Talk:Holodomor

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Much of the content here belongs in Soviet famine of 1932-1934

This article offers a historical overview of the 1932-1933 famine in the Soviet Union from a Ukrainian national perspective. Much of the contents of this article would be more fitting in an article entitled Soviet famine of 1932-1934, which is the common name for the famine in the English-language historiography. Wikipedia:Naming conventions state that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." "Holodomor" is not a common term in the discourse on the subject in the English-speaking world. A search for "holodomor" in Jstor, the leading database of scholarly journal articles, only returns four results. [1] Notice that all the entries on Jstor are recent. The usage of the term in English-language discourse is largely a relatively recent phenomenon, which probably has to do with the emergence of an Ukraine, and the ensuing dialogue on the country's national identity. In contrast, searches on Jstor, other scholarly databases, and Google yield vastly larger numbers of results for "Soviet famine of 1932-1934" or all the other variants for describing the famine. (Some accounts refer to it as the famine of 1932-33, as opposed to 1932-34.)

Aside from the naming conventions, there are other problems with having tan article on the name "holodomor" be written as if it were Wikipedia's general article on the famine of 1932-34. The famine affected the peasantry as a class, Ukrainians, Central Asians, and Russians alike, not the Ukrainians as a nationality. To deal with the topic in the article on the Ukrainian name is to ignore the famine in parts of Russia, which serves to minimize and thus whitewash the extent of the atrocities of Stalin. 172 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move is inappropriate, it is a specific term for specific aspect of what will be the topic of another not yet written article. It is about the version which specifically addresses your argument, it is not a POV fork, this kind of fork exists in reality.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The "holodomor" article should be about the name and its usage, dealing with issues of the Ukrainian nation's collective memory of the famine, not an account of famine itself. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Clearly the page cannot be removed, as there should be an article on the name "holodomor." However, much of the content here should be moved to Soviet famine of 1932-1934. 172 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor is not just famine, there are sources in Russian and Ukrainian presented here describing accounts of people, the ones about "blacklisted" farms are very shocking . Please read the article more throughly it presents the point of view as genocidal event. The UA wiki has mortality rates, where Ukraine stands out (rough translation):

Regions of European part of USSR where mortality rate in 1933 was higher than the birth rate

region	urban	village	Total
Ukrainian SSR	-116,600	-1,342,400	-1,459,000
North Caucasus	-63,900	-227,100	-291,000
Lower Volga	-54,500	-108,600	-163,100
Central Black Earth Region	-23,100	-39,200	-62,300
Urals	-40,100	5,500	-34,600
Middle Volga	-29,100	13,700	-15,400
North region	-7,100	1,600	-5,500

To be informative, this table lacks absolute population counts. Suppose there lived only 300,000 in N.Caucasus area... In any case, today Ukraine is about 60 mln, Stavropol Krai (which was called North Caucasus Krai at these times) is about 3 mln. Assuming that relative population densities didn't changed much, I'd say N.Caucasus suffered way much worse. mikka (t) 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Ukrainians do not remember it as a regular famine, so maybe it has requires some moderation but not regression to the state it was a year ago. I agree that Andrew Alexander overdoes everything, well at the very least he does not just insert POV but actually compiles facts. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 00:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

D'accord. I think Andrew has been very productive here, but I also agree that he needs a hit over the head every once in a while... I also support keeping the article with the current focus. The Holodomor is unique in many ways, and the fact that it has been ignored for so long in the English language media means just that it has been ignored in the English language media. What SHOULD be done is to expand the discussion on politization. The issue is unduly politicised, which in itself deserver a considerable discussion.Dietwald 10:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gnomz, your reply did not really address my comments earlier. You seem to be making the case above that the "holodomor" was 'not just famine.' That's correct, but neither her nor there because I was not stating otherwise. The more apt English-language title would be Soviet terror-famine of 1932-1934. Still, the terror is so widely associated with the famine that most sources just refer to the subject as the "famine." You also seem to be making the case above that the "holodomor" was genocide, which is fine, but not the only legitimate point of view on the subject in Western academic literature. I agree with Dietwald above that what should be done is to expand the discussion on politicization in this article, as "holodomor" is an article dealing with the discourse, analysis, collective memory issues surrounding the terror-famine (whether or not the terror-famine was genocide against the Ukrainian nation, why the famine was overlooked by Western scholars and media for so long, memorials, etc.). I hope to get around to that myself later today. In the longer-run, the historical overview should gradually move from this article to an article on Soviet terror-famine of 1932-1934 (the most important article that Wikipedia has not written), or perhaps a specialized entry on the terror-famine in Ukraine, which, as I stated earlier was not the only affected region of the Soviet Union, although it was clearly the region most devastated. 172 10:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dietwald, you stated: "The Holodomor is unique in many ways, and the fact that it has been ignored for so long in the English language media means just that it has been ignored in the English language media." If you were a historian and made that comment at a scholarly conference, I would applaud you quite emphatically. IMO scholars and students interested in Eastern Europe and 20th century history everywhere are in need of a new groundbreaking monograph on the terror-famine from the long-overlooked Ukrainian national perspective. I'm hoping that the discussion on Soviet-era Ukrainian history triggered by the Orange Revolution will provide the impetus for such an effort. On Wikipedia, though, I would have reservations about moving too far into the domain of original research. Such an effort is the work of a historian, not encyclopedia editors. Western scholars rarely use the term "holodomor" and a new monograph on the subject is needed to change that, not a Wikipedia article. Even Robert Conquest, who indeed started the discussion on the subject in Western academic circles, rarely uses his term himself. In many of his work on the subject, the term "holodomor" does not appear in the index. Instead, coverage on the subject is found by going to "famine" in many (if not most or all) of his indexes. 172 11:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me think about that.Dietwald 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm for "Soviet terror-famine of 1932-1934" (there should be also a more general article "Soviet famine"). Holodomor suggests that the victims were only Ukrainians. Xx236 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ukrainian émigré scholars"???

Mr 172 continues changing the introduction and pushing the sentence

"In some accounts the famine, often referred to as a "man-made" [4], is called the Ukrainian Genocide [5] [6] [7], especially but not exclusively in writings by Ukrainian émigré scholars"

Neither of the references point to any "Ukrainian émigré scholars" so far. It seems this whole restructuring of the introduction is meant to push forward a single article by Mark Tauger and ignore whole countries, institutions, famous people like John Paul II, more than a million of web pages that refer to the Holodomor as "genocide". This is biased. To start a revert war based on ONE article opposing thousands of references is ridiculous.--Andrew Alexander 23:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole concept of "Ukrainian émigré scholars" is long passée, it's part of the terminology that's been used in the early 1980s, when most of the western historians did not yet believe in the genocidal motivation of the Holodomor, and attributed the concept to Ukrainian nationalists. Much has changed since the publications of Conquest and Mace (neither of them was Ukrainian, BTW) and since the Soviet Union eventually admitted the fact of the famine. Wake up, 25 years have passed, we are in 2006. Unlike Tauger's apologetism, Ukrainian Genocide is mainstream terminology today. --_Lysy^talk 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is stating that the Ukrainian émigré scholars are the commentators making an argument about a genocidal motivation to the famine today. Nevertheless, it is important to mention them because they deserve the credit for first publicizing the famine in Western intellectual and political discourse before the emergence of Conquest in the late 1960s. The fact that some used to dismiss them as Ukrainian nationalists is neither here nor there.

Your over-simplification of the Western academic literature into two camps of the correct "Ukrainian Genocide" view on the one hand and the incorrect '25 year-old apologetism' on the other is mind-blowing. Another legitimate perspective on the subject is still being defended by leading famine specialists. Moshe Lewin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Lynne Viola do not consider the famine to be best understood as a genocide. Their work is not outdated. Indeed, they represent the generation of Soviet specialists following the publication of Conquest's original work. They argue that the Soviet regime's main objective during the 1930s was not genocide against the Ukrainian nation but rather rapid industrialization with brutal indifference to the humanitarian toll in the countryside. Disagreement with the view that the famine was genocide is not to be confused with apologetics. For the most part, the assessment of the impact of the famine of scholars such as Fitzpatrick is fairly close to Conquest's. Fitzpatrick, for example, cites research by V. Tsaplin in her work, putting the Soviet famine deaths in 1933 alone at three to four million. 172 13:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We should give more credence to statement made by academics than to the political statements. The resolution of Ukrainian Parliament as well as of many other country's political leaderships, including the Pope, who is also a head of state, are notable to be mentioned and they are mentioned. But as political statements they bear less weight in an encyclopedic articles than statements made by historian scholars. --Irpen 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, if the references are not yet pointing in the direction of Ukrainian émigré scholars, it is the references that are lacking. Before Conquest it was the Ukrainian émigré scholars who led the way in getting the famine researched and publicized in the Western world. 172 00:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And there are plenty and then some references to academic sources in this article. Mark Tauger is not the only such source. The whole sentence refering to that article in 1992 is phony. "Military needs"? Huh? Were Jews also slaughtered for "military needs" to get some gold teeth?--Andrew Alexander 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tauger was just chosen as one of the representatives of the scholars who say that the weather played at least had something to do with worsening famine conditions in Ukraine; they do not argue that the seizure of the crops were not the main cause. I do not have an opinion on that view myself, as I lack the background in agricultural science; but I do know that it is a commonly cited one. Please do not stand in the way toward adding more perspectives from the Western historiography, even if you are skeptical of the conclusions yourself. 172 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Tauger is definitely not representative, he is simply outstanding. No serious historian shares his views today. --_Lysy^talk 09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine if you chose a representative of your views, so did all the other people who entered multiple quotes into this article. The questions is, why a single quote from an obscure journal with some phony wording about "military needs" and unsupported by any other source "weather conditions" should be mentioned first. While all the other references must be moved back and supplemented with even phonier phrases about "Ukrainian émigré scholars". Should anyone stand in the way of this nonsense?--Andrew Alexander 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I thought that you were much more familar with the Western academic literature on the subject. Are you seriously calling the Slavic Review an "obscure journal?" Slavic Review, the jorunal of Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS), the major U.S. organization promoting Russian and East European studies, is the premier and probably most prestigious publication in the field. AAASS's conferences are among the most widely attended conferences focused on the region in the United States. An article published by this journal is not a 'single quote with some phony wording unsupported by any other source.' Their editors would not even consider reading an article submitted to them for publication if it fails to contain an extensive bibliography. So, if you are interested in sources for an article published in an academic journal such as Slavic Review, just check its own bibliography. BTW, if you are interested in helping this article conform to NPOV, I suggest that you survey the literature reviews on the subject by means of searching through the archives of Slavic Review and skimming through some of the results. Many of the historians published in the journal at times vehimately disagree with each other. In order to conform to NPOV, editors here must make a faithful effort to represent and attribute the entire sprectrum of scholarly perspectives on the subject in this article, even the ones we may consider "phony" or "nonsense." 172 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No reason to get upset regarding the prominence of Slavic Reviews. I simply skipped a word and meant to say "an obscure journal issue". A single article in 1992 is fairly obscure when you compare it with thousands of other academic publications on the Holodomor.--Andrew Alexander 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Again that's neither here nor there. Other articles could have been cited. If readers are interested in other scholarly articles stating the same thing, they can go to the bibliography of the article being cited. There is no prize for name-dropping. 172 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Review is indeed one of the leading journals on any topic re. the USSR.Dietwald 08:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Review is definitely not an "obscure journal" and Tauger is definitely well known for his peculiar idea of Holodomor. The analogy with Holocaust denial articles is inevitable. --_Lysy^talk 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tauger's article is widely cited as one of the most controversial example of leftist apologetic approach. Another, even more ridiculous POV-pusher is Tottle in his Famine and Fascism: The Ukraine Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard. It may be worth noting that both Tottle and Tauger publised their revelations already after SU's consent to the famine. Nevertheless, I expect that encyclopedic article would follow mainstream historiography rather than some extermist ideas that had been dismissed years ago. --_Lysy^talk 09:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The work of Tauger comes from the realm of the mainstream historiography, though its represents a controversial current within it. At any rate, the criticism of Tauger is neither here nor there because the citation included in the article already makes proper reference to controversy associated with his work by noting the angry exchange between Tauger and Robert Conquest in Slavic Review 51 (Spring 1992): 1992-94. By the way, I recommend that the editors here read through the row between Conquest and Tauger, which will serve as a reminder that the subject of the Soviet famine deaths remains one of the most controversial topics in the history of the 20th century to this date, generating a great deal of disagreement among historians. Other leading famine specialists are offering an approach to the famine that differs from Conquest's. At the same time, they are associated with a niche within the academic discourse on the famine that is more moderate and less controversial than Tauger's. On that note, eventually this article will also have to take into account the work of these other famine specialists, including Moshe Lewin, V. Tsaplin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Lynne Viola.

Because no consensus has emerged among historians, we as Wikipedia editors cannot simply decide to give serious attention only to commentators writing from the point of view that the famine was an intentional policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine. Gradually, we will have to move toward properly summarizing and attributing all major schools of thought in the historiography, as we attempt to establish a more comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the historical literature by famine specialists in this article. 172 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The major divide is whether the Ukrainian peasants had to die because they were "kulkas" or because they were Ukrainians (or maybe conveniently both at the same time). In this context Tauger and Tottle are marginal, and may deserve to be mentioned in Holodomor denial section but certainly not in the lead of the article. For this specific subject, I would also suggest to focus more on works of contemporary Ukrainian historians instead of North American or other foreign authors. --_Lysy^talk 13:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. The major divide was whether the regime's main objective during the 1930s was genocide or rapid industrialization with brutal indifference to the humanitarian toll in the countryside. The ad hominems against Tauger are not convincing. Moshe Lewin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, and Lynne Viola are also leading specialists who do not understand the events in the 1930s as genocide. Your suggestion to focus contemporary Ukrainian historians instead of North American or other foreign authors is inappropriate. This is the English language Wikipedia. The vast majority of our readership does not speak Ukrainian or Russian, and do not have reasonable access to works published in Ukraine. Following your suggestion, the bulk of the article's readership would not be able to confirm much of the information in the article by checking the sources themselves. By the way, the insinuation that the Western scholarship is somehow inferior to that of Ukraine is chauvinistic and absurd. Any specialist is going to have to know the language(s) of the primary sources he or she will be researching. A Western scholar is not going to be impervious to recent developments in the country or region he or she is specialized in studying. 172 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Try to look at it differently. The fact that this wikipedia is in English language does not mean that it has to be limited in the bibliography to English language sources only. On the contrary, one of the beauties of wikipedia is that it can use the access to the whole range of multilangual sources much easier than any local author could ever do. This is a value not something to fight against. --_Lysy^talk 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not state that non-English language sources should not be used at all. I was responding to your suggestion that we "focus more on works of contemporary Ukrainian historians instead of North American or other foreign authors." Preferably the bulk of the articles will be English, though, as that is what readers here will find more helpful. 172 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But 172, you are now starting confusing the works of Tauger, whom you cited first in this article with the works of everyone else, who often disagree with what Tauger had to say. It is obvious that Tauger is nowhere close to "mainstream historiography". He is only known for his denial of man-made famine in Ukraine and not much else. He is an associate professor at a second-rate university program (no offense, but there are many better rated history departments). Placing an emphasis on this person opinion in the first few sentences of the introduction is ludicrous.--Andrew Alexander 20:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The ad hominems against Tauger are uninteresting. By the way, you and Lysy seem to be smearing him by comparing him to Tottle. (Lysy got me to confuse them in my head for a second becase their names start with the same letter and both have six words. Clever trick.) Tottle is not a scholar or an expert on the subject. It is not helpful to obfuscate matters to such an extent that association is being drawn being an article published in a prestigious journal like Slavic Review with that polemic by Tottle that has no academic credibility. 172 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can only say that your personal admiration for Tauger to the extent that you attribute his views to other authors is appalling. But let it be. Back to the bibliography issue, I feel that you're trying to put words in my mouth that I've never said. I did not suggest that the Western scholarship is inferior to Ukraininan or that Western scholars do not know Ukrainian and Russian languages. I'm sure many do. On the contrary, I expect western scholarship to be more multi-aspect oriented and much more mature than Ukrainian. I would also expect that Ukrainian histography is young as its independence is. And I'm sure you'll agee that young independencies often tend to be on the nationalistic side. However, Holodomor is the topic that is being researched by Ukrainian historians recently, they have much easier job getting to the archives, talking to the wintesses, have much better understanding of the situation within the Soviet Union and the fact that the sources of the article are limited to Western scholarship only and remain mostly ignorant of the Ukrainian research tells us much about how biased it is. --_Lysy^talk 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not state personal admiration for Tauger. I do not have an opinion on his work because his research is outside my area of expertise. I do have an opinion on Slavic Review, which has high scholarly standards for submission. An article pubished in that journal is just as good as any source for our purposes here on Wikipedia. I did not attribute his views to other authors. I was responding to your comments earlier comparing him to Tottle. Regarding your point "the fact that the sources of the article are limited to Western scholarship only and remain mostly ignorant of the Ukrainian research tells us much about how biased it is," that may be something to keep in mind. Still, Ukrainian scholars are likely to be cited by the English language sources. So it is not as if Ukrainian research is going completely overlooked. 172 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we would not be having this strange discussion in 10 years from now, when Ukrainian research gets more mature and also more cited by the Western sources. For the record, I share the opinion on SR's high standards and I also think that talking of "Ukrainian émigré scholars", while probably appropriate in the 1980s, is out of its time in 2006. --_Lysy^talk 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the point to avoid possible confusion: Ukrainian émigré historians were among to first commentators to arguge that the the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. 172 22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds much better, thanks. --_Lysy^talk 22:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning that a person works as an associate professor at the University of WV history department is not "ad hominem". Now please, stop pushing his views as "mainstream historiography". You keep reverting to the version that has all those sources behind Mark Tauger instead of giving him proper attention in a proper place in the article.--Andrew Alexander 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Where an academic is teaching does not matter. What matters is where an academic has published, and Slavic Review is as reputable as any publication. Further, it is absurd to say that an author who was notable enough for Robert Conquest to debate (see Tauger and Robert Conquest in Slavic Review 51 Spring 1992: 1992-94) is not notable to cite in any Wikipedia article. Your definition of "mainstream historiography" is utterly incoherent. There is no universally accepted interpretation on and approach to the famine among specialists. The "mainstream historiography" would be academic publications. Articles published by Western academic journals must be within the realm of legitimate scholarly debate to be submitted. 172 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop twisting my words. Where did I say that it's not OK to cite genocide deniers? How long are you going to argue with yourself?--Andrew Alexander 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you seem to believe that Tauger's research is credible only because it was published in a reputable journal. Even editorial boards of good journals make mistakes from time to time. Tauger's ideas may me mentioned in relevant section on Holodomor denial but certainly not in the lead. Do you see the ideas of Barnes mentioned in the Holocaust's lead ? --_Lysy^talk 19:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments above are disingenuous. The view that poor weather had something to do with the famine has always been an assumption held by some Western academics. Tauger is not coming out of nowhere. Tauger is being cited because he is one of the more recent scholars who says he is bringing evidence to bear evidence supporting it, not because he is the only one. I got the idea to make reference to him because Mikka earlier tried to add a note on the notion of a draught in the intro [2], but was reverted because his edit was not attributed. Now it is cited properly. By the way, calling Tuger's research on the weather "holodomor denial" is an extremely unfair smear. Tauger is not arguing that the effect of the 1932-34 terror-famine was any less catastrophic than author like Conquest make it out to be. He is not arguing that poor weather was the sole cause of the famine, or even the major cause. 172 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Come one, similarly Barnes claimed that he was not a Holcaust denier, yet I don't see you mentioning his ideas in the lead of the Holocaust article. I don't really want this to sound personal, but your inistence on prominently exposing such theories as Tauger's in the lead shows only your lack of respect to the victims of Holodomor. Tauger's apologetic approach to those responsible for starving millions to death is simply disgusting. How comes the famine did not hit Western Ukraine ? Was weather more favourable in Poland ? Why was the death toll highest in the areas with the best quality soil ? Worse weather in these particular areas ? Sincerely, I cannot even imagine that you believe in what you're writing. There were draughts in Europe before, but they never caused millions of people die, and certainly not in one of the most fertilious part of the continent. It may be interesting to discuss such ideas in the article, but certainly not in the summary. Your continuous repeating that Tauger is not the borderline will not make him more mainstream. --_Lysy^talk 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of Tauger's work is mind-blowing and makes it evident that you have not even read the article. He is not saying that the draught is the sole cause of the famine, but a confounding factor worsening a famine caused by the seizure of the peasants' harvest. The comparison of Western specialists on the Soviet terror-famine to Holocaust deniers frankly disgusts me. (Almost my entire family perished in the Holocaust. I do not appreciate its usage as an object of political rhetoric.) The Soviet terror-famine and the Holocaust are entirely different ball games. Historians speak with much greater certainty about the Holocaust than they do about the Soviet terror-famine with good reason: We know much more about the former than the latter. Unfortunately, the reason for this discrepancy is, first, the success of Soviet efforts to cover up the famine. Second, unlike the victims of the Nazi concentration camps, terror-famine victims in Ukraine were not liberated by free countries that were able to gather hard evidence exposing the Soviet regime's crimes against humanity. Therefore, in spite of widespread interest in the Soviet Union, Western specialists have still paid little attention to the Soviet terror-famine compared to the Holocaust. It is aburd to compare Western historians of the Soviet terror-famine to Holocaust deniers because, unfortunately, still have legitimate questions to ask about the terror-famine that they have long known about the Holocaust. Now please stop the references to ";;holdomor denial." They are unfair smears of the worst kind. 172 17:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, that brings us back to why are you limiting yourself to the Western historians only, while ignoring Ukrainian sources. You said that I believed that Ukrainian historians are superior and I explained that I did not. Now I think you have answered yourself where's the difference and why Ukrainian research should not be ignored. The probelm is that the orange revolution happened only a year ago and we have yet to wait until it gets wider worldwide acceptance. However how can you possibly ignore Ukrainian research on the mass murder that took place in Ukraine remains beyond me. --_Lysy^talk 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to ignore Ukrainian research on the terror-famine. I am waiting until it gets wider acceptance in the community of scholars internationally. Until then, we should refrain from call established points of view in the Western scholarship terms that make reference to such an ugly political phenomenon as Holocaust denial. 172 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The more you should understand why Tauber's research is not appropriate here, as the same principle applies. You should wait until it gets wider acceptance in the community of scholars internationally, including Ukraine of course (and of course I expect this will never happen, as his results have been long rejected and nothing seems to indicate that they will get any wider acceptance in the future). --_Lysy^talk 19:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is absurd to suggest that Tauger's work is politically motivated. Tauger has also written similar critiques of Amartya Sen's theories on the Bengal famine of 1943 (Journal of Peasant Studies 31 no. 1, October 2003). It would be absurd to say that Tauger is both an apologist for British imperialism and Stalinism. Please stop making vailed political allegations against who disagree with the notion that the terror-famine was a "genocide" that Stalin perpetrated intentionally against Ukrainians. Many historians consider this perspective wrong. They may be wrong themselves, but it is utterly unfair to suggest that their conclusions are generated by politics as opposed to their own research. 172 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no idea what could be Tauger's motivation, and frankly I do not expect they would be political. What I'm trying to persuade is that in order to have the NPOV maintained in the article, one cannot limit himself to the western research only, which firstly is currently underrepresented for the subject, and secondly is much less important than Ukrainian research. --_Lysy^talk 19:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, one cannot limit himself to Western research. At the same time, one cannot limit himself to Ukrainian research. I am open to discussing whether or not recent Ukraiain research, or any school of thought on the famine, is underrepresented in the article as time goes on. The only point above with which I disagree is the statement that Western research "is much less important than Ukrainian research." Wikipedia's NPOV policy means that we have to take an agnostic position as Wikipedia editors on the debate regarding whether or not the POV of recent Ukrainian research has more weight than the view in much of the Western scholarship the terror-famine was a "genocide" that Stalin perpetrated intentionally against Ukrainians. 172 21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'm unhappy because of the oversimplifications of the "environmentalist" approach, I have to agree with you that neither "Western" nor "Ukrainian" research is more important or provides the ultimate answers. I only hope that with the topic getting more hype recently, there'll be more diverse research of the Holodomor in the West soon. Thank you for your patience in discussing the tiny parts of the intro text with me (the text that is supposed to be trashed anyway). Oh, this is not to mean that I consider the time wasted, on the contrary. --_Lysy^talk 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Military needs

