Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Holodomor
Status	Active
Request date	02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party	Qwyrxian (talk)
Parties involved	Paul Siebert, Lothar von Richthofen, Igny, Volunteer Marek, Vecrumba, Greyhood, The Last Angry Man, Galassi, Lvivske, BesterRus
Mediator(s)	User:Steven Zhang, User:Mr. Stradivarius, User:TransporterMan
Comment	Accepting statements on image use in the article.

Status of mediation: 10% Current status of the mediation: Discussing the use of images.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

As far as I know, the dispute is strictly at Holodomor and its talk page.

Who is involved?

The list of the users involved. For example:

• User:Paul Siebert
• User:Lothar von Richthofen
• User:Igny
• User:Volunteer Marek
• User:Vecrumba (screen name: PЄTЄRS J V)
• User:Greyhood
• User:The Last Angry Man
• User: Galassi
• User:Lvivske (screen name: Львівське)
• User:BesterRus
• User:Hodja Nasreddin (screen name: Biophys)
• User:Ljudyna

Note: I (User: Qwyrxian, the editor opening this dispute) am not a party to this dispute. I am involved in this article strictly in an administrative capacity, having fully protected the article on 26 September following an edit war that began on 19 September. Also, I may have missed one or two users, so if there is someone else who believes themselves involved in this present dispute, they can list themselves here. All of the people listed above were involved in either the edit war or the related discussion on the talk page, though if anyone feels they are only peripherally involved, they could be removed from the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?

The current dispute relates to the article's lead. Specifically, there is a dispute as to whether or not the lead should describe the famine as "man-made", whether or not it should be described as a part of the larger Soviet famine occurring at the same time, and whether or not the "relief" parameter of the infobox should be filled in. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

The cause for this coming to the cabal is that the disputants were "trying" to "resolve" the issue through edit warring. Some discussion has occurred on the talk page both before and after the protection; see Talk:Holodomor#No need in this phrase, Talk:Holodomor#Man-made character and Soviet famine context, Talk: Holodomor#Some changes to the lede., Talk:Holodomor#Graziosi, and Talk:Holodomor#Full protection. In addition, some aspects of this dispute have been discussed at least as far back as last year; see Talk:Holodomor/Archive 15#First sentences and Talk:Holodomor/Archive 14#that occurred during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 / a part of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

The debate is quite intricate, and involves a large number of sources. Some editors have accused some of cherry-picking sources, and of creating the appearance of a consensus in sources when one does not exist. There appear to be concerns that some sources, particularly older ones, may themselves not be reliable (that they may be biased, single-POV representations of the event). Much of the dispute seems to be a focus on WP:DUE, rather than a concern with basic facts. If there are other issues, I invite the involved participants to list them as well; however, I do not believe that it will be helpful to turn this into a free-for-all covering every single dispute that has occurred on this article (the talk page archives show quite a number of different concerns have arisen in the article's history). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

The involved editors need to find a way to sort through all of the information and various POV to agree on a consensus version of the lead. This may require changes to the body of the article as well. It's possible that the editors may benefit by first laying out all of their sources; alternatively, they may want to try to point out those that they feel are the most authoritative. It may be that neither the prior consensus version nor the modified versions of the lead are optimal, and perhaps mediation can help them see alternative wordings that would be acceptable to everyone. Part of the problem is that there are so many editors involved, and many of them appear to be extremely knowledgeable about both the subject matter and Wikipedia policies; of course, this is a good thing, but it can sometimes make discussions explode into a dozen different directions with citation not only to real world sources but also a whole variety of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays. I hope that a mediator can help organize and focus discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediator notes

Notes by Steve Zhang

Opening case. It will take me some time to review the dispute. This is quite a large dispute, so it may be one that I will co-mediate with colleagues of mine. Let's start of with an agreement to ground rules, then we will proceed from there. I would ask for no discussion on the dispute to occur here until we gather an agreement on the ground rules by all parties. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, as a relatively complex case this will be co-mediated by Mr Stradivarius, TransporterMan and myself. Once the case is started, I want to get a breakdown of the current issues that needs to be addressed and we will work on it step by step. We will use a proposals format for discussing the lede section, where we can together discuss potential changes to the lede and compromise until we come to an agreement. So, agreement to ground rules, list of issues to be addressed, and then we will begin. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Great. Everyone is on board. I want you to all add this to your watchlist, as I will not be providing updates on talk pages anymore. After that, in the discussion section, I want you to each write a brief statement of no more than 250 words. I would like you to answer the following 4 questions.

