claim made by such propaganda sources also becomes highly suspicious." Did I misquote? Collect (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, you certainly did not look what was behind the link...

In addition to the Jones beatification the site also contains detailed comparison of claimed Holodomor photos. It does not "use" them but exposes them.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In short - it does not misuse the photos. Nor does it "beatify" Jones. Collect (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – Here is an Ukrainian site, that lists many of the pictures as form the 1921–23 famine: ФОТОДОКУМЕНТИ ПРО УКРАЇНСЬКИЙ ГОЛОД 1921-1923 РОКІВ -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. – Here are some more 1921 famine charity postcards often reused as Holodomor hoax: "Famine in the Soviet Union, 1921-1922 - Photographs and Postcards" -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We should look into some of the photos on WP to see if they are reliably sourced. For example, the photo used in this article, "Child victim of the holodomor", is sourced to the Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre in Toronto. We need to establish that it was originally published in a mainstream newspaper or, if it remained unpublished for decades, that historians have authenticated it. TFD (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
mark nutley has kindly pointed out that the photograph is attributed to Theodor Innitzer, who printed pamphlets with photographs of the famine in 1933.[60] We should verify that this was one of his photos and find out whether its authenticity has ever been challenged in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
(Moved from User talk:Marknutley#Holodomor. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC))
Looking at the list of photos at Ukrainian state archive site: original translation
Only the first 37 depict famine victims. Of these most originate from the Theodor Innitzer collection, most of these (1–23) are by Alexander Wienerberger and are authenticated here. The ones not from Innitzer are numbers 24–31 and are stated to originate from this publication:
  • Prymak, Thomas M. (1983). "The Great Ukrainian Famine". Forum (54): 23–28. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Numbers 24, 26, 27, 31 are included in the Daily Express suspects
Numbers 25, 28–31 are Walker forgeries, number 25 has a known 1921 source, see File:Horse of Great Famine.jpg.
Numbers 32–37 are from Innitzer, but their true origin in unknown. The child is number 35. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Petri, do you have anything besides these two sources (one of which relies heavily on the other) to back your case up? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I do not think I need to go into more detail. The main point here is that even today Holodomor propaganda uses known hoaxes. One notable example seems to be the Ukrainian chapter of the Memorial Society, see this display. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see some of these sources, then. The current ones look to be of debatable reliability. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a new one for you:
Dyukov is considered unacceptable as RS on RuWiki, due to his extreme nationalism, revisionism and proPutinism.--Galassi (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
All this is however irrelevant, the photos will disprove themselves once the original sources are found. In most cases they have been. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion probably belongs at Historiography of the Ukrainian famine (1932-1933 (which is what I would like to see the Denial of the Holodomor article moved to.) If someone expands the photo authenticity issues at the Historiography article - using reliable sources- to the point where we need a summary here, or even a Photography of the x article - OK. For now, tho, there's a lot of bytes here based on a website we can't cite, altho we may be able to use some of its pointers. Novickas (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that most of this belongs in the Denial of the Holodomor article, specifically in the "Campaigns of disinformation" section. I disagree however that DoH should be moved to Historiography... because they are two different things. A Historiography on an event exists independently of whether it is being denied or not. And the focus of the DoH article is not so much on academic studies of the Holodomor (although there is an obvious connection and an overlap) as much as the suppression of the news of the famine and the disinformation surrounding it in the mass media and public discourse. Two different things. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly--Львівське (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we close this section. Whether or not the claims made in the sources are true, the sources are not reliable and we would have to find the claims made somewhere else. TFD (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I second that motion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Another waste of time. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from a reliable source:

Owing to the extremely limited base of photo sources, photographs from a different historical period and other regions are occasionally published as documentary evidence of the Famine-Genocide. As a rule, such photos come from the period of the first Soviet famine in 1921-1922 on Russian territory. Since it was convenient, at the time, for the Bolsheviks to present the famine—which had actually been caused by the state's policy of "war communism"—as a consequence of foreign military intervention, they willingly allowed these photo documents to be widely circulated. Due to the absence of authentic photo sources of the 1932-1933 Famine-Genocide, these same photographs have been used over and over. Even a recent publication on the Famine-Genocide by the Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Center seems to include at least one photograph from Russia in 1921.