I see you're restoring the "military needs" in the lead. What were the military needs of USSR in 1932 then~, that made several million of Ukrainians starve to death ? --_Lysy^talk 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If we have no references to more than one author attributing the famine to the "military needs", I would suggest removing this term from the article. --_Lysy^talk 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the article instead. The reference should be easily understandable to readers broadly familiar with Soviet history. It is well known that the Soviet Union was a paranoid regime in an almost-constant wartime crisis atmosphere since the great war scare of 1927, when many in the party and the country believed that renewed military intervention by 'capitalist powers' was imminent. Setbacks included the diplomatic crisis with Britain with the Zinoviev letter, the Kuomintang's attack on its Communist allies in China, and the strain placed on Moscow's Repallo relationship with Germany by Germany's rapprochement in the mid-1920s with the Western powers. For brief surveys in monographs on the subject of the restoration of wartime conditions in the late 1920s, I recommend Kennan's Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin and Soviet Foreign Policy, and for something more recent, Sheila Fitzpatrick's Russian Revolution. 172 14:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patronising tone, it really helps the discussion. According to your explanations the correct term would be "Soviet regime's paranoia" and not "military needs". --_Lysy^talk 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Readers are not stupid. We do not need to load the text with bad-sounding adjectives every time Stalin and the Soviet Union come up. When I see summaries of Tauger's article in scholarly sources, "military needs" are mentioned. If you are interested in a more specific summary, I suggest reading the atricle, rather than making emotional off-the-cuff descriptions. 172 21:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As to myself being emotional on the topic, believe me, I'm trying to stay calm but it's hard knowing what was done to these people and seeing that it been made the subject of the pseudo-scientific dispute of the likes of Tauber no later than 15 years ago. It's so disgraceful... --_Lysy^talk 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm interested in trimming down the summary and removing borderline speculations to their appropriate sections. If, for whatever reason, you insist on keeping such information in the lead, I will insist it is precise and not misleading. Either do move it where it belongs or phrase it so that it's clear there were no objective military needs that would justify starving Ukrainian population to death in 1932/33. --_Lysy^talk 21:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro cannot make assertions that disregard certain points of view in the Western academic literature that do not align with the POVs of certain Wikipedia editors. The view that the "holodomor" was an intentional campaign of genocide against the Ukrainian population is disputed by Western scholars. Wikipedia articles can summarize arguments stating that the "holomodor" was genodice and evidence supporting that view; but they cannot make the assertion themselves. 172 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, are you able to show that Tauber's theory is seriously supported by any modern (e.g. published in the last 3 years) scholarly source ? how about these "military needs" ? You have still not explained it otherwise than Soviet paranoia, which can hardly be considered a "military need". I agree that this can be discussed and explained in detail further in the article, but leaving it in the lead section of the article like this is simply misleading. This is not an abstract of an academic paper, but a summary of an encyclopedic article and has to be phrased clearly and straightforwardly. I'm assuming your good faith of course, but please explain your rationale in all this pushing. --_Lysy^talk 22:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your request that I show you that Tauger's research is supported by a work published in the last three years suggests to me that you do not know academic publications work. The process of submitting an article for peer review and publication is a long one that can take at times a couple of years. Go to Jstor and do searches on key words dealing with the famine. The view that poor weather had something to do with the famine has always been an assumption held by some Western academics. That's why Mikka, who is as well-read as any Wikipedia editor, inserted a note on the possibility of a draught earlier. A reference to that view, without an assertion of its validity, is appropriate. 172 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not appreciate your patronising attitude in this dispute which only shows how mature you are. Rest assured that having published myself, I am aware of the process of academic publication and of how the value of academic research is evaluated. Are you trying to suggest that nothing has been published in the recent years as nobody has submitted anything before ? Or what point are you trying to make with this ? As to Mikka, I believe that he is better-read than "any" Wikipedia editor and I value his contributions a lot, but I don't think this is an issue we are discussing here. As to the draught itself, are you aware of why had it not created famine in Western Ukraine, what was not under Soviet administration at that time ? --_Lysy^talk 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if you took offense to my tone. Since you have published yourself, you should have been aware that the request that you made earlier was somewhat unreasonable. As to the draught itself, yes, I am aware of the point and other arguments against the notion of a draught. I am not qualified to state support for either your POV or Tauger's. Nor do I need to be qualified to edit this article. Wikipedia:No original research requires that editors refrain from inserting their own jugments about the historiography in articles and instead summarize the views of all sides in a debate, even ones with which they are not inclined to agree. 172 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To summarise this part of the dispute: I think that this is obvious and you have agreed that there were no military needs of the Soviet Union in 1932 that could justify starving several millions of Ukrainian peasants. Just for completeness, can you confirm it again, please ? --_Lysy^talk 19:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not reply to the red herring above. This is a moral and normative question because you are asking if something justifies something else. It is utterly inappropriate because no scholar I'm citing defends Soviet policy. 172 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to phrase it your way, of course. All I'm asking is your confirmation that the "military needs" can go. I'm not insisting on replacing it with "Soviet paranoia" since you seem to care about political correctness. I'm asking you to confirm this as a courtesy, as I don't want to respond by reverting to your reverts. I do respect you but would like to ask you for the same. --_Lysy^talk 17:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen references to "military needs" regarding Tauger's work in academic literature reviews that I have read. I am having server problems and do not remember the exact journal volumes and numbers at the moment. I will get back to you shortly with the reference. 172 17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "military needs" term was used in academic reference, as an abreviated phrase intended for initiated reader of the scholarly publication. Our context however is the intro of an encyclopedic article and has to be understandable also to people searching for basic information regarding the Holodomor. Therefore using such ambiguous wording, assuming some wider previous knowledge of the subject is not appropriate in the intro. Is this something you could possibly agree with or not ? I do not doubt you can find a reference for someone using this term, but that is not the point. --_Lysy^talk 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not want you to consider it ambiguous. I think that the following is a more clear summary for the purpose of the intro: Some scholars have also attributed poor weather and Stalin's military and economic goals as additional factors in explaining the famine. 172 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be addressing my concerns. Thanks. --_Lysy^talk 21:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Alexander, could you please stop modifying the intro as per your own discussion? You opposed my suggestions to the intro because the article needs to be worked through first. I agreed to that. The fact that you continue to edit the intro is quite uncalled for. Could you please stop modifying the intro? Because if you continue to modify the intro, I will do the same, because your are pushing your POV.Dietwald 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But I don't "continuously edit" anything. Simply restoring facts and references deleted by other users. If you have more facts and references to add to this article, please do so. I will never erase them.--Andrew Alexander 18:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And you, of course, will be the arbiter of those. How about a time-out on the intro?????? I have not touched it since, even though I hate it. I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate, and the same goes for the others. Let's deal with the article first, and then the intro. The intro sucks. There should be a banner for that... Sucky Intro alert, or something like that. Dietwald 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbiter of what? Please read the previous response. Cutting facts and references is easy. Finding them is hard.--Andrew Alexander 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Just one thing. Whatever lead version for the time-out we choose, if it includes the introduction of "Genocide" term it should not be in the first line because whether it is Genocide or not is important part of the later discussion. I tried to move it to the section. A.A. returned in to the first line. I tried to move it further down in the lead and explained. It was returned to the first line yet again. As I said many times, I strongly disagree with using the lead for POV pushing. Yes, altering the lead dramatically gives the most effective POV alteration per unit time spend on the article. This is exactly why it should be done with caution. Some editors do it all the time. Please edit the article rather than the lead. --Irpen 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing is what you would do by ignoring a more commonly used name for the Holodomor. Please read the arguments in the archived discussion. "Genocide" is mentioned MORE OFTEN in relation to the Holodomor than the Holodomor itself. Following the Wikipedia guidelines the article has to actually move to "Ukrainian Genocide". The only reason it's not moved there is to accomodate "diverse points of view" of the people who deny the genocide. And this is fine.--Andrew Alexander 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In just about all scholarly accounts I can think of at the moment, the topic is found under "famine" in the indexes. Making references to "people who deny the genocide" is not in good faith. No serious scholar does not consider the famine any less of an atrocity than authors like Conquest make it out to be. And, yes, we do have to accomodate diverse scholarly points of view on the subject per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 172 21:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to focus on the article, as well as "freezing" the intro summary, but would like it to be respected by everyone, including 172. That is: trim the lead down and rewrite it based on the article's contents only when we are more or less happy with it. This would involve 172 not pushing the POV of Holodomor denial into the lead, of course. --_Lysy^talk 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you are stating that you intend to be compromising here. However, I will only be fully convinced that you are working in good faith if you refrain from using emotive and grossly unfair allegations of "holodomor denial" against academics whose work does not align with your POV. No serious scholar denies the scale of the atrocities in Ukraine in 1932-34. The issue is their argument that they are bring to bear evidence suggesting that rapid industrialization without reference to the humanitarian consequences was the regime's main objective during the 1930s, not genocide against Ukrainians. 172 21:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what I meant when I wrote that the major divide is whether the peasants died because they were "kulaks" or because they were Ukrainians. OTOH it would be nicer if you assumed my good faith and not required me to convince you of it. As to my will to compromise, I'm surprised that you had not noticed yet that, unlike you, I've not reverted your edits that I don't find appropriate, and I'm trying to persuade you in the talk instead. --_Lysy^talk 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're over-simplifying the scholarly debate. The view that the famine was a result of state policy but not a deliberate genocide against either Ukrainians or kulaks is still held by historians. I will try to assume good faith on your part. You will be able to help me do that by refraining from the usage of politically and emotionally charges of "holodomor denial" to scholars and others who cannot be fairly described as such. 172 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote Lemkin on Genocide, then: [Genocide] is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group. Are you saying that Stalin was so naive or ignorant as not to be aware that millions of people are dying while he exported the grain to the West ? At to my usage of "holodmor denial" I obviously used the term for simplicity and I do not understand why does it irritate you ? --_Lysy^talk 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, I have the growing feeling that we are wasting our time in this discussion about the lead, that could be otherwise spent better on the article itself. Let me make a compromise proposal: can we at least remove this outrageous sentence about "weather conditions" and "military needs" from the lead ? And leave the rest in to please you, until the article itself is improved ? Would this be fair enough for a compromise ? --_Lysy^talk 22:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the intro will have to take into account with attribution all the academic accounts on the famine, even those with which individual Wikipedia editors disagree. If you want to exercise greater editorial discretion over the point of view of articles, I recommend joining a project that does not put a constrain such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on its participants. 172 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Tauger's POV is far from anything being Neutral. I hoped it would be possible to reach some compromise with you but you seem to be pushing his POV above the limits. I understand that members of your family perished in the Holocaust and that you do not appreciate its usage as an object of political rhetoric. I'm going to respect it and apologise if I've written anything that would hurt your feelings. Now, what do you think about respecting the memory of millions of the Holodomor victims ? --_Lysy^talk 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Tauger's POV is not neutral is neither here nor there. The POV of no scholar is neutral. Following NPOV, we summarize and attribute his views and those of other scholars without making our own assertions about whether they are right or wrong in the article. 172 17:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know I'm repeating myself here, but somehowe you're missing the point. The idea of NPOV is not that we need to mention every borderline view there ever existed. There were scientists (in fact all did) that believed that the Earth is flat. Would you be mentioning this as an alternative POV in the lead of Earth article ? Similarly the fact that Tauber published something in the early 1990s is not so notable today, after the collapse of Soviet Union, after Ukraine got independent and after the academic research in this particular subject moved lightyears ahead compared to where it's been for the previous 50 years. I have nothing against discussing different strange ideas in the article, but the leading intro is for the summary of the facts and not a place for a wider discussion of Tauber's peculiar views. --_Lysy^talk 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if Tauger himself started edting Wikipedia he might start comparing the people who disagree with him to flat-earth theorists. No matter how passionately you feel about a subject, there is no license for any editor to disregard the NPOV policy. 172 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. We both understand well the reasons to respect the memory of the Holocaust victims. Why would you deny the same right of respect to the victims of Holodomor ? I'll spare you the graphic descriptions of how long and how terribly these people suffered. All these apologetic attempts, attributing their tragedy to bad weather, bad position of the moon and what else are just so obviously disgraceful that I cannot imagine you don't realise this, especially given your family story. I'm sorry for this personal appeal, but these double standards astonish me. --_Lysy^talk 19:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in editing this article or the Holocaust article from an emotional perspective. I already explained to you why the two subjects are different ball games. It is regrettable that the subject of the famine in Ukraine is still more debatable precisely because the Soviets managed to conceal evidence so long. But Wikipedia editors have no business changing the world. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or original research. 172 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If the western sources on the subject today are sparse or, as you claim, dominated by the likes of Tauber, the more we should reach for Ukrainian sources. This is not original research. --_Lysy^talk 08:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, David Duke had to go to Ukraine to get his disgraceful PhD. He would not have been able to get it in the United States. I stand by my support of the usage of Western scholarship on the subject. 172 16:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, so now you see what a POV is. Your POV is that all Ukrainian research is not worthy because of MAUP. Is this POV of yours enough to exclude Ukrainian results from the Holodomor article ? --_Lysy^talk 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Ukrainian research is not worthy because of MAUP. Ukrainian research can be cited; but like Western research, it cannot be considered the final word on the subject. As an aside unrelated to this article, I am glad to hear news that Yushchenko has condemned MAUP. Still, Western scholars are concerned that MAUP remains accredited by the Ministry of Education. I get the impression that you are a leading scholar in your own country. I regret any way in which MAUP tarnishes the reputation of Ukraine's community of historians, as I know the vast majority of historians there are competent, striving to hold themselves to the highest standards of historical research possible. 172 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Genocide