1. What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
2. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
3. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Remember, keep it focused on content. After that, we will start working on the lede section together through the proposals page. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Also, can each editor list the timezone they are in next to their signature in the ground rules agreement section. It's more so I can keep some track of when each of you edit, as I am located in Australia (UTC+11). Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• @All Parties, let's keep discussion and commenting on each other's opening statements to a minimum. There will be time for that later. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• @TransporterMan, I think that if the entire article needs mediation, then that's what we shall do. I think the best way to go about is to do it section by section, starting with Legal recognition. Lede sections should summarise the entire article, so that should be done last. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• We really need to get things moving. To do so, I'm going to do a few things. Firstly, I'm imposing a cut-off date for opening statements. Any party that hasn't entered an opening statement, but has been actively editing, by 00:00, 23 October 2011, will not be able to enter an opening statement. By not doing so, you risk being excluded from the mediation. If you wish for another party to act as your proxy, please advise us as soon as possible. I also need a list of current issues that need to be addressed in the mediation. After we have a list, we will go from there, but I think an agreement on what sources to generally use first may be advisable. Let's round out the opening statements first though. If there is some reason you are not able to enter an opening statement by this deadline, please let us know. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have a few comments to make as I think at this stage it is important to do so.

On the mediation in general: I am concerned that so many parties have negative thoughts at the chances of this mediation. After all, you all agreed to abide by the ground rules, which also required you all to acknowledge that compromise will be required. I also noted that these ground rules are not something to be agreed to lightly. I concur with the views of several editors here that drawn out, prolonged discussion will not be the best way to sort out the issues here. My colleagues and I are discussing ways we can mediate this dispute without walls of text. I also note the concerns of Volunteer Marek about the potential issues that will face these articles down the road. For what it's worth, I'm not planning on going anywhere anytime soon. If disputes re-arise in the future, it takes about 5 minutes to have an admin re-protect the article. I'm working on other things at present as well, but I think it would be wise for me to not show all my cards right off the bat. I don't think any of you have been in a dispute that I have mediated in the past, so I will let my various mediation techniques and methods be a surprise to all of you.

On behaviour: I am rather disappointed to see that poor behaviour has occurred. I'll remind you all that being on your best behaviour within the mediation but throwing mud at each other on article and user talk pages is unacceptable. Take note that the three of us are aware of what is happening elsewhere, but more importantly think for a minute about why we are here. Being snarky to each other does little to our chances here. Put aside what's happened in the past. Put aside your differences for a moment. Consider what you all have in common as opposed to what you disagree on. I don't expect you all to make major concessions from the get go, but at least have an open mind.

On TLAM and Igny's topic ban and exclusion: I personally see it as a bit of an issue that they cannot participate in the mediation, mainly because when one or both of their topic bans expire we will likely still be within mediation and have to backtrack. Topic bans in my opinion serve as a temporary bandaid as opposed to a long term solution, they really just kick the proverbial can down the road. That is my personal opinion anyways, but that has been explored and the deadline has past, so we will proceed without them.

On BesterRus's exclusion: The three of us mediators have looked over the comments of BesterRus over the last few days, the associated AE thread and the concerns that were listed here. It is highly unusual to exclude an editor from a mediation without an official topic ban being in place. This isn't something that we have done lightly, but we did discuss it and have decided that it is the appropriate action for us to take given the circumstances. Injecting oneself into a dispute upon joining Wikipedia is unusual but not prohibited, but the remarks that BesterRus made to certain editors as outlined at both Arbitration Enforcement and this thread at their talk page have lead us to decide that their participation here is not advisable. I note that this only applies to this talk page, issues elsewhere should be dealt with through regular channels. I stress that this is not something we decided lightly, but we have made that call.