Originally publisher as:

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, why would you not bring this forth earlier? You would have made less of a fuss here if you hadn't attempted to use those junk sources. But provoking conflict does seem to be a part of your MO... Anyway, while this does mention that a number of photos are actually from the 1920s famine (which I do agree with), it makes absolutely no mention of Thomas Walker/Robert Green, nor do the words "hoax" or "forgery" come up at all in the document. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
In fact, the words "falsification" and "falsify" are used twice each in the document to refer to Soviet obfuscation of fact:

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.

The files of special settlers are a unique historical source, one that reveals the reasons for the deportation of Ukrainian citizens, their categories, the scale of repression during a particular historical period, and the geography of mass terror. They also make it possible to identify the social and ethnic groups that were the special targets of the system of repression. At the same time, the files were an essential component of the criminal procedures of the time, the records of which are distinguished by the intentional falsification of documents, distortions of facts, and mistakes in surnames.

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.

The documents that were saved characterize the medical problem of the Famine-Genocide along the following lines: the impact of food shortages prior to and during the Famine period on the state of general health organizations and medical workers in rural areas; the starvation and illness rate of the population (including infectious diseases); statistics about starving persons and patients whose bodies were swollen from lack of protein and the number of those who diedfrom starvation; the falsification of diagnoses...

You really should be more careful when cherry-picking sources to discredit the opposition, Petri. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I never "cherry-pick" sources. Out of curiosity (and to have a bookmark) I present this non-reliable opinion: Russia's Disgraceful Denial of Holodomor Genocide Is there anything in this you would not agree with? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were going to close this pointless discussion. And Petri can you please stop bringing up clearly unreliable sources, either in article space or even on talk page. Wikipedia's not a soapbox. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Before we end this I just want to post some of the contemporary sources for the Walker / Green story:

  • "PASSPORT FRAUD CHARGED; Indicted Writer Also Is Accused as Escaped Convict.‎". The New York Times. July 13, 1935.
    Quote: Robert Green, a writer of newspaper articles describing famine conditions in the Ukraine, was indicted yesterday …on the charge that he had made false statements obtaining in a passport. George Pfann, Attorney, alleged that Green, who wrote under the pen name, Thomas Walker, was a fugitive from Colorado prison where he escaped in 1921 while serving a sentence for forgery. After escaping from Prison Mr. Pfann said, Green went to Canada, learned chemical engineering and got a job with an exporting Company as its German representative …
  • "Jean Valjean Of Today Captured". Berkeley Daily Gazette: 3. July 9, 1935.
    Quote: Robert Green . was held without bail today to see if his modern parallel of ... He gave the name of Thomas Walker. Federal agents found the ... (full version available.)
  • "Trapped After 14 Years By His Finger Prints". The Baltimore Sun. July 12, 1935.
    Quote: The fugitive, Robert Green, was trapped by the extensive finger-print file of the ... In Europe, under the name of Thomas Walker, he hail syndicated news...
  • "Writer On Russia Put On Probation". Pittsburgh Press. The United Press. July 26, 1935. p. 17.
    Quote: Robert Green escaped Colorado prison convict who under the name of Thomas Walker wrote articles for a newspaper chain ...

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As he is not used as a source here, it really does not relate to the article at hand. Collect (talk) 23
40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

...and here are two other book sources:

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mkay. That's very nice. Only thing is, nobody cares. End of. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more hoaxery based on tip from Russian Wikipedia: According to the Russian press, the head of the Ukrainian Security Service Valentyn Nalyvaychenko admitted that their propaganda exhibition on the Holodomor used photographs of the Great Depression from the U.S. [61] -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Are any of these pictures in the article? No. So stop it. At any rate, the Great Depression was much tamer than the Holodomor, so I really don't see why they would bother. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is one more recent source on the misuse of photographs:

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c Michael Ellman, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663-693. PDF file
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor/Archive_14&oldid=1136800293"