As far as I am concerned, we can remove the weather for now, and I think, forever too. The contentious point, as I see it, is the following. No one denies that the Famine was caused by the action of the Soviet government. But this, by itself, does not automatically implies that the term Genocide is appropriate. Genocide includes not just Genocideal consequences but genocide anti-Ukrainian intent. The intent of the confiscation of crop is what matters. Was it to support industrialization AND suppress an unreliable for Bolsheviks peasantry? In the latter case, the consequences for the Ukrainians, as the most agricultural nation of the USSR, would be the most devastating. OTOH, if the goal set by Moscow rulers was to exterminate Ukrainians as an ethnic group, the term Genocide is applicable. This is the matter of debate in this article and we cannot present both sides in the text but pre-conclude the outcome in the intro by using the POV term. This debate neither denies the national catastrophe that the famine was for the Ukrainians nor it is apologetic for the Stalin regime. --Irpen 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the real intentions we will not know, probably at least as long as the Soviet archives remain closed. And while they are sealed, we can only wonder what's so secret there that cannot see the daylight. If there are proofs of Soviet's god intentions then why would not they announce it ? Anyway, the term "genocide" itself belongs to the realm of international politics rather than scholarly research. It is there for the simple reason that many countries had officialy recognised Holodomor as an act of genocide, nothing more, nothing less. These are just facts. And what is the problem with it ? --_Lysy^talk 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not twist what I said. Never did I say about good intentions. Both intentions are bad but only one is Genocideal. The term Genocide belongs to politics among the politicans only. In the encyclopedia, we should stick to the legal and/or academic definitions and the definition of Genocide requires the Genocideal intent. While it would be useful to see the Soviet archives, it is not necessary. If most mainstream academic scholars consider this Genocide judging from the analysis of events, we could use the term in the article in the intro. As shown above, there is a debate. As such, there is no universal conclusion. The term Genocide should not be used to satisfy someone's Political or ideological preferences. Politicians do that, but encyclopedia writers cannot do that with them. --Irpen 23:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's read again, "Art. 2. In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Now, why again "the term Genocide belongs to politics among the politicans only"? I am missing your argument here. No, not "only". It can be mentioned and is mentioned in many other places. This is why it is mentioned here. To reflect the reality.--Andrew Alexander 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I poorly phrased myself. I meant that this is a political term only when its is used by politicians, like in Rada resolution. Otherwise, it is a legal and academic term and is applicable to encyclopedia without question but devoid of politicization to advance any agendas or for any other reason. I read the Art. 2 and it starts with the word intent. That is what is the crux of the dispute. Once we established that mainstream scholarship agree that the intent was mass killing of Ukrainians, rather than the death toll was a collatoral damage that criminal Soviel leadership didn't care for and, moreover, the intent to kill was specifically anti-Ukrainian rather than anti-peasant, only then... In the meanwhile the term belongs to the section "Was Holodomor a Genocide?". --Irpen 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I now see why you wanted to delete the "Elimination of Ukrainian Cultural Elite". Because it shows the anti-Ukrainian intent. It's hard to deny the obvious. So delete it! This genocide never ended since the "genocide denial" stage is still on.--Andrew Alexander 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, you have been asked many times to avoid attacking the opponents. This does not make what you say sounding any more convinsing.

Now, to your charge. Rather than delete, I tried to change the presentation of the info. --Irpen 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I bring links with deletions? It's not hard, tell me when you want to see it, OK?--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The cultural purge of intellectuals was Soviet-wide. While hitting different areas harshest at different times within the decade, it was anti-elite, anti-intelligentsia and anti-clergy rather than anti-Ukrainian per se. Besides, as I pointed to you earlier, it is a different, even though a related to the Famine event, and is treated as such in the literature. I checked Subtelny and Wilson (see complete refs in the History of Ukraine article). --Irpen 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You pointed nothing of the sort. I am still waiting on the citations that support your assertions. Writing "Subtelny and Wilson" is not enough. Sorry, but your own thoughts on that subject are known, no reason to repeat.--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, the starvation of much of the peasantry to death was Soviet wide and hit Ukrainians the hardest as the most agricultural nation. --Irpen 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Was most of Russia or Belarus not as "agricultural" as Ukraine was? Do you even believe what you write here?--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

user:172 suggests a separate article about the Soviet Famines that views these events as related and in the context. --Irpen 07:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User 172 already deleted the chapters on the mass killings by Stalin in the Stalin article. To me he seems like a not very "mainstream" thinker.--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I deleted your text dump which was redundant and did not fit into the three-year old organization of the aritcle. By the way, I have a low tolerence for ad hominem fights on talk pages. I have and will again request arbitration against users who make such politically and emotionally loaded insinuations against other Wikipedia editors. 172 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

172, you deleted the chapters describing the mass killings of Kalmyks, Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Kazakhs, and Ukrainians from that article. In the case you need a link to that deletion, just let me know.--Andrew Alexander 17:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As Irpen already asked you, please stop smearing your opponents. I did not delete established "chaperts" on the subjects but a text dump that you inserted with a bunching of headings dealing with topics already covered in the article. At any rate, we should agree to disagree on the merits or your edits earlier on another article so that we are can focus on the subject at hand we are supposed to be discussing on this talk page. 172 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reminding you and Irpen your editing history is not "smearing". You deleted several chapters dealing with several Stalin-ordered mass murders not covered in the rest of the article. You can see this deletion here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Stalin&diff=33355632&oldid=33354707. You chose to delete relevant and new information for that article showing the numbers and circumstances of the killings. We can go sentence by sentence and compare it with what already was in the article. So please stop your "smearing" rhetoric and aknowledge what you did.--Andrew Alexander 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In no way such an approach is apologetic for Stalinist crimes. You, OTOH, insist on presenting it from purely Ukrainian perspective. That may also be an acceptable approach but as long as you allow the breadth of mainstream views into the article. Holocaust denial is not a mainstream view in any way. That Holodomor was a result of criminal social policies, rather than Genocedial ethnical policies, OTOH, is the view widely accepted, although some scholary works support your claims too. The article should present and attribute both approaches.

Give us the facts and references, would you please? I don't even know what you mean by "social" policies. Were armed brigades of NKVD on the border between Russia and Ukraine a "social" policy?--Andrew Alexander 08:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I expected you to be more familiar with the Western academic literature that your dialogue with Irpen above suggests. The view that famine was the result of economic and social policies, rather than genocidal ethnic policies, is widely accepted. As I stated earlier, see authors such as Lewin, Viola, Manning, and Fitzpatrick. In the coming days, I will be summarizing their intepretations on the famine with attributions in relevant portions of this article and perhaps other articles. 172 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ones again, please stop smearing your opponents. --Irpen 07:32, 1 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Show me where and I will stop it. Until then, discuss the article please.--Andrew Alexander 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User 172 already deleted the chapters on the mass killings by Stalin in the Stalin article. To me he seems like a not very "mainstream" thinker. That smear was as extreme as any smear a Wikipedia editor can make against another Wikipedia editor. An apology on your part would be encouraging. 172 16:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I believe you are wrong here. The definition of Genocide is not an issue of an academic debate but belongs to international politics and esp. international law. Genocide is defined not by scholars but by international community of United Nations. If a crime is recognized as a genocide, it has far reaching legal consequences. This is why some countries, and Russia particularly, are so reluctant to recognize their crimes as genocide. Contrary to what you have said, it is not a matter of an academic dispute, but of political declaration of individual countries. If international community declares it a genocide, than it is a genocide and it is prosecuted in these countries as a genocide, regardless of what an individual scholar might claim in his article for whatever purpose. The reason why Russian authorities so fervently deny that Katyn or Holodomor were genocides is that otherwise they would have to start official investigations aimed at prosecuting the people guilty for that. Now, I believe that you would understand very well why this would be not desirable for them. If it's not obvious, I'm happy to explain, probaly not here, not to clutter this discussion any more but in your or my talk page. --_Lysy^talk 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement that the subject of genocide is not a matter of genocide is not a matter of academic debate is one of the most absurd statements I have read on this talk page. It is wrong on a clear factual level because historians and social scientists have been studying the subject for years. Frankly, it gives me the creeps. The idea that politicians should take over the tasks of historians and social scientists and are higher authorities on the pursuit about the historical past reminds me more of Soviet totalitarianism than any model of a free society. 172 16:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wake up, then. How do you explain that the U.S. recognised Holodomor as a genocide while Russia had not ? Do you think they don't read each other's historic research works ? --_Lysy^talk 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the U.S. commission findings are wrong. I am just saying that it is not our business as Wikipedia editors to declare them correct, which is simply a cut-and-dry matter of the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 172 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes and what I'm trying to explain, that whether a crime is a genocide or not is not a matter of POV of one or the other historian. By definition, it is only whether intarnational community declares it a genocide or not. Only then it has any legal importance. You may go on denying that it was a genocide, but if a government recognised it as a genocide it will be prosecuted, regardless of your personal opinion. That's why it is to be seen as belonging to the realm of international politics and not scientific dispute. Of course scientific research is (or should be) the basis of such political declarations. But obviously it is not since Russia does not call it a genocide, while having access to the same academic research that Ukraine or USA. I apologize if I'm sounding desperate here, but somehow you're not understanding what I am trying to explain~, while it seems so obvious to me. I'm probably using wrong words, or you're not willing to give me some credit and try to understand it ? --_Lysy^talk 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there is international disagreement about whether the Holodomor can be classified a genocide or not, it's not the place of this article to take a side or pretend to resolve that question. Since the term genocide can have legal repercussions, and can have a specific technical (legal?) meaning (but it is also used informally in various contexts), the article shouldn't directly refer to the holodomor a genocide. The article already documents which countries have recognized it as a genocide. It should also mention that Holodomor is sometimes translated famine-genocide.

Both Subtelny and Magocsi note the question and identify the different views about the intention of the famine, without trying to answer the question. Magocsi concludes his list of several views of the Holodomor with "Or was it an act of genocide directed specifically against Ukrainians?". We should take the same approach, listing the range of opinions, without taking a particular side. —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 18:10 Z

Yes. However it should be (and it is) clearly mentioned that much of the international community already recognised it as a genocide in the formal sense. BTW, does anyone have the complete list of the countries and the dates when they declared Holodomor to be a genocide ? --_Lysy^talk 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's very reasonable to me. By the way, Lysy, thanks for your reference to the letters between Conquest and Tauger. Interesting read. Dietwald 19:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, to specify, the way that it should be made clear is a note in the intro listing the major countries that have made such a declaration. To introduce the "holodomor" as a genocide at the very beginning of the article is inappropriate because calling the terror-famine a genocide ourselves signifies that we are openly picking sides in a debate on which historians disagree. 172 16:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe we have it already in the intro, so it seems we all agree on that one ? I've asked about a more complete list of the countries and dates out of the curiosity rather than any intent to cram it into the intro. --_Lysy^talk 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander keeps reverting back to a version of the intro that introduces the terror-famine as a genocide at the very beginning. Earlier I was wondering if you'd been supporting Andrew's reverts. 172 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

172, I simply edit the article the way the topic is already represented in the mainstream media, Internet, historical forums. If the word "genocide" was rarely applied to the Holodomor, it would make sense to make an argument against introducing it into the article. But the word is applied almost universally, "genocide" is used more often than "Holodomor". It is impossible to ignore the reality and say, "we don't care what the world thinks, we would like to follow a few people instead."--Andrew Alexander 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the term "genocide" generates more Google hits than "holomodor" is neither here nor there. The former is an English term and the latter is not. English terms are almost always likely to generate more results on internet searches because the intenet is still mostly an English-speaking world. Of course the point of view that the famine was an intentional policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine is has been advanced in mainstream media, internet, and historical forums. There are also the Western scholars I keep citing who view the famine as an outcome of collectivization rather than an intentional policy of genocide. We cannot pick sides in a debate between historians that is still raging because of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. 172 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not just the term "genocide", but the term "genocide" related to the Holodomor. And also, there is more than enough space in this article given to any possible revisionist version of the Holodomor. More than necessary in my opinion. You, however, would like to advance your view even further and strike out the mainstream name "genocide" used all over the mainstream accounts as another name the Holodomor. This is not acceptable since now you are censoring what is widely accepted.--Andrew Alexander 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You are using the term "mainstream" in a biased and loaded way. Western historians still debate whether or not the famine was an intentional policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine. An interpretation defended in respected peer reviewed academic journals is going to be within the "mainstream" academic discourse on the subject. 172 22:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But this is irrelevant to this discussion because the notion of the Holodomor, or Ukrainian Genocide, has long left the exclusive domain of historical journals and moved long time ago into the "mainstream" public domain, i.e. politics, media, history textbooks, Internet. A few revisionist articles do not even closely compare in numbers with the amount of witness data, media articles, books, films. Yet you wish to undo the public awareness of the Holodomor through Wikipedia and remove "Ukrainian Genocide" words from this article? This is not what Wikipedia is about!--Andrew Alexander 01:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit War looming

Alexander, I am becoming exasperated with you, and I think the same goes for most people. I thought it was agreed to leave the intro alone -- as YOU suggested. Since YOU don't stick to your OWN proposals, I am beginning to doubt your good faith in this. Putting 'also known as the Ukrainian genocide' into the lead is clearly not correct at this point in time since YOU have FAILED to provide convincing data that this is in fact the case. Even Robert Conquest does not refer to this as a genocide. I am currently uncertain how to classify this, but this does not mean that your view of this is right. The funny thing is, I even sympathize with your sentiments, but this is totally besides the point. You are pushing your ideas by being obnoxiously uncooperative. I think it may be time to move to arbitration.

Your claim regarding millions of sites referring to the holodomor as genocide is idiotic, since only roughly 64,000 sites even mention the term. There is about a milliong articles referring to genocide and Ukraine, but just in case you don't understand Boolean logic, this simply means that a million sites use both terms. They could all say that the famine in the Ukraine was not a genocide, and that would also count as a hit. Capis?

So, please pull yourself together and try to be cooperative, because currently you are acting rather obnoxiously. By the way, I am going to revert your most recent change. Dietwald 19:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And it seems Alex got support from another stranger, reverting no a non-consensus version. I can't revert it again because of 3RR, so I would like other editors to help out a bit and freeze the intro to a version that had some sign of consensus before Alexander came in and pushed his POV. ... Very frustrating.Dietwald 19:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexander, I would really appreciate if you could refrain from further reverting to your previous version. I would also appreciate if those who agree with Alex (seems at least one pop-up did) do the same. Let's clear up the article, and then go to the intro. I currently still hate the intro, but I will not alter it until we have found some consensus on the matter.

This was once a nice, peacefully edited article. The current heat really does a disservice to every aspect of it.

What I hate the most is that I find myself arguing against somebody with whom I probably share a lot of ideas and attitudes on the topic in general. I'd rather butt heads with some Stalinist revisionist, or just a plain old Marxist, not with somebody who could be an ally in the advancement of truth on the matter of Stalinism in particular, and Marxism in general. Dietwald 16:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

So would I. But I'm affraid that the phenomenon that you allude to is common and often inevitable on Wikipedia. When an editor like Alexander is so adamant about supporting a view with which he agrees, he or she often forcse his or her fellow-editors to reluctantly represent the opposite POV, even when the other editors disagree themselves with the POV that they have been forced to represent. 172 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Genocide Once More

Alexander, before you put the genocide reference back in as apparnetly factual, please provide us with evidence that Stalin did in fact set out to destroy the Ukrainian people as a nation. That he did in fact mean to eliminate the Ukrainians because they were Ukrainians. So far, the evidence for this is speculative and spotty. Fact is: millions died through famine. Fact is: The Soviets created the conditions for this famine. Fact is: The Soviets did little to nothing to prevent the mass dying in the Ukrainian COUNTRY SIDE, while the cities did NOT experience serious. Please explain why Ukrainian cities did NOT suffer from famine, IF Stalin intended to eliminate the Ukrainians as a people because they were Ukrainians. Apart from Tottle and others on the lunatic Stalinist apologist fringe, nobodoy denies the facts I have just listed. HOWEVER, the question whether or not the Holodomor was genocide is not clearly answered. You may feel it was, but that means zilch. It's POV, it's not correct, no matter how strongly you feel about it, and no matter how much I sympathize with your sentiments. Pomnish?Dietwald 19:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has prompted me to look at the phrase in the introduction "often referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide,^{[3] [4] [5]}", and its three references.

1. News release by the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America: the term genocide appears in quotations; "Ukrainian Genocide" only appears in the UCCA's own press release text.

Are we reading the same text? Simply look at US Congress resolution HR562.--Andrew Alexander 23:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The US does not owe Wikipedia. -- Kuban kazak 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

1. The Pope's statement only includes the uncapitalized term famine-genocide.
2. The text of the resolution only mentions the word in a quotation of the US Government Commission report: "'Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933'"

These don't really support the common use of the term Ukrainian Genocide at all. I suggest we add instead of or before it, the term Great Famine, which is used by Subtelny and Magocsi in their big histories. We might also mention that famine-genocide is sometimes used as a translation of Holodomor, but mostly in a political context and not by historians. —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 19:43 Z

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than "also known as". I only suggest "often referred to as" to accommodate the genocide pushers. IMO, the term should not be mentioned at all in the first paragraph, for more than obvious reasons.Dietwald 19:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide pushers"?! This is impressive, Dietwald. Yes, over 1 million web pages of "genocide pushers"...--Andrew Alexander 23:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in 1933 more than a million German people voted for hitler. Just because the majority of people have O type blood group does not necessary mean that the article Blood has a redirect from O type group. In fact the latter has a heading in the title linking to the main part - Blood. For the article Blood there is a heading there...Was Holodomor Genocide?, with a link to O type group. --Kuban kazak 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking a look at the quite recent Italian Research on the Holodomor by Stanislav Kulchytsky, which I've also added to the "links and sources" section of the article. I believe it sets the better perspective of the whole issue. --_Lysy^talk 22:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Previous Discussion on Genocide

This is worth reading again. It seems that we are arguing what the Holodomor should be called vs what it is called already.

---

Genocide

OK, let's return to this issue although it was discussed earlier. I will just summarize it briefly. Holodomor's effect was no doubt genocidial for the Ukrainian nation but to call the Holodomor a Genocide requires more, we need to see a Genocidial intent of ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians. There is no agreement as to this issue. I mean every serious academic agrees that Holodomor did happen and that it was catastrophic. Whether it was organized specifically against Ukrainians, or it was a consequence of Soviet policies that where largely anti-peasant (and Ukrainians were the most agricultural nation) is a separate issue. To reduce this argument to, perhaps, an oversimplification is just to say that there are two positions: the events were ogranized as anti-Ukrainian in nature or they were generally anti-peasant and Ukrainians, being the most peasantry nation, suffered most. Both positions must be pointed in the article and this is done indeed in the appropriate section. Calling Holodomor a Genocide form the very start of the article is picking a side in this debate. I repeat that this has nothing to do with the denial of the scale of the catastrophe. The issue is only in how to present the word Genocide here. --Irpen 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The Holodomor is known as "Ukrainian genocide" and there are references provided for this. In the case there are some other sources disproving this fact, they must be presented. This is not even going into the definition of the word genocide and the causes of the Holodomor. If someone is saying "the Holodomor was not a genocide" and this view as wide spread and supported as the one of John Paul II who was saying that the Holodomor was genocide, then this must be shown. Simple talk will not prove or disprove anything.--Andrew Alexander 06:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Google test returns interesting results, "Ukrainian Genocide" - 12,600 hits almost all refer to Holodomor, negligible amount refers to "Ukrainian genocide of poles", I guess this is adressed in "Ukrainian Genocide" AND "famine" search - 11,200 hits,

More logical would be to subtract these 470 results, leaving 12,130. Even more logical would be to search for this, providing 1,370,000 results. Even John Paul II called it "famine-genocide", also "genocide", not exactly "Ukrainian Genocide", but close enough.--Andrew Alexander 07:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, at this stage I can longer view your reply to Irpen as having being in good faith. You know that calling "holodomor" a genocide form the very start of the article is picking a side in a debate on which historians disagree. You know becuase I have made reference to those histroians over and over again. Please stop spinning us in circles over and over again on talk. 172 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've gone through first 1000 results and they all look credible, oh dear, and yes it is logical, I was thinking about the "Ukrainian genocide" we had in the intro...I guess this is more than overwhelming. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 07:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

$%!@, I feel so stupid.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 08:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

not sure how to filter crackpot-Stalinite sites, which obviously include this term for other purpose , but this I think is as close as we can get, and 9,730 hits, and this is versus 37k for Holodomor. 21,500 hits have Holodomor but never mention genocide.