On what next:' Over the next few days we will look over all the opening statements, from which we will draw up a list of issues and go through them one by one. We will advise of the next step when we've reviewed the opening statements, but it will likely be to gather a list of disputed sources and get decide on which to use and which not to. The method that this will be done I will keep secret for now, but it will not involve drawn out discussions, there's been too many of them in the past and I don't see it productive to repeat that process.

Stay tuned. I'll be moving opening statements to the talk page and making a few other changes. One of us will get the mediation up and running in the next day or so. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Greyhoood mentioned it in their opening statement. Remember to keep the statements below as brief as possible, thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Procedural note: The topic bans on TLAM and Igny has been modified to allow them to participate here. They are free to join in the discussions here provided they are civilised in doing so (which applies to you all). I'm reading over below discussions and will comment later. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes by Mr Stradivarius

Greetings everyone. Per Steve's request, I am editing in Japan (UTC+9). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that an arbitration enforcement thread about The Last Angry Man has been opened by Igny, for remarks on a different page. We should probably keep an eye on this to see how it turns out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the deadline for opening statements has now passed, and we have a nice array of statements which my fellow mediators and I will use to draw up a list of issues for us to resolve. Thank you all for taking the time to write them! We will get onto drawing up the list of issues ASAP. I note that Igny and The Last Angry Man are not eligible to participate in the mediation due to topic bans handed out in arbitration enforcement. Also, due to the concerns raised about the participation of BesterRus from the editors here, and noting the comments made by uninvolved admins at the recent Arbitration Enforcement thread, I think we should exclude BesterRus from this mediation. It is highly unusual to exclude users from a mediation, but the opinions of the other editors listed and the fact that BesterRus has not contributed to the Holodomor article before now make me think it is a necessary step in this case. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes by TransporterMan

I've left another note on the page of Galassi asking that he at least let us know if he is going to participate. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Done. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@All parties: I am concerned that looseness in the meanings of terms is partly responsible for this dispute and that there might be a higher degree of agreement if all parties were using the same frame of reference. I have created a chart on a subpage here which I hope categorizes all of the possible causes, Soviet involvements, and purposes of harm at issue in this dispute. I would appreciate it if each party would identify, using the index numbers in the chart which position or positions represent their own beliefs as to what can be proven through reliable sources (the sources should not be identified at this stage). For example, this could be a response:

(Example 1:) @TransporterMan: I believe that position 4E can be supported by reliable sources.

Another example (a variation on the last one):

(Example 2:) @TransporterMan: I believe that position 4E is the right one, but that 4E, 2D, and 1B can all be supported by reliable sources and ought to be included in the lede.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@All parties and mediators: Please take a look at the "What is the dispute?" section at the top of this page. At this point in time, this mediation is limited to the lede of the article, and particularly:

• whether or not the lede should describe the famine as "man-made",
• whether or not it should be described as a part of the larger Soviet famine occurring at the same time, and
• whether or not the "relief" parameter of the infobox should be filled in.

Some of the positions, below, seem to presume that the content of the entire article is subject to mediation here. I, at least, feel that would be inadvisable and that the mediation should be limited to those issues initially presented. If the scope of the mediation is to be expanded then all parties and all mediators must agree to the expansion, and even then the issues to be mediated need to be clearly and sharply defined not just "this whole article needs work." Do we limit it to the initial issues or expand it? If so, to what? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ground rules

• Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
• Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
• When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
• MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to abide by the outcome of this case.

Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them.

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

• Agree GMT +1 The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Agree --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• Agree  Volunteer Marek  00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Agree GreyHood ^Talk 07:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Agree PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Agree (Igny (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC))
• Agree --Galassi (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Agree --Львівське (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Biophys (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Agree BesterRus (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Agenda

The following is a timeline of how we are to progress through mediation. Our progress will be documented through the status bar (at the top) and as we progress, so will it. I'll tick things off the list as we proceed, but once opening statements are complete we will discuss the smallest issue and proceed through resolving the issues at hand one at a time. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

[1%] Garner party agreement to ground rules.  Done

[5%] Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation.  Done

[10%] Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing.

[15%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[30%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[45%] Initiate discussion on the third issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[60%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[70%] Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing.

[75%] Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required.

[85%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future

[95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.

[100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.

List of issues

Hi all. We've gathered a list of issues that need to be addressed and we will work with them one by one. In order of us working through them, they are:

1. Which photographs to use and how to portray them, considering the history of fake Holodomor photographs in existence.
2. How to portray the estimates for the numbers of Holodomor victims made by various historians.
3. What sources we should use, given the large release of archived Soviet material around 20 years ago; How we should treat older sources; and whether and to what extent we should use Russian- or Ukranian-language sources.
4. Whether or not Conquest's position has changed since "The Harvest of Sorrow", and how his position should be represented in the article.
5. What the sources say about whether relief was provided or prohibited by the state, and how to portray this in the article.
6. How Holodomor should be classed in the larger scheme of the Great Soviet Famine: whether it had unique elements, and if so, how they should be portayed.
7. Whether Holodomor was directed specifically against Ukranians, or against grain-producing areas in general.
8. Whether to use the term "man-made" to describe the famine, and if so, whether/how to qualify it.
9. How to portray the Soviets' intent behind Holodomor: was it deliberately organized, was it an unintended result of unfortunate circumstances, or was there more of an opportunistic motive at work? How should the various policies enacted by the Soviets be shown with respect to their intent?.

We will start with issue one, which is "Which photographs to use and how to portray them, considering the history of fake Holodomor photographs in existence.. I'll ask you all, in the discussion section, subsection Issue 1 - Images to use post a statement of no more than 200 words about the images in dispute and suggestions for use. We will go from there. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes

On 26 September, I fully protected the article indefinitely, until such time as the editors can come to a consensus that will stop the edit warring on the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Opening statements

• Moved to the talk page. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue 1 - Image Use

Remember, 200 words or less. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

I think all images currently in the article are good. Of course nothing prevents from adding more images. The biggest problem are Tables: they show exact numbers per an arbitrary source, whereas other sources claim something different. All Tables (or diagrams) with disputable numbers, rather than with ranges of numbers, should be removed. In particular, 2nd Table named "Declassified Soviet statistics" was referenced to source [69]. This link leads to a Russian/Ukrainian language opinion piece, and I do not see this Table and numbers in the source. Remove this Table please. Biophys (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The most terrible thing I have learned so far is this struggle around images on Commons. It involves all familiar faces, one of whom is administrator on Commons. This looks to me as a battleground worse than here. How to deal with it? I suggest not to place images in Commons, but download them here if there is so much trouble.Biophys (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. There is no any valid reason to move lead image. It should stay where it is right now. Just as Marek, I am surprised why this question was brought to mediation. There was no any recent discussions about this at article talk page, except something that takes place at Commons, but this is different project. Biophys (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek

While this is an issue related to this topic I don't think it falls within the scope of this mediation. I just quickly read over everyone's opening statements and just to make sure searched for the words "image" and "photo" in them - there was no mention of this. Basically, the issue of the usage of photographs from the 1921 famine to illustrate the Holodomor WAS PREVIOUSLY a subject of dispute, but my sense of it is that this has been worked out. Yes, some photos from the 1921 famine, or even photos from the 1931 Soviet famine (non-Ukrainian part) have been published around the internets as supposedly illustrating the Holodomor. At the same time there are genuine photos of the Holodomor. What has happened - and this is actually Wikipedia working pretty well - is that after these issues were raised people went out and researched pretty thoroughly which photos were fake and which were genuine. As far as I can tell at this point there's no more controversy on the subject.