So, we can make guesses, that it is pretty much well-known, but less known than Holodomor, I do not want to judge the content of the web sites, not sure if 1/3 metions on the Internet qualifies it, acceptance-not acceptance. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 06:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1991-2005 population of independent Ukraine was reduced almost on 5 million person! It is a genocide whether or not? In the Soviet Ukraine (1945-1990) the population constantly grew.

Who makes crimes against Ukrainians today???

Ben-Velvel 13:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Reminds me of our Communists wasting Duma time by attempting to impeach Yeltsin citing "genocide of Russian people".

2005-1991=14 years != 500 days. While I have suspicion about the Russia "barely experiensed" as compared to Ukraine, because I've heard very similar stories of famine in Russia, I have nothing to dispute it - at least we have no ghost towns.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 19:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Aaar,this was the goofiest part of the discussion, I think it is actually that Ukrainian Genocide would be correct descriptive substitute for Holodomor, as well as Ukrainian Genocide will most inambiguously refer to Holodomor. Well, I actually did not want to raise the issue, but that search dicussed found all genocides coupled with famine, holodomor or 1933 ; the latter padded the result with Nazis, most sites I've seen are relevant, anyway it leaves almost a million.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Some of those >1 mln sites: http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_ukraine.html - "The central government now demanded impossibly high quotas of grain, forcing the population to give up even the seed-grain supplies needed for next season's planting. There is no doubt that the regime's leaders knew that this would create a food shortage. Indeed, borders were closed and supplies cut off to ensure it; granaries and other food stores were hunted out and locked up under guard by soldiers and secret police units. A man-made famine was thus created deliberately to starve political resisters to death. Up to 7 million people in ethnic Ukrainian regions died of hunger. Some of the too-slow-to-die were shot in large numbers to hasten the genocide.".

http://www.historywiz.com/grainseizures.htm - "On December 6, 1932, the state stipulated a complete blockade of villages for allegedly sabotaging the grain procurement campaign, thereby guaranteeing that these villages would starve. Russian peasants were then encouraged to settle into the empty villages."

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm - "Ukrainian Communists urgently appealed to Moscow for a reduction in the grain quotas and also asked for emergency food aid. Stalin responded by denouncing them and rushed in over 100,000 fiercely loyal Russian soldiers to purge the Ukrainian Communist Party. The Soviets then sealed off the borders of the Ukraine, preventing any food from entering, in effect turning the country into a gigantic concentration camp. Soviet police troops inside the Ukraine also went house to house seizing any stored up food, leaving farm families without a morsel. All food was considered to be the "sacred" property of the State. Anyone caught stealing State property, even an ear of corn or stubble of wheat, could be shot or imprisoned for not less than ten years."

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/sovkill.html - "Ukraine was sealed off. All food supplies and livestock were confiscated. NKVD death squads executed "anti-party elements." Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovitch - virtually the Soviet Union's Adolf Eichmann - set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot."

http://ctr.concordia.ca/2003-04/nov_20/16-ukraine/index.shtml - "Chalk said he had just come back from presenting at a conference sponsored by the Kennan Institute of the Wooodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., where he put the Ukraine famine in perspective. “There is no question in my mind that the famine-genocide suffered by the Ukrainian people deserves recognition as one of the largest and most neglected of the twentieth century.”"

http://faminegenocide.com/resources/witnesses.html#Lev - "Lev Kopelev, The Education of a True Believer. New York: Harper & Row, 1980. (Chapter IX "The Last Grain Collections") Father was gloomy and immediately let into me. "Everything is done for! Do you understand? No grain in the village! I'm not talking about the Central Workers Co-op or the city story, but the village. The grain growers are dying of starvation! Not some derelict. tramps, not some unemployed Americans, but the Ukrainian grain growers are dying from want of grain! And my dear little boy helped to take it away.""

Does anyone among the editors of this article dispute the above facts?--Andrew Alexander 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

26 countries

Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries including Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide.

source? see discussion on russian wiki Ilya K 14:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What discussion ? I'm sure there are many. --_Lysy^talk 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ilya, as each country was added to that list, there was a reference provided in the edit history. It should still be available.--Andrew Alexander 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be the discussion at ru:talk:Голодомор на Украине, the section "29 стран - признавших Голодомор Геноцидом ПРЯМАЯ И ЯВНАЯ ЛОЖЬ". —Michael Z. 2006-01-17 01:20 Z

Most of us don't speak or read Russian(not to mention cyrillic).Please provide an English translation. --Molobo 03:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

the title of discussion is "29 countries that recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide is DIRECT and OBVIOUS LIE!" Ilya K 10:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Pardon my rude frankness, but the editorial quality of this article's introduction has gone to crap.

The current article is not about a term; it is about a historical event. Consequently, the nature of the event should be mentioned before launching into an etymological analysis. And then the fourth sentence pops up, with zero context or explanation, conflating an incidental factoid with a very complex historical premise: "Some scholars have also attributed poor weather and the military and economic goals of Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin as additional factors in explaining the famine."

This is terrible. Please set it straight, or I'll just revert back to the last version which reads even slightly like a coherent English paragraph. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 06:33 Z

Because the term "holodomor" has not yet become the common term in the English-language literature on the famine, it is necessary to mention the etymology before launching into a discussion into the nature of the event. Please see my comments under the heading "Much of the content here belongs in Soviet famine of 1932-1934." Regarding the fourth sentence, it may need more context, but it cannot be removed, as there have been works by Western scholars who have attributed the famine to factors that are not emphasized by the proponents of the genocide thesis. 172 07:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, as in any article, whether the reader is familiar with the subject or its name or not, the first thing to explain briefly is what it is, next why it is important. Etymology comes later (in dictionaries too).

For articles on discouse subjects, it is sometimes necessary to mention the etymology first. Here, it is necessary because the term "holodomor" is still not common in the historical literature in the English-speaking world. By the way, even some historians are still unfamiliar with the Ukrainian term. Many monographs on Soviet history do not include the term in their indexes and do not even mention the term. The term does not even appear in the indexes in works by Robert Conquest, who is with little doubt the best-known specialist on the 1932-34 famine. Instead, the topic is found in indexes most often under "famine, 1932-34." Because Wikipedia:Naming conventions require that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," the bulk of the coverage of the famine as a historical event should be moved to an article like Soviet famine of 1932-34 or Soviet terror-famine of 1932-34. 172 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The weather in 1932–33 may have reduced the initial harvest, but it certainly was not the cause of the famine. More accurate to state that a below-average harvest was turned into a deadly famine by Soviet actions. Stalin's economic goals were related to the reasons for seizing the crops, not some unrelated factor, as implied by the current wording.

There are still accounts of the famine that consider the weather a factor. Considering it a factor does not imply that it was the only factor or even the main factor. 172 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding content belonging elsewhere, whether one agrees or not, that is no excuse for bad writing here (same goes for the fourth sentence). The intro reads very awkwardly, compared to just a few days ago—edit for content or POV if you wish, but please don't bring the quality so far down as a consequence. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 09:38 Z

Michael, I agree with you that a few days ago the intro was in a better style. However, its POV pushing was so blatant that I am not sure what's wrose, the intro that needs improvement in style or the intro that is written in wuch a strongly POV pushing way, which is a trademark intro style of user:Andrew Alexander (see for instance the intro to UA lang). Some editors take an enormous effort in making sure the intro is written in a stronly POV way and remain as such because the easiest way to POV affect the whole article is to edit the intro drammatically. Feel free to edit it for style of course but please do not revert to the version that starts with "H., also known as Ukrainian Genocide". This is thoroughly discussed here and this is what A.A. pushed for in a strongest possible way. --Irpen 17:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I don't understand why someone would ignore the discussion, ignore the questions asked and then come here and accuse another editor of bad faith.--Andrew Alexander 18:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I said nothing about your good/bad faith right now. I said about your POV pushing. The questions you asked were answered above by myself and by others. What you do is revert war over the intro. The article itself has to be addressed first. People here have almost agreed to freeze the intro until then. My only condition is for Genocide not be in the first line, I even agreed to it in the intro although, as it has been shown, there is no consensus among the historians that Holodomor and Ukrainian Genocide are interchangeable terms. Your continuous reinsertion of the contentious term in the first line is nothing but a blatant POV pushing. --Irpen 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, in my opinion "extreme POV pushing" is bad-faith editing. I must ask you to stop making these kinds of comments since they are unfounded and mean spirited (not to mention to be against the WP policies). I will also ask you go one topic above and answer the simple question I wrote for you and others.--Andrew Alexander 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Back to the name

I don't consider listing a common name for the Holodomor as "blatant POV pushing". The current Google results are:

Holodomor - 47,100 [6]

Ukrainian Genocide - 384,000 [7]

Genocide Ukraine OR Ukrainian - 1,030,000 [8]

Famine-Genocide - 31,700 [9]

Based on the above results it's quite safe to say that Ukrainian Genocide is a common name for the Holodomor.--Andrew Alexander 04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Google results should be used in some circumstances in WP but not to substitute the scholarly data. It was demonstrated to you above that the scholars do not consider the terms universally interchangeable. This is not the dispute about the article title, when the common usage in English is an important factor and the google test is an important criterion to derive English usage. The issue here is whether Holodomor was Genocide or not. For this we go to the literature written by specialists rather than to google. --Irpen 05:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I just have to add that what Irpen points out above has been already explained to you many times over the past few days by both Irpen and me. Please do not revert to that non-neutral old version again. 172 08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please explain. Where did you get the idea that "scholars" (in this specific case Mark Tauger and a few of his supporters) get to decide on the name of a certain historic event? What Wikipedia rule or policy did you use for this conclusion? Where can I find that rule? I will stop using the common name published on millions of web sites as soon as you provide the source.--Andrew Alexander 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For one the term "Ukrainian Genocide" is not neutral because not all historians agree that the famine was genocide. Moreover, "Ukrainian Genocide" is not even the common name. Of course the term generates many Google hits because the term is used by those promoting the thesis arguing that the famine was genocide. Still, in published accounts by academic historians-- even Conquest-- the subject is found in indexes under the name "famine, 1932-34" or a similar variant thereof. These accounts are more representative of terms that tend to be used in encyclopedias than the random selection generated by a Google search. 172 23:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Conquest wrote in his book, "It certainly appears that a charge of genocide lies against the Soviet Union for its actions in the Ukraine. Such, at least, was the view of Professor Raphael Lemkin who drafted the Convention." Ukrainian Genocide seems a more common name than the name Holodomor from the search results above. Of course, one may claim that the Holodomor itself is published by those who wish to promote the fact that the famine happened. Historians (Mark Tauger particularly) may disagree on the fact itself. Yet please explain from the Wikipedia perspective why it must restrict using a common name.--Andrew Alexander 05:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The topic nevertheless comes up under "famine" in Conquest's indexes, though he is the main historian associated with the genocide thesis. "Ukrainian Genocide" is not the common name but rather a term associated with a particular side in a controversial debate. 172 06:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the simple numbers above contradict this statement. And still no answer regarding WP policies. As expected.--Andrew Alexander 06:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your numbers are based on Google searches, which tell us nothing more than how many Google hits those particular searches generate. You no that historians disagree with on whether or not the famine was genocide. Please start editing in good faith. 172 07:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The number of web pages found as well as the web pages themseves are provided. Please stop talking nonsense. And please answer the question.--Andrew Alexander 07:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Google search numbers show evidence that the term is used; and that's it. I reject the usage of Google searches in place of real research. Still, it is intersting that even if one accepts your argument that Google searches can be used in place of real research, your point is still wrong in that the neutral term-- "Ukrainian famine" gets a far greater number of hits than "Ukrainian genocide." 172 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that a few historians cannot deny a common name. They argue whether the name is correct. And this argument has been presented. Requesting a censorship of a common name is against Wikipedia policies. Also, "Ukrainan famine" returns 252,000 results [10]. Make sure to compare with the results above before making false statements. You chose to delete both related terms from the article. You also chose to ignore direct questions and assume bad faith.--Andrew Alexander 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not incorrect. Put the terms in quotations when doing searches in order to restrict results to the exact phrase. "Ukrainian famine" gets 47,800 results. [11] "Ukrainian genocide" gets 14,000 results. [12] Even by your own standard (Google searches), which I consider flawed, "Ukrainian famine" comes up as the more common term. 172 08:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

After catching you over a primitive vandalism it's hard to take your arguments seriously. Of course quotation marks will give fewer results. Because many people said "famine-genocide", "genocide in Ukraine", "Ukrainian people genocide", "genocide of Ukrainians", etc. Neither changes the meaning. Unless you try to doctor the link to jerry-rig the argument in your favor.--Andrew Alexander 08:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not commit a "primitive vandalism." If I modified your comment it was by accident, or one of the common page history glitches. When comparing the number of search results it is necessary to both the two entries being compared in quotations. Otherwise you are not searching for the exact phase but rather any page that happens to have all of the words in the search anywhere in the article. BTW, note Irpen's comment below. The salient point regarding your Google searches is mentioned by Irpen in his comment below. 172 08:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Google search is useful among other factors when deciding on the article's title but not to determine whether something was Genocide which is too a complex to be left to google. "Ukrainian Genocide" placed in the first line, eslecially with "also known as" implies the Holodomor was a Genocide. This is more than just suggesting another term for it because "Genocide" is very charge word on one hand and very specific on another. "Also known as Ukrainian Famine" would sound totally different. --Irpen 08:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically this doesn't answer the question of why a common name has to be ignored. Implying is not quite sufficient for erasing something that is written all over the Internet. Suggest another common name. But don't simply erase based on some personal feelings. And answer the question why such feelings constitute a neutral point of view as opposed to the facts discovered above.--Andrew Alexander 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen explained to you why your method of Google searches is insufficient way of providing evidence that "Ukrainian genocide" is the "common name" for the subject. Further, as I said earlier, "Ukrainian famine" is a more common prase online than "Ukrainian genocide." Searches for "Ukrainian genocide" without the quotations, by the way, are likely inflated given that articles on the Holocuast will often include both the words "Ukrainian" and "genocide" somewhere or another. 172 08:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Inflated Death Toll

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

The death toll in Ukraine is not quite 1.5 million. There were 1.9mn deaths and 668k births in 1933 compared to 552k deaths and 1.1mn births in 1927. In 1932, there were 668k deaths in 1932 to 782k births.

Can anyone offer a resonable explanation to why these accurate figures from the archives are not to be posted?

Which archives are these? The numbers you quote look quite precise and self-confident for a period when most academics say that the true numbers will never be known because there are no reliable records. Some of the problems with the Soviet census have already been discussed. —Michael Z. 2006-01-20 21:11 Z

They are taken from 2004's "Years of Hunger" by Australian scholar Stephen Wheatcroft who used archival data. Why don't you actually observe the sources in the table before resorting to speculative "no scholar has seen the records"? Every scholar cited about the famine made flatulent estimations that have been exposed as false during a period when no records were available. This chart comprises the 1937 Soviet census, leaving your bogus argument "1937 census was sabotaged" in vain. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Since you are unable to refute these facts, they will replace the preposterous "7 million" death toll.