Images and photos were not mentioned in any of the opening statements which shows that this isn't one of the important problems here. So let's move on since this will probably be taking up a lot of time anyway. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Greyhood did. Ok, but I think he was referring to past controversies not current ones. Will wait for his response. Volunteer Marek  05:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, and we all come to an agreement that it's no longer an issue, then we can tick it off the list, can't we :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think VM summarised the issue correctly, and, if no objections will follow within few days (e.g. until Monday) we can consider this issue to be resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. The only issue I recall getting involved in was when Jo0doe was editing the name and info of photos in bad faith in the Commons after he was banned from english wiki.--Львівське (говорити) 17:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Jo0doe is still a free man on Commons, which means that while we may resolve the issue here, he will still continue to wage his war on the last remaining front (he's indeffed on ru-wiki as well as here), which may create problems in the future for us. If I ran the zoo, I'd block him on Commons as well to save us from future headaches, but I digress.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Serenity now...serenity now...broke down and checked, yup, he never left. Calm blue ocean...calm...--Львівське (говорити) 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have any disputes on either the current infobox image or the population decrease map in the article which was originally uploaded by Irpen. It would be helpful if we each make a statement to that effect and explicitly agree to discuss any proposed changes to images (photographs, diagrams, maps) on article talk. Making my statement. @Paul, while we're fond of using the "unless we hear otherwise by X" construct, I suggest we abstain from that for this mediation and assume no agreement with any sort of consensus unless explicitly stated. Such assumptions have been a source of grief in the past which we should take all steps possible to avoid. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree here. We are in no rush to get a quick resolution, so I'd rather get everyone's opinion rather than rely on silent consensus.We will have a greater chance of long term resolution that way. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on discussion above, let me add something specific about this particular photo. This source [1] "Holodomor Archives and Sources: The State of the Art" by Hennadii Boriak discusses the issue of fake/authentic photos in some depth on pages 23-26. On page 24 Boriak lists the sources of existing authentic photos (1st para). He then has a footnote which says: "Most of the authentic photos are presented in a special section of the web-portal of the State Committee on Archives of Ukraine: http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php" If you click on that link and go through the photos then you get this [2]. Hence this is one of the authentic photos, according to a reliable source. AFAICT no "fake" photos are presently in use in the article. Volunteer Marek  18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by The Last Angry Man

The current image in the article is authentic, as was being discussed before it was collapsed. I see no reason to either remove this image from the article, or to add disclaimers to it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Greyhood

Collapsed discussion

My suggestion on the lead image is very simple and I've already stated it in the opening statement basically. I can explain in a bit more detail, but I need to get a few sources for that and we'll do it tomorrow. GreyHood Talk 20:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC) There are relatively small number of Holodomor photographs at all, and there are few to none non-controversial images of Holodomor. For example, a set of 21 photograph is discussed here and is suggested as "the only photographs of the famine that may be accepted as both genuine and authentic". But even those photographs were first published, and likely deliberately, alongside the hoax photos. The current lead image is taken from the book Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932—1933: Western Archives, Testimonies and New Research Edited by Wsevolod W. Isajiw. — Toronto: Ukrainian Canadian Research 2003. [3] The Head of Ukrainian State Archive (ГоскомАрхив Украины) Gennady Boryak (Геннадій Боряк), however, in his publication called "Публикация источников по истории Голодомора современное состояние и перспективы" (2003 p.10) admits that this book contains at least one known photo from the Russian famine of 1921. Using 1921 photos is a standard way to 'forge' "Holodomor photographs", and the usage of 1921 photos was the source of various scandals and the reason of suspicion towards those supposedly Holodomor photos which were not proven to be 1921, but nevertheless were first published alongside 1921 photos. The current lead image might be 1921 and might be 1931-32 and might be some other year. The depicted person and background don't exactly help to conclusively prove or disprove anything. Therefore doubts remain.

My suggestion is to use a photograph of some Holodomor monument in the lead, while the current lead picture should be removed at all or better inserted into some section below related to Holodomor historiography, with an accurate and extensive caption explaining the problems I've written above, like it is done in the Russian Wikipedia. GreyHood ^Talk 19:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed discussion

Sounds good to me--Львівське (говорити) 20:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Not completely. First part of caption on ruwiki for this photo sounds just fine. But last phrase tells: "Как отметил Геннадий Боряк (Генеральный директор ГоскомАрхива Украины в этой книге есть по меньшей мере одна фотография 1921 года". Translation: "as Gennadii Boryak said, this book also includes at least one photo from 1921". This phrase should be excluded from caption of this picture. This is a typical propaganda trick: instead of describing this photo, it challenges another (unknown) photo in the same book. As a more general comment, we can use some photos that show famine victims from 1921, with appropriate captions, not to illustrate the "forgery", but to illustrate the general concept of death from hunger in the Soviet Union. Biophys (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC) >As a more general comment, we can use some photos that show famine victims from 1921, with appropriate captions, not to illustrate the "forgery", but to illustrate the general concept of death from hunger in the Soviet Union. %) %) %) Are you seriously suggesting this, a propaganda instead of accurate history? Should we use the photos of Great Depression in the U. S. as well, to illustrate Holodomor, like some Holodomor activists already had done? I really didn't expect anyone here to make such a counterproductive suggestion. We should illustrate facts not concepts, and there is no need to try to make some justification for all those previous forgeries and mistakes. Remember also, that many readers don't really read the captions of the photographs, therefore you basically suggest "a typical propaganda trick": insert the photo to the article by whatever means, and be happy with an effect it makes over at least a part of the readership. GreyHood Talk 10:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) The current image in the article is not a fake. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, it is not fake, but the caption of this image on ruwiku tells that a book which uses this photo also includes another image from 1921. This should not be in caption of this image. Biophys (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I agree, I see no reason why one mistake should be singled out. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I can't comment in detail, but a general approach of disproving images published in secondary RS using this website is clearly problematic. Biophys (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Given the long history of deliberate forgeries and "mistakes" in Holodomor publications, when propaganda was considered more important than honest historical study, there should be exceptionally high level of provenance for a photo and a good reputation for a source of the photo to include it without reservations. It should be proven not fake, proven to be 1932-33 in Ukraine. GreyHood Talk 10:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I have looked at the discussion on commons regarding this particular picture, it was proven this image is from the Holodomor and was released from some cardinals library. There is no doubt to the authenticity of this particular picture. And if as you say "a high level of provenance is needed" why link to an unreliable website like Gareth Jones? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC) And why is it even an external link in the article? And in a number of other articles? When did this site become WP:RS? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Please give a link to the commons discussion. Please explain why Gareth Jones site, made by people from the University of Wales, is not WP:RS? GreyHood Talk 10:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC) You can follow the link to commons by clicking on the picture, who says that site is made by the University of wales? I see no mention of affiliation with said university. It is a self published site by Jones great-nephew, Nigel Linsan Colley and does not meet WPR:RS. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:2007ff.jpg

OK, here is the link to the Commons discussion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg. Personally I do not see how it was proven that the photo in question was 1932-33. The page is mostly a long argument between Jo0doe and Mark nutley, with commons administrators caring only about copyrights and edit-warring. Jo0doe's arguments on the page are quite convincing and he had the last say. At least it is made clear that the origin of the image is disputable. Why Jo0doe's arguments were not taken into account in the present version, I don't quite understand. Looks like TLAM and VM simply achieved their preferred version by edit-war after protection of the page by User:Russavia expired. GreyHood ^Talk 12:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And here is the link to the part of the book it was taken from (fly-leaf and spine). So it was published right on the same page where a 1921 photograph was used [4]. Note 16 on page 24 of Boriak's publication says: Note in particular the fly-leaf and spine of the book (with photos from the period of 1921-1923 famine). So basically at least 2 and perhaps all photos from that part of the book are from 1921-23. For me that's enough to make the following discussion unnecessary: the image is problematic and should be used only with reservations. GreyHood ^Talk 12:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed discussion