revert warring is not helpful

Andrew Alexander, the claim in your most recent edit summary that you were restoring the "most agreed-on version" of the intro was disingenuous at best. You know very well that the issues concerning the intro have been discussed thoroughly with you, Irpen, Lysy, Mzajac, and another of other users. Your undiscussed reversions backed up by Ultramarine three times and Yakudza once-- users who have not been participating in the recent talk page discussions at all-- are not helpful in reaching a consensus. Irpen and I have already established (1) not all historians agree that the famine was a campaign of genocide against the nation of Ukraine and (2) "Ukrainian Genocide" is not the common name for the famine. Please stop the disregarding the Wikipedia principles of NPOV and consensus-building. 172 07:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate dsecription. Look at the edit [13]. You have simply deleted the view of Ukrainian émigré historians and inserted various weasel statements, like "Some scholars have argued". Ultramarine 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, your description above is inaccurate. The so-called "weasel statement" that you mention above is referenced in the footnotes. Not all historians specializing on the famine agree that the famine was a policy of genocide against the Ukrainian nation. This fact has been thoroughly established by references to the relevant scholarship on the subject over the course of many discussions taking place on this talk page starting around a week ago; and this fact must be established in the intro to balance the point of view of the genodide thesis. Familiarizing yourself with the issues brought up on the talk page over the past weeks, particularly comments by Irpen and me, should have alterted you to the strong neutrality concerns regarding Andrew Alexander's version of the intro. For future reference, I suggest following the advice of the template on the top of this talk page: "Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes." 172 08:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what footnote? Both your articles are very confused, with a strange intermixing of "Notes" and "References". And you inserted numerous other statements without any attempt to source them. Ultramarine 08:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My articles? In my defense I didn't write any of this article, barring my attempt to NPOV Andrew Alexander's intro. "Exactly what footnote" should be clear to you. A citation follows the end of the "Some scholars have argued..." sentence. The footnote is a reference to an article published in Slavic Review by Mark Tauger, whom I choose to cite among other historians because his rejection of the genocide thesis is particularly vigorous. 172 08:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And please, no more statement like "This fact has been thoroughly established by references to the relevant scholarship on the subject". Give sources in the article. Ultramarine 08:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mark Tauger is cited in the article. He has his own bibliography in his article if readers are interested in his sources. Lewin, Fitzpatrick, and Viola are other specialists on the famine who reject the genocide thesis. 172 08:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what the problem is. Mark Tauger is amply represented with the text. However, removing common names for the Holodomor is unacceptable and has been discussed in detail above.--Andrew Alexander 08:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I support. Ultramarine 08:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, starting an article on the famine calling the subject "Ukrainian genocide," despite the fact that there are historians specializing in the famine who reject the view that the famine was a campaign of genocide against the nation of Ukraine, means that the article is picking sides in a controversial debate among historians. We are forbidden from taking sides in such a manner by the NPOV policy. Further, neither of you have provided evidence that "Ukrainian genocide" is the common name for the subject. I reject this assertion. In works published by professional historians, including Conquest, who is the scholar most associated with the genocide thesis, the subject is found in indexes under the name "famine." Andrew Alexander has cited his Google search results as evidence that "Ukrainian genocide" is the common name for the famine. However, aside from the problems associated with using Google as a way to establish a fact like that (note Irpen's comment in the discussion below the heading above this one), Google seems to suggest "Ukrainian famine" is a far more common term on Google than Ukrainian "genocide." 172 09:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be said that Wikipedia rules demand using proven common names ("What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?") within WP articles. Ukrainian genocide is a common name, it was shown to you above even though you refuse to see it.--Andrew Alexander 09:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ukrainian genocide" is not a common name but a term associated with proponents of the genocide thesis. What word would the average user the Wikipedia put into the search engine? Well, I have already shown you that "Ukrainian famine" is a more common term appearing in Google search results than "Ukrainian genocide." I have already explained to you that the authors of the best-known professional historians writing on the subject, including Conquest, include the subject under the "famine" in their indexes. Sorry, POV cannot be stuck into the intro under the guise of the "common name" policy because "Ukrainian genocide" isn't even the "common name." 172 09:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people may use variations of "Ukrainian genocide", such as "Ukrainian famine-genocide", "Ukrainian 1933 genocide", "genocide of Ukrainians", etc.: [14] (2,050,000 results altogether).--Andrew Alexander 09:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. People may use variations of "Ukrainian famine" too, such as "Soviet famine," "Ukrainian terror-famine," "famine in Ukraine," etc. I'll give you credit for coming up with a crafty argument for inserting blatant POV into the intro under the guise of the "common name" policy; but it won't work. Sorry, but I'm gullible enough to buy it. 172 09:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we can mention this alternative name, after all we are not renaming the article. I have tried to understand the "Notes" section. It is still used? It should be deleted or merged with the references. Ultramarine 09:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The version that Irpen and I have been restoring mentions the term "Ukrainian Genocide" without conveying the incorrect impression that the famine is universally considered by historians to be a "genocide." The problem of notes and references can get sorted out later. Right now the issue is the intro. The version that you reverted states: In some accounts the famine, often referred to as a "man-made" [4], is called the Ukrainian Genocide [5] [6] [7]. Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Ultramarine, the version that you were reverting to was not the "correct version," as you like to call it. I hope that you will prove to me that you are here on Wikipedia to edit in good faith by reverting your own reverts here. 172 10:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This argument repeats itself. Why do you think that the term "famine" contradicts the term "genocide"? Most of the web pages that mention "Ukrainian famine" also mention the term "genocide". When John Paul II spoke of the Holodomor, he called it "famine-genocide". There is nothing "crafty" about this. If over a million of web pages call an event genocide, this has to be reflected as an alternative name in the first sentence. And I am not against calling this event also "famine" (which you will find in the first sentence as well).--Andrew Alexander 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the term "genocide" is not going to be exclusive to websites prompting the genocide thesis. Many sites mentioning "Ukrainian" and "genocide" are probably going to be dealing with the Holocaust, inflating the total number of Google results. It is also interesting that you refuse to talk about published works by professional historians when it comes to establishing a common name. You probably are well aware that the POV of proponents of the genocide thesis-- nationalists in Ukraine and libertarians in the West-- is disproportionately represented on the Internet. An advocacy group promoting the genocide thesis with great passion and emotion is much more likely to put up a website than historians who reject the genocide the genocide thesis with dispassionate research methodological and empirical grounds. Yet, surprisingly perhaps, "Ukrainian famine" is a more common term than "Ukrainian genocide," although there is no shortage of advocacy groups online prompting the genocide thesis. [15][16] Andrew Alexander, please give it up. "Ukrainian genocide" is not the common name. Frankly, the endless revert warring and the stream of repetition of the same few Google search results is starting to look like POV-pushing of the tendentious sort. Please follow the advice that Irpen gave you below: "pushing the contentious term in the first line is very unhelpful and brings a poisonous climate to the possibility to work on the article." 172 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Do not be ridiculous. The notion of "Great Russian chauvinism" inflicting genocide on Ukrainians (Little Russians) is so preposterous. The Soviet archives show that there were as many deaths in Kazakhstan (1.5 million) as there were in Ukraine. Andrew Alexander is a fascistic right-wing puke if I've seen one.

Mr. anonymous. There are too many fascists like us around. And even your anonimous status will not help you with YOUR revert war. Andrew Alexander have spent many month WORKING on this article and brought it to a very balanced point. And this state is supported by other users here.--Oleh Petriv 20:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the work of A.A. to bring the referenced factual info to the article, it is very unfortunate that his motivation seems to have been an russophobic agenda to present the events as the plotted genocide of Ukrainians by Russia, a POV which exists but far from being the widely accepted one in the mainstream. With the article having a section devoted to the question whether Holodomor was indeed a Genocide with arguments of both sides presented, A.A. pushing the contentious term in the first line is very unhelpful and brings a poisonous climate to the possibility to work on the article. -- Irpen 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We were having reasonable discussions on this talk page until Ultramarine and Andrew Alexander started tag-team revert warring on this page. 172 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's got much more to do with an anti-Communist agenda pushed by propgandistic Cold Warriors of the West. They refuse to admit that their bogus "7 million" figure is false even when the RGAE archives show that the death toll in Ukraine from 1932-1933 numbered at 1.5 million. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls -- Zvesda

Zvesda, the Cold Warriors in the West were right about the famine all along. Regardless of whether or not the famine was intentional, regardless of whether or not the death toll was as high as 7 million, the famine was still one of the worst atrocities and disasters of modern history. I don't understand the point of your comment above. 172 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The point of the above comment is that you are WRONG about the death toll. The facts have been released on this issue and they must replace the blatant "7 million" death toll. I never objected to the factors contributing to the famine but have to the intentionally inflated death toll. The western Cold Warriors are WRONG about the famine because of how archival data numbers the Ukraine famine deaths at 1.5 million. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls -- Zvesda

Irpen, I do not think third party would find a lot of anti-Russian notes in this article. In our case we are reading behind lines and fin anti-Russian here or anti-Ukrainian there. In fact, it may be not really so.

172, you call holodomor "one of the worst atrocities and disasters of modern history" yourself. Yet you do not agree that there is strong opinion (don't take POV only in negative ligt) that it was intentional. So strong, that it deserves to be mentioned in intro. How does it match? Or atrocity can happen "accidentally"?

Zvezda, but why you choose the lowest (beside 0) number estimated? And where is push for 7 millions? I see "between five and ten " which is quite flexible and represents opinions of quite wide number of scholars. Except those probably, who were fighting at the other side of barricades against "Cold Warriors"--Oleh Petriv 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "intentional", the debate here is not whether it was accidental. It certainly is not by accident that the policies that brought up the mass starvation were not stopped and reversed. The debate is whether it was anti-Ukrainian specifically or anti-peasant in general, and whether the intention itself was to kill people rather than industrialization and export of grain for cash-strapped Bolsheviks with the humane deaths being criminally disregarded. While horrible in any case, the latter is not a Genocide in the legal sense. Pushing for the version that the Holodomor was specifically a concequence of intentionally anti-Ukrainian policies plotted in Moscow, thus disregarding the Russian peasantry that died from the same Famine, is nothing but Russophobia. Additionally, it disregars deaths among other nations, such as a catastrophe of the Kazakhs but this is marginal for the POV pushers. --Irpen 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oleh Petriv, you are misrepresenting me. Your claim that I do not agree that there is strong opinion that the famine was an intentional policy of genocide is totally incorrect. My version of the intro states In some accounts the famine, often referred to as a "man-made" [4], is called the Ukrainian Genocide [5] [6] [7]. Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. My own position on whether or not the famine was intentional is agnostic. I have no business having an opinion on the matter one way or another because I am not a specialist on 1930s Ukrainian history. Nevertheless, I am a historian, though not a famine specialist by any means, which gives me expertise on handling the problem of balancing opposing positions (and having to present arguments for positions that are not necessarily my own) in the historiography of any area of research. Further, I am a Wikipedia editor who supports the NPOV policy. My stance as a Wikipedia editor is to ensure that the intro and content of this article balance the opposing positions in the historiography. You claim that my commitment to NPOV and standards as a professional historian clash with my view that the 1932-34 terror-famine in Ukraine was "one of the worst atrocities and disasters of modern history," as I called it earlier, is also a misrepresentation of the worst kind. Not all atrocities are necessarily genocide. Regardless of whether Stalin was interested more in expropriating wealth from the peasantry, with an eye on the country's balance of payments as he sought to finance his program of crash industrialization, or if the famine was an end in and of itself designed to commit genocide against the people of Ukraine, the human cost of Stalin's collectivization was so enormous that the cost must be described as an atrocity-- genocide or not. My comments on the talk page and edits to this article are not at all contradictory. Please stop misrepresenting my position. 172 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the sixth time I've pointed to the Soviet ARCHIVES that provide demographic data for famine-stricken regions. Every single one of those "estimates" were conducted during the Cold War. THERE WERE NOT EVEN 5 MILLION TOTAL DEATHS in ENTIRE UKRAINE between 1932-1933. Why do you refuse to consider these sources? http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls -- Zvesda

Zvezda, I can not accept those numbers because of at least three reasons: 1. Not all deaths were registered (and especially those from rural areas) 2. Natural migrations are not taken into account. 3. Forced relocation of population from other areas of USSR to affeted by hunger areas is not taken into account. Not to mention many other "minor details". Plus I do not agree that there was no estimations made after 1990 or that Cold war affected absolutely all estimation from the period before 90-ies.--Oleh Petriv 03:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

172, sorry, I did not plan to represent you in any way. I missed your version of intro behind numerous reverts/edits of the text. In general, I have nothing against it (the way you cited above). I also would like to make a correction - I did not want to say that atrocity is only genocide. Absolutely not. I rather wanted to emphasize that atrocity (of any kind) can not be non-deliberate (or my understanding of meaning of the word is incorrect?). I also have little interest to know what would be the excuses of Mr. Stalin for the crimes he consciously committed. But I'm interested to know how would you bring to NPOV articles like Armenian genocide. In the future I will try to more careful with my judgments of your edits.--Oleh Petriv 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I understand your confusion now; so, I apologize for the terse tone of my initial reply. I'm not sure if I understand your point about how atrocities must by definition be deliberate. The specialists on the 1932-34 famine in Ukraine who disagree with the genocide thesis argue that the main objective of the collectivization was financing rapid industrialization, despite the enormous human cost. The regime's indifference to the famine created by the circumstances of collectivization is what they view as an atrocity. As for your question regarding articles on Armenian history, at the moment I don't know. In all my time on Wikipedia I don't recall even reading any of the articles related to 20th century Greek, Turkish, and Armenian history on Wikipedia. If I have time, I'll try to take a look. 172 08:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There are "specialists" arguing that the Holocaust was not a Genocide and is explaned by some "difficulties of war time" or so. How did the opinions of this "specialists" influenced the leading paragraph of the corresponding article. Perhaps Holodomor denial deserves a separate article, similar to Holocaust denial.--AndriyK 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, your comments are frankly grossly unfair and inflammatory. A number of leading Western historians of the famine, such as Moshe Lewin, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Lynn Viola, and Mark Tauger aruge that the "genocide" designation is inapplicable because, they argue, the famine was the result of the Soviet regime's indiffernece to peasants as a social group rather than Ukrainians as a national or ethnic group. They argue that the famine was the result of collectivization, the main objective of which was financing Stalin's program of crash industrialization during the 1930s. They do not deny human toll of the famine. Accusing them of "Holodomor denial" is a horribly unfair smear. Historians who disagree with the genocide thesis do not deny that the 1932-34 famine ranks with the worst atrocities in human history. By the way, these issues had been discussed for over a week here on the talk page before you started revert warring. See my discussion with Lysy earlier. 172 11:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of "leading Western historians" that do not deny human toll of the Holocaust, but they argue that "genocide" designation is inapplicable, because "people die of natural causes resulted from the difficulties of war time". I would not list here the names of this "leading Western historians" (so they usually called in anti-semitic literature).

The troops on the boders of the regions with Ukrainian population preventing the people to escape the famine areas are also a result of "the Soviet regime's indiffernece to peasants" and "financing Stalin's program of crash industrialization"? Or the "leading historians" deny this fact as their other "leading" coleagues deny the existence of gas cameras?--AndriyK 11:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, Lysy made a similar comment on this talk page. I can reply to you by quoting my 17:34, 14 January 2006 post: The comparison of Western specialists on the Soviet terror-famine to Holocaust deniers frankly disgusts me. (Almost my entire family perished in the Holocaust. I do not appreciate its usage as an object of political rhetoric.) The Soviet terror-famine and the Holocaust are entirely different ball games. Historians speak with much greater certainty about the Holocaust than they do about the Soviet terror-famine with good reason: We know much more about the former than the latter. Unfortunately, the reason for this discrepancy is, first, the success of Soviet efforts to cover up the famine. Second, unlike the victims of the Nazi concentration camps, terror-famine victims in Ukraine were not liberated by free countries that were able to gather hard evidence exposing the Soviet regime's crimes against humanity. Therefore, in spite of widespread interest in the Soviet Union, Western specialists have still paid little attention to the Soviet terror-famine compared to the Holocaust. It is aburd to compare Western historians of the Soviet terror-famine to Holocaust deniers because, unfortunately, still have legitimate questions to ask about the terror-famine that they have long known about the Holocaust. Now please stop the references to "holdomor denial." They are unfair smears of the worst kind. 172 11:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And what about the troops?--AndriyK 12:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that historians who promote the genocide thesis argue that the closing the borders so Ukrainians could not escape to Russia is evidence that Stalin was targeting Ukrainian nationals. Historians who disagree with the genocide thesis tend to argue that the Stalin regime was on verge of being discredited by the atrocities and disasters associated with collectivization, and tried to conceal the information by cordoning off the affected areas and keeping peasants locked up on the farm. I am not endorsing either view because I am not a specialist on the famine myself. Further, the terror-famine is a subject which has only recently begun to receive the attention that it deserves among historians. Historians have many legitimate unanswered questions about the famine. My stance is that we strike a balance between the competing perspectives in the historiography in order to conform make this article conform with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. 172 12:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But sir, Stalin could have stopped confiscating food if he ever wanted to avoid the disaster. Grain confiscations went on well into 1933, after sealing off the borders of Ukraine. Stalin had grain stores guarded by troops, fending off dying of starvation. And what does it matter anyway? The point of the debate is that "genocide" is a common name and "Western specialists" can not dictate what name has to be common. It's NOWHERE IN WIKIPEDIA RULES. WP:NC, however, needs to be followed.--Andrew Alexander 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not an Internet debating forum. You are entitled to your views on the historiography. Because of the NPOV policy, editors must balance opposing positions in the historiography, and present arguments for positions that are not necessarily pur own. Further, regardless of how many times you assert that "Ukrainian genocide" is the common for the subject, as I've demonstrated probably over a dozen times so far over the course of more than a week, you have not been able to establish compelling evidence for your claim. Yes, the term is used; but it is particular to advocates of one side in a debate that remains quite controversial among historians. Your claim that historians cannot dictate what name is a "common name" is neither here nor there. Written scholarly publications carry much more weight when it comes to the purposes of writing an encyclopedia than any random website that can come up in Google search results. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

172, there is one more question left about "crash industrialization during the 1930s" theory: Why this was made at expence of Ukrainian pesants only, but not Bielorussian, Russian, etc. This selectivity makes it difficult to believe in solely economical reasoning of holodomor. As for Armenian genocide - you do not have to read a lot. It is simply a crime. And how do you make NPOV about crimes?--Oleh Petriv 14:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You ask how one writes an NPOV article about "crimes." Read the write-up on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. NPOV is not my policy; it's Wikipedia's policy. It's your prerogative to disagree with the principles that govern Wikipedia. If you reject them, I recommend quitting the project. Wikipedia is already five years old. The way things are done around here are pretty well-established. You asked why rapid industrialization came at an enormous social cost to only Ukrainian peasants. I lack the authority to answer your question myself. However, Fitzpatrick, who is an authority on the subject-- among others-- argues that most of the major grain-producing areas of the country and not just Ukraine—including Central Volga, Kazakhstan, and Northern Caucasus—were plunged into famine in the winter of 1932-32. You are entitled to disagree with these historians. Still, because of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we must balance and summarize in a fair manner all competing positions in the historiography. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza, Ultramarine, your joining just to help in revert wars ignoring extensive discussion at talk is extremely unhelpful. Same applies to AndriyK who wrote above just repeating the already answered statements. Too bad that people are uninterested to really work on this important topic and come here just to revert war. --Irpen 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Yakudza, Ultramarine, and AndriyK have not been participants in the talk page discussions. Their reverts are only making it more difficult to reconcile matters on this page. Edits to the page should relate to careful considerations of the issues being discussed on the talk page, not a sort of proxy war between Andrew Alexander and his allies on the one hand and Andrew Alexanders opponents on the other hand. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oleh Petriv is choosing to be oblivious to the facts. All of the REGISTERED DEATHS were included in the years between 1927-1933. There is not a single more reliable source than the Soviet archives. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to the facts. Unless it can be refuted, the figures will have to replace the spitefully inflated "7 million" death toll. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.211.115 (talk • contribs) .

Calculations of deaths based on Soviet archival data by V. Tsaplin put famine deaths at three to four million in 1933 alone The seven million figure for 1932-34 corresponds with the approach to the study of the famine in Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow. I don't know your source; but to call the 7 million figure "spitefully inflated" is putting your comments outside the realm of reasonable scholarly discourse on the subject. Your comments are unhelpful. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr anonimous, plese consider that the "All of the REGISTERED DEATHS" are not all deaths since NOT ALL DEATHS WERE REGISTERED. And I repeat two more points: 2. Natural migrations are not taken into account. 3. Forced relocation of population from other areas of USSR to affeted by hunger areas is not taken into account. These are not "personal feelings". This is statistical methodology which has to be followed. --Oleh Petriv 03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Calculations of deaths based on Soviet archival data by V. Tsaplin put famine deaths at three to four million in 1933 alone The seven million figure for 1932-34 corresponds with the approach to the study of the famine in Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow. I don't know your source; but to call the 7 million figure "spitefully inflated" is putting your comments outside the realm of reasonable scholarly discourse on the subject. Your comments are unhelpful. 172 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr anonimous, plese consider that the "All of the REGISTERED DEATHS" are not all deaths since NOT ALL DEATHS WERE REGISTERED.

If you had actually opened the link I had provided, you would see at the top that the death toll was compiled in "Years of Hunger" by Stephen Wheatcroft. The FAMINE ENDED IN 1933 and in that year 90% of the the total excess deaths in Ukraine occurred; it did not last beyond 1933. In regard to the one who plucks an spontaneous name (Tsalpin?), there is not any information by this person available on the internet. The chart shows excess deaths THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, natural migration is accounted for. You have got not any evidence whatsoever to back up allegations of "not all deaths were registered". Why wouldn't all deaths be registered and why would there be a registration of 1.4 million excess deaths if the country according to your whacky logic was trying to conceal the famine? You are merely speculating.