Read the discussion again, all the links posted by Jodoo do not back his claims, not one of them do. The other link is WP:OR by another editor, totally fabricated in an attempt to discredit a photo. There is enough proof in that discussion to prove the photo is not fake. I will quite happily post it over here and you can try and rebut it if you so wish. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I've already posted the links I consider most relevant (the screenshot of a book and Boriak's quote). Please rebut them. GreyHood Talk 13:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC) It is difficult to rebut an argument not made, were is this quote from Boriak? The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I'll repeat: Note 16 on page 24 of Boriak's publication says: Note in particular the fly-leaf and spine of the book (with photos from the period of 1921-1923 famine). GreyHood Talk 13:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Greyhood, there are no pp24 on this .pdf I have downloaded it to double check. And a search shows no match for "fly-leaf and spine" Have you linked to the correct .pdf? The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC) It's page 4 of the PDF and page 24 of the publication. Note 16 can be easily find anyway. GreyHood Talk 13:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I would suggest instead of looking at the citation you look at what that citation is supporting. Might I point out one photo being included in a book does not invalidate the others. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC) The citation says photos which means that from 2 to all photos included into the fly-leaf and spine are from 1921-23. That means that any other photo in the named parts of the book is under suspicion. GreyHood Talk 13:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC) No it does not, it means one is. You need to produce a source which states the current photo in the article is not from Cardinal Theodor Innitzer collection [5], the burden of proof is on you to prove this photo is not from Holodomor. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I think that the plural form photos has quite clear meaning. Your link does not work, and btw. being from a collection of some cardinal who never was in Soviet Russia is no way conclusive. As for the burden of proof, I'm not going to prove it was not from Holodomor. I do not think it is possible to conclusively proof anything in this case, unless we find a publication that clearly states the photo is from 1921-23 or some other year and place than 1932-33 in Ukraine. Given the limited number of supposedly authentic Holodomor photos and the amount of forgery and controversy, the lack of proof it is not 1932-33 isn't enough to conclusively prove it is 1932-33. But I've already presented the sources that indicate that it might be not from 1932-33 in Ukraine, and if we use the photo in the article, these sources should be inserted in the caption. GreyHood Talk 14:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Was it published anywhere? I mean the PDF file by Hennadii Boriak. It looks like a self-publication on the internet. I would completely disregard such "sources" having a lot of academic publications about Holodomor. Biophys (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Boriak is described in media as either Head or Deputy Head of the State Comittee of Archives of Ukraine, as well as Deputy Director of Institute of History of Ukraine; he is Doctor of Historical Sciences. The PDF is taken from Harriman Review published by Harriman Institute. In this light your phrase I would completely disregard such "sources" looks strange and out of place. GreyHood Talk 15:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC) So, it was published in Harriman Review (we do not have even article), an internal publication of Harriman Institute. Did it went through a peer review process? They do not tell anything about their editorial policies, but I think the answer is "no". This is simply a local university web site for any publications by their faculty. This is still essentially a self-publication. It can be used to source the personal opinion of Boriak (we do not have an article about him either), however this is not a good source to disprove reliable secondary sources, such as published books. Biophys (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Having Wikipedia articles on authors or journals is nice, but little relevant to the question of their quality. Judging by the offices he holds, Boriak is among the top authorities on the Ukrainian archive materials subjects. His work in Russian is called "Публикация источников по истории Голодомора современное состояние и перспективы". I suspect that the real original name of the work is Ukrainian and can't find anything on the publication with Russian name. Harriman Review seems quite substantial publication, even if not peer-reviewed. I doubt that it "is not a good source to disprove reliable secondary sources, such as published books" when those books contain significant mistakes which make it a question whether they were properly reviewed themselves. Overall, we have a serious specialist holding several of the top official positions among academic historians in Ukraine, and decent, though perhaps not a top level journal. It's RS by all means. GreyHood Talk 16:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, I think we should stop this conversation here. Free discussion seems to be creating some antagonism, so I ask you to please to stick to writing statements in your own sections, 200 words maximum, as outlined above. If anyone wants to redo their statements based on what has been discussed, then feel free to add to what you have already written, or to redo it (I recommend using {{cot}} and {{cob}} to collapse unwanted wordage). Thanks for your cooperation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba

As I understand it, the photograph is from the collection of Cardinal Theodore Innitzer, which consists of information and pictures he collected from the famine in the Ukraine (not in 1921-22). @Greyhood, given WP:RU's partisanship, holding it up as an example to follow in any area of historical contention between Russian and its neighbors is only going to immediately sour the conversation. If anyone has something to say, please say it here and say it in English. So if there are any non-English sources which pertain to calling the specific picture into question, please translate and provide here.

I should add that Innitzer formed a famine relief committee in September 1933 and was not involved in the famine a decade earlier. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)