172, my "speculations" are based on this analysis (if you are familiar with Ukrainian) which uses Soviet sources as well. Accordind to this study, demographical consequences for 1932-1933 famine are expressed in 4,649,000 deaths in Ukraine. It does not account Ukrainian lives in Kuban. I consider this study as reputable as you consider your source. Who is right?--Oleh Petriv 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I was replying to your "speculations." My comment was directed to 204.102.211.115, who seems to be a pro-Communist apologist. Regarding your question, it doesn't matter for our purposes who is right-- Tsaplin, Conquest, Fitzpatrick, your source, etc. The more estimates attributed to authoritative historians specializing in the famine, the better. Because of Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy, we cannot put ourselves in the position of deciding which historian is right and which historian is wrong when there is a discrepancy in their respective works. 172 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The difference between R.W Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft's source is that their figures are derived from the archives. Fact: there were 1.5 million registered deaths in Ukraine during 1932-1933 (Source: RGAE 1562/329/108). This fact is irrefutable and any such statements above this death toll are blatantly false. Conquest's material, incessantly cited on this page, consists of hearsay from traitorous emigres. Conquest has been wrong in regard to the total number of executions and his material reeks of right-wing fascism ("Communists in Italy and France mounted militant strikes!!!".

Arbitration

At what point does one move to abribtration? This is becoming a very annoying game of attrition. The way things are going right now does a) not contribute to the article, b) does not improve the intro (the version I reverted to is, by the way, not even close to what I think it should look like), but will probably result in the article representing the views of those who have a greater tolerance for repetetive behaviour. I, for one, am sick and tired of this. This was once a neat little article, evolving towards a point at which one could have a nice reference to yet another disgusting aspect of Marxist inspired totalitarian terror. Too bad that one-trick-ponyism is turning this article into a serious mess. Dietwald 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "totalitarian" is at the top of the bourgeois imperialist/corporatist/fascist vocabulary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.211.115 (talk • contribs) .

This anon's trollistic entry is unhelpful. To Dietwald, I am with you on this. We have enough evidence of many attempts to try to resolve this peacefully, much more than an RfC and mediation usually generates and this talk documents this very well. I think we can go to arbitration. We will need to read up on policies on how to submit content disputes to arbitration but I also see no other means to move on with the article. What happened is that Andrew Alexander got a couple of buddies who got to this article either stalking myself or 172 and who resort to blind reversions without bothering to read the discussion. The latest entry by AndriyK to this discussion shows that he didn't read anything on this page. Yakudza and Ultramarine didn't write anything significant to this talk (if at all). So, attemting to find a compromise with users who don't even bother to read talk is pointless. I am for arbitration. In the meanwhile, Yakudza, Ultramarine, AndriyK and whoever else who does nothing but reverting, please readup on this talk page. --Irpen 22:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attack and slander. I constantly read the Discussion on this page. The Article Holodomor is found in my Watshlist (as well as your user_talk), The Position user:172 has not found supports on this page and he began the rever war. After he was stopped by 3RR, he addressed to You for help (Hi. If you get the chance, will you be able to restore the NPOV version of the Holodomor intro? Ultramarine kept on restoring the Andrew Alexander version until I'd used up my three reverts.172 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)). --Yakudza 10:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems we are to early for arbitration. I looked around a bit, and came across the concept of 'advocates' on Wikipedia. I randomly contacted one of them and whined on her user page about Alexander... Ironically, she has a personal wiki called sovietmichigan or something like that. Very strange. Ok, I hope she let's me know what she can actually do for us. As far as I understand the rules, going for an advocate is one of the last steps in the conflict resolution process here on wiki. So, let's see how it goes. Dietwald 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, do you need to loose time? You know - it takes very long to play this game. All you get - person gets banned for 1 month, 2 months etc. Also are you going to start arbitration against AndrewAlexander, Yakudza and AndriyK together? Why not to include everybody else who does not agree on what you agree. Include me please into the list. Or let's find a compromise. All I see at the moment - 172 prefers 4-th from the top paragraph in the intro for explanation of the word "genocide" (I must say that this insisting is rather strange for historian). Anrew Alexander prefers first paragraph. Does it change much in sense? In historical sense - nothing. 172, please take into account that articles like this are not compatible with blunt historical approach. They are very sensitive issue. What sounds OK for third party may look in wrong place for sensitive people (call them patriots, nationalists, trolls - whatever you feel like). And usually serious historians do not play such childish games as Wikipedia. This place is for amateurs.--Oleh Petriv 03:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place is for amateurs. When articles are not written to conform to the highest encyclopedic and scholarly standards, we have a serious problem. I will fight an arbitration case on those principles any day. I know that I'll win the case on those principles too. A number of the incumbent members of the arbitration committee and the likely new members of the committee are as stauch in the defense of the principle that "Wikipedia first and foremost is an encyclopedia" as I am. I have been a Wikipedia editor for three years; and I have been in touch with many former, current, and likely future arbitrators on Wikipedia and by email many times. They share my views on upholding the highest standards of encyclopedic content; they are not at all interested in what is 'politically correct' to "patriots, nationalists, trolls" of any stripe. 172 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So you want to say that your "coalition" will not allow anybody to dispute your opinion? Is WP open then? Just close it to all "patriots, nationalists, trolls" and leave open only for "professional folk". Why to let us disturb your majesty? I was also thinking that WP is an encyclopedia. But I have heard that it is open. BTW, how position of the text in intro is affecting your POV?--Oleh Petriv 04:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oleh, I think that user:172 is right here. When users engage into bad-faith revert wars, it hardly helps. From reading the talk page, other people could see who is reasonable here. Why don't you read it? It is an instructive, although a longish, reading. The "position in the text" matters a lot. The issue of whether Holodomor was a Genocide is unresolved among the historians as of today and this makes it different from the Holocaust, where the issue is consider settled, at least in the mainstream. Similarly, the denial of the Famine is not in the mainstream and we do not discuss here whether the Famine really happened and Douglas Tottle, who advocates otherwise, has no standing in the scholar's community.

The perfect solution to present the unrersolved issue is to have the chapter, that we currently have: "Was Holodomor a Genocide?" and discuss the issue there. By pushing the term accepted by one side of this debate all the way to the intro and, more than that, to the very first line Andrew Alexander and whoever helps him in revert wars perform a blatant POV pushing. "Genocide" is a very strong and specific term. It should not be used lightly and the discussion of its appropriateness is in order. That one side ignores the discussion and engages into revert wars, trying to provoke the opponents into 3RR violation to get them blocked is a totally condemnable tactics and has nothing to do with collaborative spirit and openness of Encyclopedia that you and I seem to cherish. --Irpen 04:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oleh, I strongly agree with Irpen's comments above. I'll add for reference that you should may want to take a look at this page, which offers listings of policy and project pages demonstrating that the principle that editors must ensure that Wikipedia become committed to writing quality articles following high encyclopedic and scholarly standards is well established. I do not have a "coalition" around my "opinion." I was implying that there are many influential members of the Wikipedia community who share my stauch support for Wikipedia's content guidelines. 172 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The last sentense smells of Americal democracy model. THis is no Iraq. Let's play a game better.--Oleh Petriv 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Wikipedia is not a democracy Nor is it a game. 172 05:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For the case it escaped attention, the issue is not about whether or not to mention the word genocide in the first or 112,765,983+E12th paragraph. The point is whether the Holodomor is also known as the "Ukrainian Genocide", or whether it is often referred to as the "Ukrainian Genocide". The former implies that "Ukrainian Genocide" is a proper, undisputed reference to the events, whereas the latter simply means that some people refer to it as such. The former interpretation is factually wrong, the latter is factually right. At least that's how I see it.Dietwald 15:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is why I have really come to like the word Holodomor -- it is strangely neutral, concise, and unique. It has the same economy of use as the word Holocaust, and, coincidetally, has the first four letters in comon with it, and appears to be easily pronouncable in almost every language -- if things go well, it might become the term that will be used in almost every language to refer to the events it describes. Neat. Dietwald 15:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we please stop personal attacks on this forum

If someone wants to open an arbitration case, this is not yet the reason to abuse other editors and assume bad faith in every disagreeing edit. I understand that some would like to never admit that the mass murder of 7+ million people is considered a genocide by quite a significant portion of the world. I don't understand why this should require personal attacks directed at other editors who simply try to enforce the WP:NC policy.--Andrew Alexander 05:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I admonish you to follow your own advice. To demonstrate that you are editing in good faith, you can ask that Yakudza, Ultramarine, and AndriyK stop arbitrarily reverting back to your version of the intro when they appear uninterested in participating in the talk page discussion. Further, your post above shows that you yourself have been failing to engage in the legitimate neutrality concerns with your version of the intro stated over and over again here on talk for over a week. First, no one on this talk page is failing to admit the famine is "considered a genocide by quite a significant portion of the world." If you are referring to the users whose work you are reverting, your comment is a terrible misrepresentation. The version of the intro that you are reverting states: In some accounts the famine, often referred to as a "man-made" [4], is called the Ukrainian Genocide [5] [6] [7]. Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Second, this comment is disingenuous: I don't understand why this should require personal attacks directed at other editors who simply try to enforce the WP:NC policy. I assume that you are implying that you are 'trying to enforce the naming conventions' policy. Yet, Irpen and I have probably explained over a dozen times over the course of more than a week that you lack compelling evidence that "Ukrainian genocide" is the common name of the subject. Further, if you are implying that the editors whose work you are reverting are engaging in personal attacks, your comment is again a misrepresentation. It is not a "personal attack" to criticize behavior that renders it impossible to reach a compromise in accordance with Wikipedia content policies such as NPOV. The blind reversions by Yakudza, Ultramarine, and AndriyK, made without bothering to read the discussion, are not helpful. 172 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You "admonish" me with another assumption of bad faith?--Andrew Alexander 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you to act in good faith. I'll keep my assumptions to myself. Now, let's get down to business. We need to get the page unprotected; hopefully we can do this without waisting a lot of time in arbitration. You have not yet commented on Abakharev's proposed compromise. 172 05:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

suggestion?

While the page is protected it is good to try to find a compromise on the talk page.

I suggest the intro like this:

Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) is a term derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger". The term refers to the 1932–1933 famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia (see Famines in Russia and USSR). Many historians refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide stating that it was a man-made disaster engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?.

It is longer, but manageable. It refers to the event as Genocide, but also shows that it is not the opinion of all historians abakharev 06:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would object to have the Ukrainian Genocide bolded and the reason is the same, the bolded term in the article's space implies an alternative name of the subject of the article along with the article's title. The term will become an alternative name (or will not) when the historians agree on the Genociadal intent of the Soviet leadership and those who disagree will be marginilized similar to those who right now deny the fact of the Famine itself (Tottle). --Irpen 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Abakharev, thank you for the suggestion. Your proposal is an improvement from the Andrew Alexander version of the intro. I have a couple of reservations First, I don't know if "many" historians use the term "Ukrainian Genocide." Many historians do argue that the famine was caused by a policy of genocide against the nation of Ukraine. They do not necessarily call the subject "Ukrainian Genocide." Hence the fact that "Ukrainian Genocide" does not appear in the indexes of the work of Robert Conquest, the Western scholar most strongly associated with the genocide thesis. The term "Ukrainian Genocide" is used by websites promoting a particular interpretation of the famine, such as www.faminegenocide.com, which are not necessarily representative of historians. In short, many historians consider the famine a genocide; but I doubt that we can establish that "many historians refer to the event as the 'Ukrainian Genocide.'" Second, I agree with Irpen's comment above regarding the bolding. 172 06:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As you might guess, I am not insisting on bolding the Genicide and actually quite happy with your version of the article. It is closer to my personal POV. OTOH, if the compromise would stop the edit war, I, personally, would agree on bolding the Genocide and having Ukrainian Genocide to be a redirect to the Holodomor article (BTW the redirect exists already). After all if you would read an article that refer to an Ukrainian Genocide, you would know that it talks about the Holodomor, if my son or his classmate would read the same article, he might not. It is better if looking in Wikipedia (that in his school considered the best reference for such case) he would find what it was about and why many people disagree with the term. Much worse if he would not find the reference and think that his dad hid something important from him. I agree that it is better to have some historians than many historians, but I feel that it might be easier for the opposite party to agree on, many does not mean all nor even most of. On the other hand more references showing that there were similar collectivization-inspired famines in Kazakhstan and many Russian regions (with no Ukrainian population) maybe useful. As I understand the Kazakhstan famine was actually even worse than the Ukrainian abakharev 07:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Your proposed new intro is a step in the right direction that will only require minor tweaking, given the issues brought up by Irpen and me. Hopefully Andrew Alexander will be receptive to your attempt to establish a middle ground between the two contending versions. We'll wait and see. 172 07:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. I would suggest, however, to swap the definition and ethymology: first to explain what it is and then the origin of the term.

I would like to remind the audience the WP Official Policy:

The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known.

So, all alternative names: Ukrainian Genocide, Greate Famine, and even less common Ukrainian Holocaust [17] should be listed. It does not matter, whether some historians do not like one or another name. What is important that the name is used in the literature or in media and the reader can meet this names.--AndriyK 09:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating Andrew Alexander's mantra that "Ukrainian Genocide" is somehow the common name for the subject. You also seem to have Andrew Alexander's 'it doesn't matter what historians think' disdain for Western scholarship. Nevertheless, Andrew Alexander has failed to make the case that "Ukrainian Genocide" is the common name for the famine. His own examples of Google search results show the term to be mostly associated with a handful of websites promoting a particular interpretation of the famine (www.faminegenocide.com, www.ukrainiangenocide.com, www.artukraine.com, and www.infoukes.com/history/famine/ -), not the kinds of sites demonstrating common usage in the zeitgeist of the English-speaking world (media, other encyclopedias and reference sources, historial journal articles, etc.). Further, I'm not aware of a single professional historian specializing on the famine who lists the subject under the term "Ukrainian Genocide" in his or her indexes. Altogether, there's probably more conclusive evidence that the term is a neologism than the "common name." I am willing to accept a reference to the term "Ukrainian Genocide" as we are contexualizing the various approaches to studying the famine; but Andrew Alexander's insistence on bolding the term in the first sentence or paragraph is quite inappropriate. 172 10:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever shown any "disdain for Western scholarship" except for the disdain to Mark Tauger, a second rate associate professor, who got famous through his Ukrainian genocide denial. To take that excuse for Western scholarship and use his 1992 article as a weapon for ignoring WP:NC is plain strange. It just shows the amount of bias in relation to the event neither of the genocide bashers here showed any interest to up until recently. When this article finally got some facts, references, photos in. All of which were repeatedly attempted to be erased. No big surprise, by the same people. Instead dancing around the "Ukrainian genocide" wording, why not improve the rest of the article? Why not bring all those promised references and quotes in. Why not get more facts and less baseless polemics in the article. Why not add to that article content instead of trying to erase things? Why -- because it's easier to erase, deny, accuse the other side of "blatant POV pushing", easier than to work for the sake of the memories of all those killed in this genocide. Yes, just like the creator of that word characterized the Holodomor. Raphael Lemkin was somebody worth calling "Western scholarship".--Andrew Alexander 06:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are personally entitled to your views. Still, no editor on Wikipedia-- you included-- has the authority to impose his POV regarding which historians "disdain" and which historians deserve "respect" in any article-- this one included. You call Mark Tauger a "second-rate" professor and accuse him of "genocide denial." Again, you are personally entitled to your views. (I am also entitled to my views. I personally consider your description of Tauger defamtory.) The attack on Tauger frankly strikes me as a diversion. You seem be refusing to acknowledge that Tauger is not alone among historians in arguing that the famine was not a genocide. You seem be refusing to acknowledge that "his 1992 article" is not being used by the other editors on this talk page as "a weapon for ignoring WP:NC." No one is making the argument that "Ukrainian genocide" is not "common name" because Mark Tauger does not use it. The real reasons have been explained to you perhaps up to 20 times so far on this talk page. No historians to my knowledge list the subject under the term "Ukrainian genocide" in their indexes. Repeating the same refuted argument over and over again will not make it true. 172 09:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at Google hits: Holodomor - 46.400 [18], Ukrainian Genocide - 17.000 [19]. As you see, the numbers are of the same order of magnitude. More than a quarter of the Internet users could know the subject under the name Ukrainian Genocide. They may find it inconvenient if the term is not listed among the alternative names.--AndriyK 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Google search results do not tell us that. They tell us how many pages appear in the search to use the term. BTW, no search results come up for "Ukrainian Genocide" in Jstor or ProjectMUSE, online databases of academic journals. Instead, the results tend to come up under "Ukrainian famine" or "Soviet famine." 172 05:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In principle, abakharev's suggestion seems to make sense. Though, I do agree that using the term "many historians" is incorrect, if by historias we mean people who are actively engaged in the process of creating peer-reviewed historical research. I would suggest to stick to the vague, non personal "It is often referred to as ....", because that is probably the truest rendition of the facts. It is often referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide, even holocaust. Though, by this logic, one could argue that the word derisive "holoco$t" should be part of the Holocaust definition, as it is often used to refer to the Holocaust. Just hang out with Neonazis for a day, and you'll hear it often enough. Ok, that was probably mean, but... I hope I am clearly illustrating the point I am trying to make. Dietwald 15:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you above. Abakharev's suggestion is close to a final product. I'd tweak it to say (1) that some groups prompting awareness of the famine (e.g., www.faminegenocide.com) have been using the term "Ukrainian genocide" and (2) that some historians, along with the influential public figures cited in the intro, have argued that the famine was caused by a policy of genocide. That being said, it will be quite easy to tweak Abakharev's proposal as we get ready to post it in the article. The hard part will be getting Andrew Alexander, Yakudza, AndriyK, and Ultramarine to stop revert warring. 172 05:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion about the "man-made" sounds fair. I was refering that because of the lack of free press, general tendency to kill the messanger and the panic attempts to survive by all the levels of the executives the Soviet State often acted as an unanimated object, driven by its own physics, almost a force of nature. This pattern of behavior was in Holodomor, Great Purge, destructions of fortifications before the War, Purges after the war and hundreds less dramatic events. Anyway I completely agree with the exclusion of the man-made thing:

Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) also known as the Great Famine is a term derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger". The term refers to the 1932–1933 famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia (see Famines in Russia and USSR). Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the disaster was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?).

I have incorporated AndriyK suggestion about the Ukrainian Holocaust, although I feel that it might be quite offensive for people (including me) who do not subscribe to the theory of deliberate targeting Ukrainians abakharev 07:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion, version 2

Abkharev -- I think you may be swinging the pendulum too far to the other side now. I think the intro has to make clear that the famine was not a natural desaster but rather the consequence of government action. The man-made is not in question, I think, the genocide issue is. Otherwise, excellent job at the wording.

Hence, I suggest this:

Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) also known as the Great Famine is a term derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger". The term refers to the 1932–1933 famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR), which was the result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union. Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the disaster was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?).

I think the proposed wording about deliberate policies is very hard on the border of POV, but I think it is justifiable based on the evidence that has been widely discussed on these pages over the last weeks. Dietwald 12:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dietwald, nice work. I think you have something very close to a final product. The change from "many historians" in Abakharev's proposal to "many authors" resolves the accuracy issue. I still object to the bolding per the concerns mentioned earlier by Irpen in his reply to Abakharev. But the objection is a minor one that I can ignore if necessary. 172 | Talk 13:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would swap the description and atymology (no politics, just a matter of convenience):

Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) was a famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR) in the 1932–1933 also known as the Great Famine. Holodomor was a result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union. Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the disaster was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?).

The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger".

I am still not completely satisfied with this version, but hope it is more close to the compromise.--AndriyK 15:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'd propose to all involved parties do not request unprotecting the page, until the final consensus is reached. Let's concentrate our effort on the discussion instead of the edit war.--AndriyK 15:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if we are to concentrate our effort on the discussion, you can start by explaining why you are "not completely satisfied with this version." 172 | Talk 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I return to this page tomorrow. Sorry, I am too busy at the momment. Let's listen othe people's opinion.--AndriyK 16:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, I just noticed that you stated an objection to starting the article off with the etymology. This matter has already been discussed, meaning that you don't really have grounds for rejecting the proposed compromise while declaring that you don't have time to discuss the matter until tomorrow. As I stated earlier a number of times, the etymology is important because the term "holodomor" is still not common in the historical literature in the English-speaking world. I wrote in my 00:35, 19 January 2006 post: Many monographs on Soviet history do not include the term in their indexes and do not even mention the term. The term does not even appear in the indexes in works by Robert Conquest, who is with little doubt the best-known specialist on the 1932-34 famine. Instead, the topic is found in indexes most often under "famine, 1932-34." Because the term "holodomor" was rarely used outside Ukrainian-language accounts until recently, and remains uncommon in the English-language discourse on the subject to an extent, informing the readers unfamiliar with the term-- perhaps the bulk of the readership--about the etymology is quite important.

On a related note, after we resolve the dispute regarding the intro, significant work on the body of the article related to the concerns I brought up over two weeks ago here will be necessary. Because the naming conventions require that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize," we will have to establish Famines in Russia and USSR and a more specialized Soviet famine of 1932-34 as the main articles dealing with the famine as a historical event. Hence, much of the coverage of the famine as a historical event here in Holodomor will have to be sifted to Famines in Russia and USSR or a specialized daughter entry. As we improve the main entries related to Famines in Russia and USSR, the Holodomor article, which is about the discourse shaping how the famine is remembered in Ukraine, will then establish a clearer focus. At any rate, this paragraph is tangential to the dispute over the intro. So I understand that the concerns that I bring up here will have to be tabled until the matter of the intro is cleared up. 172 | Talk 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I find it weird to put the etymology at the end, but, considering what has been going on here over the last few weeks, I have to admit that I really don't care at this point. Further, I don't like the bolding -- I don't think it's common to Wikipedia. What we should do is put those [] tags -- though in case of 'ukrainian genocide', this would just lead back to this page... I also agree that nobody should ask to unprotect this page. This little timeout may prove a boon to the entire project. So, my annoyance level is currently going down by spades, and I like where we are going.

Oh, and ONE more thing, it really bugs the hell out of me: could we please keep in mind that the English language has such a thing as Articles?????? It's THE Holodomor, not Holodomor... Please??????

So, I'll just take the latest version here proposed and add the article where it is missing:

Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) was a famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR) in the 1932–1933 also known as the Great Famine. The Holodomor was a result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union. Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the disaster was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?).

The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger".

Dietwald 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In total agreement with you above, except for the unprotection part. I like the proposal; and I feel your frustrations. I still worry that keeping the page unprotected will cause activity to die down here. From experience with dealing with similarly tight factions of POV warriors, I think it's more probable that the discussion will grow stale unless the POV warriors are forced to pay attention to edits to the article. With no edits, a lot of time may pass before everyone's paying attention to the talk page again. The past discussions may go forgotten, meaning that may be forced to repeat everything that has been explained to Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, Ultramarine, et al. in in excruciating detial all over again. In other words, I think the page protection here may run the risk of taking us back in a circle. Still, of course, I hope I'm wrong. 172 | Talk 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not be unprotected, otherwise some who now pay attention to talk, will seize doing it and resume counting time windows in revert games recruiting more buddies to help. That said, I strongly object to bolding the Ukrainian Genocide and the Ukrainian Holocaust as this should be replaced by linking. The latter article I started myself and it could use the improvement. The U. G. articl about the term needs to be written to replace the POV redirect created by Andrew Alexander to make a point. According to the Wikipedia style only alternative names to the article's title are bolded in the intro in addition to the first mention of the title itself. These words are appropriate terms only if there is a universal agreement that the term Genocide and Holocaust are applicable, that is when the mainstream historical scholarship agrees on them, like it agreed on Shoah. Thus my opposition to bolding is not mild but strong as this implies much. Finally, someone, please return the POV tag to the protected article. I don't care that it stays at A.A.'s version while protected, but the POV tag whoever removed it, needs to be returned since there is a disagreement about neutrality as of the frozen version. --Irpen 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that Irpen finally starts noticing the fact that the words "Ukrainain Genocide" are bolded for purpose. Because they represent another common name for the Holodomor according to numerous links to Google provided in the topics above. This is progress in this discussion. WP:NC is finally getting noticed by the genocide erasing party.--Andrew Alexander 02:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I did not react to your labeling of your opponents "genocide erasers" and even "deniers" only because I usually don't feed trolls. But this is also a progress on your part. You used to call your opponents simply "pigs" here. I am glad you are making progress in the discussion. --Irpen 02:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and a link to some foreign language forum must be a proof that you were called a pig. I happen to know Ukrainian, yet there is no mention of Irpen in that post. You must be reading between lines there. But Irpen, what's wrong with "genocide deniers" and "genocide erasers"? Don't you deny this genocide? Don't you want to erase that word at all costs?--Andrew Alexander 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I also "happen to know" Ukrainian. In fact, Yakudza, your friend in revert warring may confirm that because I corresponded with him by email. Also, you could check this post which still did not convince another eternal partner of yours anyway. Also, I happen to notice the timing of that announcement of yours at the forum relating to the edits of this article. Whoever you meant, I don't care. Calling people "pigs" is trolling. I do not either deny or confirm the genocide, because I am not a historian to research that on my own. As such I derive my view from the works of people who established themselves in the field, not the web-blog writers, and I don't see the consensus, unlike the one in the Shoah. Similarly, there is a consensus that the Famine did happen and that it was catastrophic and that it was largely man-made. This, in itself, still doesn't make it a Genocide as explained to you above. That is about the "denier" part. As for "eraser", I did not erase it from the article. I emphatically support the discussion of the issue in the chapter "Was Holodomor a Genocide". I only object to preconcluding this yet an unresolved discussion in the intro by using an "also known as" or other similar weasel terms. I don't hope much that I answered the questions to your satisfaction but my answers are here for everyone to see. --Irpen 03:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I still didn't understand where got the analogy between you and a pig. Sorry, my Ukrainian is not that good apparently. However, you do deny this genocide. Because you said many times that it was not a genocide. So please read what you wrote "for everyone to see". Also, Raphael Lemkin wasn't a "web-blogger".--Andrew Alexander 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to play a "who me?' game regarding that post at Maidan, I don't care. My skin got much thicker since you and AndriyK started your name-calling.

What I said many times is that scholars do not agree that this was a genocide. What I think doesn't matter much, because I am just a Wikipedian rather than someone whose papers pass a scrutiny and get published in the "Slavic Review" or conference proceedings. The opinion of Raphael Lemkin, unlike mine or yours, is notable. But so are the opinions of established historians who do not consider Holodomor a Genocide. It has nothing to do with the denial of the Holodomor itself. Such historians who do not see Holodomor as a Genocide are not marginalized such as those who deny the Holocaust. As such, the issue is unresolved and the Wikipedia article should present it as such. The perfect way is the separate section and we already have that. --Irpen 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop talking nonsense. What "who me"? Where is that post calling you a pig? I don't mind if you want to call it yourself, just don't accuse everyone around. And in case you didn't notice those 26 countries that acknowledged the Ukrainian genocide, Mark Tauger is being marginalized. In fact the only thing he is known about is his genocide denial. If Raphael Lemkin's opinion is "notable", then note it together with those millions of other opinions. Then read WP:NC.--Andrew Alexander 04:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexander, it is disgusting to accuse Irpen or any other user of "genocide denial." If you continue making demfatory comments I will seek arbitration against you, requesting that you go on personal attack parole-- regardless of whether or not we make progress in the intro. 172 | Talk 07:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with "genocide denial"? Do not you deny the fact of genocide? If no, please state this clearly.--AndriyK 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Reread the talk page discussions. These matters have already been discussed. See my 21:50, 13 January 2006 and 11:57, 23 January 2006 posts for explanations regarding why such allegations of "genocide denial" emotive and grossly unfair. For a statement of my own POV, see my 01:49, 23 January 2006 post. 172 | Talk 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You may post thouthends of your comments, but it will not change the meaning of the word "denial". If one denies something, this is an act of denying. Do not you deny the fact of Ukrainian Genocide?--AndriyK 09:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I already told you, for a statement of my own POV regarding the genocide controversy, see my 01:49, 23 January 2006 post. I'm beginning to wonder if your English is advanced enough to understand some of the nuances in English-language dicussion of a very complex subject that generates a great deal of contention among historians. (Please don't consider this comment an insult but rather as something to take in consideration. According to your user page, English is your third or forth language; in that case, you're doing much better with your third or forth language than I am.) 172 | Talk 10:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, Alexander, stop using the term genocide denial for those who oppose labelling the Holodomor genocide. It's not logical. For somebody to be a genocide denier, the events have to be considered genocide in the first place. Secondly, a genocide denier would not only object to the term itself, he would deny the event as such. Tottle is a denier, 172, Irpen, and others, including I, are not deniers. For the case you have not noticed this, I will point it out to you again: 1) The Holodomor is a historic fact in so far as it is used to describe the famine that took place on the territory of today's Ukraine. 2) The Holodomor was largely man-made 3)The Holodomor can without doubt be considered a crime committed by Stalin and his government. 4) Millions of people died during the famine.

Disputed IS: whether the Holodomor was deliberately caused by Stalin in order to kill Ukrainians because they were Ukraininas. IF you think this is the case, you will have to provide evidence that Stalin did inteed deliberately target Ukrainians, and only Ukrainians, because they were Ukrainians. You have to show that Stalin did not differentiate between different social groups of Ukrainians but that in principle, he wanted to kill as many Ukrainians as possible, regardless of their social class or political orientation. All you have done so far is to have shown that Ukrainians died during Holodomor (which nobody disputes), and that mostly Ukrainians died during the Holodomor (which nobody disputes). What you IGNORE is that while Ukrainians suffered most during the Holodomor in sheer numbers, they did in fact not suffer most in proportion -- the Kazakh herders died in much greater proportion relative to their total population, for example. You also ignore that there is little evidence to support the genocide thesis. There is some evidence, which nobody denies. The genocide thesis is reasonable and deserves further investigation. While I for one am inclined to doubt it on theoretical grounds (based on my rather detailed understanding of soviet policies during that time), I am open to the possibility that Stalin may have had sporadic genocidal tendencies. However, this would be the only time Stalin proved to have genocidal intent. At all other times, he resorted to mass-deportations, social 'decapitation', and other criminal acts, but never genocide. Personally, I think there is a limit to how criminal any human being can be, and Stalin's criminal actions covered pretty much the entire range of possible criminal behaviour. There simply was no room for genocide. Dietwald 13:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent reply, Dietwald. I was probably responding to AndriyK in an excessively emotional manner. Your reply above was far more effective. 172 | Talk 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the section above written by you under the heading "Grudging Apologies". There you cited the "Genocide Convention", ""Art. 2. In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The bolding is done above as well. Now, let's make it clear, are you doubting Stalin's intent to murder masses of Ukrainians? Do you assume that Kaganovich and Molotov by accident organized the conditions that led to around 7 million deaths? Do you doubt that multiple historians, institutions, and whole countries recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide? And without any doubt Stalin did not just target Ukrainians. Just like Hitler did not just target Jews. Which is not the reason to deny either of these genocides.--Andrew Alexander 04:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is neither her nor there. You seem to have virtually no understanding of the NPOV and "no original research" policies. Wikipedia is not the place for editors to impose their judgments regarding the merits the merits of competing interpretation in the historiography. We are supposed to balance and summarize the perspectives in a neutral manner without taking sides. 172 | Talk 05:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro as of 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NB: I replaced the word 'disaster' with 'the Holodomor'. A hurricane is a disaster, but the Holodomor was a criminal act. Just my opinion. I am not going to go ballistic over the issue, just thought to point out that an attempt of keeping the language somewhat interesting may have had unintended consequences. Dietwald 20:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) was a famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR) in the 1932–1933 also known as the Great Famine. The Holodomor was a result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union. Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide or even Ukrainian Holocaust stating that the Holodomor was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?).

The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger".

Dietwald 20:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ukrainian Holocaust" and "Ukrainian Genocide" should instead of being bolded be linked to their respective term article. There is a Ukrainian Holocaust article, which, although imperfect, is the correct approach (a term article). Ukrainian Genocide for now is a redirect created by Andrew Alexander to promote the POV to which he adheres. That redirect needs to be turned into an article too devoted to the term itself and its usage. --Irpen 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to bring up the 'bolding issue' again myself, but I agree with Irpen. Didn't know about the Ukrainian Genocide article's history. Agree on this is principle, though. Would be a cool article that could be linked to from the 'was the Holodomor genocide' section of this article, and we could all go to war on that page;) Dietwald 21:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the reason to have three articles on the same subject.

What I miss in the present version is the mentioning of the fact that official bodies of several contries recognized Holodomor as an act of genocide. The info is important enough to be mentioned in the leading paragraph.--AndriyK 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is for the lead paragraph. We do not need to negotiate the paragraph on the countries that have designated the famine a genocide because there is not much of a discrepancy between between the subsequent paragraphs in the two competing intros. 172 | Talk 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that mentioning the recognition of the Holodomor as genocide by different countries at the end of the lead paragraph is something that could be considered essential to the topic. It should then, however, be combined with the reference to the discussion "was the holodomor genocide". I don't oppose including some reference to the genocide position in there. What I think we should avoid is any statement that gives the genocide position priority over other interpretations, in fact, it should be treated as questionable. To Alexander: I am at a point where I would not say that it wasn't genocide, but I would say that I don't think it was genocide. The difference is subtle, but crucial. It's the same logic as saying that you don't say you believe there are no pink unicorns, but you say that you don't believe there are pink unicorns. Maybe it was genocide, but I don't think the evidence for that is sufficiently clear. Pomnish? Dietwald 13:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Game

Let's see if this works:

Intro Game
Trolls coalition	Allmighty coalition
Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) is a term derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger". The term refers to the 1932–1933 famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia (see Famines in Russia and USSR). It is often referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide stating that it was a man-made disaster engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?.	Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) is a term derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger". The term refers to the 1932–1933 famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia (see Famines in Russia and USSR). It is often referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide stating that it was a man-made disaster engineered by the Soviets to specifically target Ukrainian people (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?.

Now please edit to make it as close as possible (as much as your POV allows you) to your opponents version. Oleh Petriv

Gentlemen, do we need the games? If we just discuss it in good faith we could get to a compromise version. Games, and especially with rules so inflammatory formulated (like "Teams" and their names) will lead us nowhere. --Irpen 18:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, seeing those names all ower our talk pages (even with direct fingerpointing) and edit summaries is not inflammatory, but having them i table somehow is. Interesting phenomena. Teams can be renamed up to your taste. What about text? everybody agrees upon this version?--Oleh Petriv 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Irpen. Wikipedia has strick content policies that must be followed. We cannot think in terms of "teams" and "games." 172 05:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the wording proposed here is not good: by putting the uncontentious reference to the man-made nature of the famine together with the disputetd reference to the term genocide in a sentence that seems to imply a minority position, we cast doubt on the man-made nature of the event. I think we should not forget to keep THIS aspect clearly in the intro. The Holodomor was the result of deliberate government actions, which included the deliberate neglect of a vast number of people, with the result that millions of these died. It was a crime, even if it was not a genocide.Dietwald 06:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the absurd, fallacious allegations of "genocide" are simply rantings of uneducated right-wingers conditioned to have a vicious attitude towards communism. That is what it all amount to; they are trying to politicise history instead of telling the truth. They deliberately falsify figures and when someone points to the number of deaths from the archives, they spin it the most vile possible ways. The myths of "man-made" famine have been thoroughly disproved by R.W Davies's "Years of Hunger"; there were numerous natural factors that played a role in the [b]4.5 million[/b] deaths in the USSR from 1931-1933.

A Stalinist apologist troll with not enough spine to sign his 'contribution'. Go, play with Zundel&Co. Dietwald 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconding Dietwald above. 207.151.38.178, to cite the scholarship finding that "numerous natural factors" (Tauger's argument that climatic conditions played a role in the famine?) as the basis of an attempt to exonerate the actions of the Soviet regime is a far more fitting example of what you call 'spin done in one of the most vile possible ways.' The fact that RW Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft (along with other famine specialists Mark Tauger and Lynne Viola) do not ascribe to the thesis of the famine as genocide does not mean that they consider the famine a "myth," as you callously call it. The famine was real and an atrocity. The view of historians like Davies and Tauger holds that regardless of whether or not weather played a role in the famine, the confiscation of grain during a famine was an atrocity. Frankly, I think your 'spin' of the work of RW Davies is a falsification of history much more 'vile' and insidious than anything coming from those "uneducated right-wingers." 172 | Talk 20:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again with the "apologist" term, thrown around by those who like to think that their over-simplified views on history are unbreakable. The connotation from the term "apologist" is often demonic and borders on infantile insult. One who defends Stalin in the West is an "apologist" or "revisionist" as if the man was solely evil, disregarding a doubling in life expectancy. The Soviet archives contain reports of the 1931 harvest being delayed due to extremely bad weather, a decline in available horse power, and dissary in grain cultivisation. The grain harvest in 1931 was 10-15mn tons less than the one in 1930. That is a fact. This page still contains 6 million deaths in UKRAINE ALONE even though the Soviet archives as summarised in Davies's recent work amount the deaths in Ukraine to no higher than 1.5 million. The total in USSR excluding Kazakhstan in 1932-1933 is not quite 2.9 million.

207.151.38.178, in response to your points in no particular order, of course no one can deny legitimately that life expectancy went up dramatically under Stalin; that serious research was published suggesting that climatic conditions played a role in the famine; that Davies established himself as a leading specialist on the famine; and, most importantly, that that a historian should never intentionally exaggerate anything-- including the number of deaths attributable to Stalin's terror. By the way, eventually I am going to work toward inserting summaries of Davies' work in this article. Now, as for you defending Stalin based on the aforementioned points, I am quite distressed. No serious historian disagrees with the characterization of the regime's confiscation of grain during the famine, along with the regime's brutal blockade of affected areas, as an atrocity. Conterminous, seemingly favorable social and economic trends are immaterial to this characterization. Further, for the sake of argument, even if future publications validated Davies' proposed reduction of the death toll from Conquest's figures, such a reduction would also be immaterial to the characterization of the famine as a Stalinist atrocity. Davies' figures are still incredibly atrocious. If you cannot acknowledge that, Dietwald's correct in and free to-- in your words-- 'throw around the apologist term.' 172 | Talk 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Anonymous, you are an apologist. Go away and play with Tottle, Zundel, and the Turkish government (re. Armenian genocide). Dietwald 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they've all got valid points. It's perplexing how a famine contributed in large part by natural factors is equivalent to the Ottoman government's forceable deportation of Armenians to deserts. Your over-simplified right-wing views plucked from abominable organisations like Human Right Watch are truly vile. 172 asserts that Davies' figures are "atrocious". But these were not Davies' figures; rather, he derived the figures from the Soviet archives. It's bewildering why you refuse to take official reports into account and resort to backwards, politically-driven, inflated "estimates". If you're going to stick "7 million", there has got to a mention alongside the official death toll from the archives. Having completed one-quarter of Davies's "Years of Hunger", I've observed that the 1932 harvest in fact was below that of 1931 (67.11 mn tons compared to 69.48mn tons in 1931 whose harvest was about 10-15 mn tons below that of 1930). In regard to plaughing, the short supply of fodder resulted in a sharp decline of horses to 19.5mn in 1931 down from 20.9mn in 1930. Horses infected with ringworm, mange, foot and mouth disease, and glanders were not isolated. A fair share of the tractors were in poor shape; 20% of them were damaged and 20% didn't function due to the need of spare parts. In 1932, due to a foreign trade crisis, there were only 679,000 tractors delivered of which only half were brought in time for the harvest. The kolkhozy used up fodder in autumn without preparing for spring. The use of straw roots for fodder poisoned horses; Source: RGAE 7446/5/97. In regard to the weather in 1931, the cold spring delayed sowing and development of grain; the southeast suffered from dry-winds in June and the months of June and July were hotter than in previous years. "Rain poured down endlessly, roads were turned into a sea of mud, potatoes could not be dug, hemp could not be harvested, the hemp and sunflower seeds were drowned in the fields."--- RGASPI, 17/2/484. Plus, it is not mentioned in this article the numerous allocations of seed to the countryside. On 16 Feb. 1932, Sovnarkom allocated 53.3mn puds for seed and food to drought-stricken areas. On 7 March 1932, the Politburo called for further allocations of grain for seed, amounting to 22mn puds, Source: RGASPI 17/162/12. The decree of March 7 called for an END TO EXPORT OF FOOD GRAIN, Source: RGASPI 17/162/11, 159-item/2. Molotov and Yakovlev in a telegram stated, "the position is worse than we have supposed, until recently the authorities did not know the real position in the countryside." and called for issue of seed, fodder, and food loans, RGASPI: 82/2/138, 124.

FYI I am going to be ignoring your comments. I am sure that the other users are going to do the same. 172 | Talk 21:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Current Status

Seems Alexander is opting out of the discussion, as feared by 172. Ultramarine and the other promoters of the 'holodomor was genocide' thesis are not contributing either anymore. We got ourselves an (anonymous) Stalinist on board. Great. This place is still going to hell. HOWEVER, we have been working on an intro, quite nicely actually.

I make the following proposal, trying to incorporate most recent suggestions by participating parties (ignoring Stalin Apologists, of course).

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) was a famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR) in the 1932–1933, also known as the Great Famine. The Holodomor was the result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union.

Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide, or even Ukrainian Holocaust, stating that the Holodomor was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target the Ukrainian people.

While historians continue to disagree whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide as defined by the United Nations, numerous governments have officially recognized the Holodomor as genocide (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?).

The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger".

I STILL don't like the placing of the etymology section. I just can't see how even AA or others can't be happy with this wording. Can't get more factual, if I may say so myself. Dietwald 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Read the discussion above. Ukrainian Genocide is another common name of the Holodomor and must be mentioned as such.--Andrew Alexander 04:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your response proves Dietwald correct: Seems Alexander is opting out of the discussion, as feared by 172. Your argument "Ukrainian Genocide is another common name of the Holodomor and must be mentioned as such" has been systematically refuted dozens of times by multiple users over the past two weeks. You know that; you're just choosing to ignore the discussion. Repeating yourself does not make your assertion true. In the end, it'll behoove you to compromise on this page. If this dispute goes to arbitration, I'm certain that the outcome will not be favorable, as it will likely constrain your editing to other articles through either probation or revert limitations. 172 | Talk 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this intimidation. Nothing of the huge collection of facts, quotes, links has been even close to challenged. Millions of web pages have been provided. Facts about famous historians acknowleding this name have been given. Countries whose governments or parliaments acknoledged the Ukrainian genocide have been carefully listed. All of this was met by steady rhetoric and minimum of references. Now this discussion goes into the phase of bullying the presenters of the mainstream point of view. Which in itself is amazing.--Andrew Alexander 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Agreement with the genocide thesis is not the same thing as using the term "Ukrainian genocide." Your claim that "millions" of webpages use the term is comically absurd. "Ukrainian Genocide" (a neologism) gets only 14,900 Google search results [20] compared to a whooping 1,210,000 results for "Armenian Genocide" [21] (an actual common name)-- 80 times the number of results for "Ukrainian Genocide." 14,900 Google search results is extremely unimpressive. The term appears to be a neologism. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that the term belongs nowhere in the article. But I will still accept the compromise version proposed by Dietwald, which includes a reference to the term in the very first paragraph because I am actually willing to build a consensus. If you are demonstrating no willingness to compromise, arbitration is the only course of action for other editors. I say this as a heads up, not intimidation. 172 | Talk 06:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

172, stop repeating this ridiculous argument. It's been mentioned to you many times that people use slightly different wordings for Ukrainian genocide. E.g. "famine-genocide", or "1933 genocide", "genocide of Ukrainians". You will find a "whooping" 2+ million results (as mentioned to you again above) for all these wordings. You resist to the word "genocide" being mentioned in the first paragraph, not to a specific wording. We can change the wording if you wish. What we can't do is erase something used all over the world. This is the last time I will repeat this to you, it's enough to say the same thing over 10 times for an average person to understand it.--Andrew Alexander 16:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, you just disproved your own assertion. Thank you. Why? Because you claim that "Ukrainian Genocide" is a common name. You now agree yourself that the term "Ukrainian Genocide" is not used as such, but that rather various wordings are used to convey the idea that the Holodomor was genocide. The point here is that the TERM "Ukrainian Genocide" is NOT used AS SUCH to commonly describe the Holodomor, and you just said so yourself. You AGREE that that the term "Ukrainian Genocide" AS SUCH is used very little, but that many people use different wordings to claim that the Holodomor was genocide. Nobody denies that many people think the Holodomor was genocide. What is disputed here is that the TERM "Ukrainian Genocide" AS SUCH is COMMONLY used to describe the events summarized by the term "Holodomor". Glad you say you will stop repeating your claim. It'll be better for all. Dietwald 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You can continue splitting hairs, I certainly will not object. Are "various wordings" used to "convey the idea", or are they used as names? This is an interesting excercise in nothing.--Andrew Alexander 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So, you consider it an interesting experiment in 'nothing' to figure out whether or not a term you claim to be commonly used as a description for the Holodomor is indeed commonly used to describe the Holodomor? Very revealing. Curiously enough, the term "Jewish Genocide" appears just slightly more often (when compared to the millions of timens the term Holocaust figures) on Google than "Ukrainian Genocide", namely about 34 thousand times. Even more interesting is the fact that the term "Jewish Genocide" is used in the most fascinating(?) intentions. By the way, at least 1,200 pages containing the term "Ukrainian Genocide" seem to treat the topic from an apologist pov (look for "Ukrainian Genocide" AND myth"), 741 pages even contain the term "Ukrainian Genocide Myth" outright. And most delightfully, the terms ukrainian genocide and myth combined result in 73,900 pages. I guess that by AA's 'logic', this means that another alternative name for the Holodomor would be the "Ukrainian Genocide Myth"... I rest my case. Dietwald 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A.A. I will try to repeat again, the issue here isn't whether the H. was a Genocide, which is a separate topic, but whether "Ukrainian Genocide" is a common name. There is by far clearer and coherent view that the Holocaust was a Genocide, but you don't find the "Jewish Genocide" as an alternative name there, even unbolded. Try adding this to the intro and I am sure you will be reverted by the jewish wiki-community itself. That would be a WP:Point though, so I would not encourage this experiment. --Irpen 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, you have indeed just admitted that the TERM "Ukrainian genocide" used as such is not the common name. Now give up your demand that it be used as the alternate name. You can accept Dietwald's compromise, which mentions the genocide thesis in the first paragraph. 172 | Talk 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just proves the old saw that with friends like these, one needs no enemies. I still share AA's sentiment on Stalin, and I am sure I'll find agreement with him on numerous other issues, but HERE, is proving to be someone you can't reason with (Don Corleone). I suggest arbitration. Too bad. Dietwald 12:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind arbitration and if anyone initiates it I would be willing to participate. On the other hand, this is such a hemongous and time-consuming procedure, as I learned after participating in the obvious case that seemed so open and shut but took 2-3 months to be settled, that I would still hope something else could work. Maybe a straw-poll? Article RfC? Anyway, if others want to take it to an arbitration, I would support as well. I just won't initiate it myself as of yet. --Irpen 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already written an arbitration case on MS Word. Unless Andrew Alexander proves reasonable, I'm taking the case to arbitration in 36 hours. 172 | Talk 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, seems we are moving forward on this, too. I regret it, though, and I would wish AA would really come around and give up on a position that is logically untenable. Dietwald 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear "coalition" if arbitration will take place, I will stop my participation in English WP. Moreover, at any occasion I will advise others to do so. I will actively advertise WP project as doomed and being ruled by "coalitions" with certain political POVs that allow no compromises. Also I will inform administators of highest possible rank of such situation. Collecting proofs of coordinated activities among certain individuals here on pushing their agendas in the articles and organisation of bans of "inconvenient" editors will not be a problem. I anticipate that my opinion will be supported by a number of other editors that experienced mentioned practices.--Oleh Petriv 20:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oleh, please take another look at the dispute before making such quick angry comments. If parties can't resolve the dispute no matter how long they talk, the only way to proceed is the formal dispute resolution process. Such steps before the arbitration usually are RfC and mediation designed to fasciliate discussion but this discussion is so thorough already that nothing possibly new can be brought by the mediation or RfC. Andrew Alexander approaches this article and an entire Wikipedia from the Ukrainian nationalist and Russophobic positions. While he is certainly entitled to his views, he is not entitled to bring them into his editing and to take an aggressive stance against editors who came here representing many cultures (German, US, Polish, Russian and Ukrainian itslef) and who all here try to find a good-faith solution to the dispute while A.A. rejects anything other than his own opinions. Something should be done about this. Holodomor was an event of the grand historic scale and it needs a good article. We also owe to its victims (among who mine and I am sure your relatives perished and/or sufferred to) to have the article to be an objective account of the events rather than the bare angly indictment to those evil katsaps that A.A. is trying to make of it.

I would very mich regret if you leave WP. I would even not like if A.A. leaves because there exists one article to which he brought some useful refs and factual info (this one) while others he mostly nothing but disrupted. I suggest you set aside a half-an-hour and read the discussion at this talk. --Irpen 21:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please stop the personal attacks and insulting the participant of the debate. I consider Your words about AA unacceptable. Your personal insults disturb to find the coordinated decision. I want to offer You will refrain from participations in discussion of this article, Your offensive commentary disturb to consensus. Version Dietwalds consider to be acceptable for discussing --Yakudza 22:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza, I firmly stand by my words above. I don't care about the views of this or that user here until these views get into his/her editing. My criticism of A.A.'s nationalism appears here only because it goes into his editing and not only to this article.

I will not refrain from discussing this article because I consider this article to be an important one. The Ukrainian Famine was a major national catastrophe of my nation and I would like this to be a serious article that would give the readers an account as objective as possible about these events. While personally, I don't think that Ukrainians suffered from Famine purely because they were Ukrainians (as A.A. tries to present it) but because they were peasants working on rich lands whose harvest the criminal Bolshevik government wanted to use to advance their economic and social goals, I do not purge from this article the views of those scholars who consider otherwise. All I want is to see all mainstream views presented, the discussion on this issue to be kept in the "Was H. a Genocide" section, and the intro not be used to advance a single side of the debate.

Andrew Alexander's trademark style, on the other hand, is to aggressively alter the intro first of all. He've done this here, he've done this at UA L article too. He frequently attempts to do it even at the Khreschatyk street article. NPOVing the UA L article is now very high on my priority list but I consider this article even more important. At the same time, your services of helping Andrew Alexander to revert to his versions in spite of or even, contrary to, the extensive discussions, bring nothing but extra annoyance. Please refrain from doing that. If you have anything to say on the issue, just say so at the talks. Your English is good enough for others to understand. --Irpen 05:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm sorry to inform you that you are wrong. In many aspects. To name just a few of them: 1. A.A.'s opinion is shared (in some variations) by other editors here. Including myself. If we are all Ukrainian nationalists, trolls, rusophobes, agressive banderovtsy - then you are Ukrainophobe, evil katsap, russian shauvinist - in your own terms. 2. Those terms that I mentioned are all over Ukrainian corner of WP here brought by you and your team mates. And terminology that I used to call opposing parties in the proposed [Table] above is not my invention, but solely yours. I checked how it would sound pronounced not by Irpen. And indeed, it became "inflammatory" as it was used by other person towards you. You immediately rejected this proposal for dispute. 3. Beside stopping (not the first time) my call for solving the dispute, you also interrupted ongoing discussion (even though tuff) between Dietwald, Alex, 172 and A.A. and inflicted personal accusations and arguing with him. Beside these "contributions" (not counting invitation for 172 to help you fight "nationalists") to the article and talk you have only put forward a "bolding" issue. While 172 is reasonably trying to fulfill his mission, you are only "rv POV pushing by notorious revert warriors" and are exersizing in eloquent epitets towards people who do not share your opinion. 4. If you claim that you are balanced and fair - I would like to see your fair comments to Zvesda's writings here, Mr. anonimous writings, Girla's and Kuban kazak's aggression all over articles. Please show the same level of enthusiasm.

I suggest you set aside half-an-hour, close your eyes and forget our POVs, then think of what I wrote here and above. If you do not see other solutions rather than blocking editors - then you are a looser. If you do not see other ways to sustain discussions rather than eloquently assault people - then just shut up and leave it for those who can talk. If someone here gives up on discussion - follow Irpen please. If A.A. will be banned by you - means you are powerless. Then if I ever stay on WP - only to take his position. --Oleh Petriv 05:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oleh, as per your advise, I will reply to your message not at once but later. To the one point, I can respond. I did not argue with a Stalinist appologists because I consider these views too lunatic to waste time on discussing them. OTOH, the view the H. was a Genocide, is not lunatic. It is just controversial and not universally agreed. So I would like to give it some credence it deserves in the article. I will write more later. --Irpen 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Status

172, What's the status on Arbitration? Dietwald 18:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've been unexpectedly busy. So Andrew Alexader has at least another day to try to show a willingness to compromise. 172 | Talk 02:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Could somebody with more wiki-brains than I do some archiving? The page takes ages to load on my dial-up. Thank you. Dietwald 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm archiving the parts of the talk page where the discussions seemed inactive, which still leaves the talk page quite long. 172 | Talk 04:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Weather

Putting the debates on Ukranian nationalism aside for a moment, as a soil scientist, I would just add that "poor weather conditions" and other factors that are debated by the "scholars" as a role in the famine need to wait until paleao-archeological data on pollen and soil chemistry for this period become known. As any farmer will agree, "poor weather conditions" can wreck entire commuinties, indeed empires. This is not to be a Stalin apologist, but the Ukraine/Soviet Famine is certainly generated thought some mix of climatic with lessez-faire (e.g. British role in Irish 11840's famine)and exclusively active (ie. the Chinese 1960 famine that tranversed numerous global climate zones) factors.

I think the weather question is interesting. Also neglected in this article is the anti-collectivization actions by peasants, which included the slaughter of animals, including draft-animals. This certainly contributed to the decline in the harvest. However, while these factors played a role, the actions by the Soviet government were decisive in triggering the famine. After all, the government could have let the peasants keep their meagre harvest rather than confiscate it in toto. Dietwald 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

PL wiki

add this -> pl:Wielki głód na Ukrainie exe 11:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Draught

The word should be "drought". I don't have the Wiki-smarts to know how to request to fix it on a protected page. Cheers, Peter1968 12:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information

"The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор), also known as Ukrainian Genocide,[1] [2] [3] was the 1932–1933 man-made[4] famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia populated by ethnic Ukrainians. The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities.[5] The Soviet government admitted the famine's existence only in the late 1980s"

Conveniently, the dead Ukrainians just happened to have been in areas of extensive agriculture. If there was a genocide planned against Ukrainians, why did mass starvation stop after 1933? Your allegations of a genocide inflicted on Ukrainians is beyond the of any credibility. Citing the leader of an independent country, who clearly held vehement biases, is not very credible. This is the representative from the same Catholic Church that supported the Nazis and the Fascismi. The disruptive Solidarnosc group in Poland, funded by the CIA and George Soros, were also supported by this pope. This is a blatant manifestation of POV. It has been documented that the harvests in 1931 and 1932 were over 15 million tons below the harvest of 1930. The reasons for these poor harvests were due to undesirable weather and a sharp decline in plaughing.

“At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 (close to a quarter of a ton per each victim in each year).[6]”

You fail to mention that these exports were far below the plans. There were numerous concessions made to the countryside in the form of reduced quotas and allocations of grian.

“The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people[7]. The rationale behind the famine as well as the exact number of casualties is unknown because the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general.”

This estimate has been exposed to be bogus by the registered deaths from TSUNKHU files. The historians compiling this fallacious death toll (Robert Conquest) were merely engaged in a campaign of propaganda during the Cold War. The preference of biased authors amounting to yet another manifestation of POV. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

“Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among them Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City.”

The bulk of these countries including and Estonia and Latvia are members of NATO and practice discrimination towards Russian minorities. Why is Russia, the most relevant country in East Europe, omitted?

“This was however ended and replaced with the return to Russification, as soon as Ukrainian strong national identity started to become an obstacle for Stalin's plans.”

Plans, what plans? Plans of Russian chauvinism? Stalin was not even Russian; neither were Kaganovich, Ordzhokinidze, Mikoyan, Eikhe, Rudzutak, Petrovsky, Kossior, Chubar, and several other members of the Politburo. This amounts to a paranoid statement from ultra Ukrainian nationalists.

“Simultaneously, a policy of collectivization of agriculture was introduced, which primarily hit Ukraine, having the strongest agriculture in the country and a long tradition of individual farms (over 50% of Russian wheat originated from Ukraine in the beginning of 20th century).”

There was collectivisation of agriculture throughout the country including agriculturally rich areas in North Caucasia, Volga Basin, Central Black Earth, and Kazakhstan.

“It is estimated that around 2 million Ukrainians became victims of these repressions in 1929-1932.”

False. There were 1.8 million exiled throughout the Soviet Union. There were 63,000 households from Ukraine exiled out of a total 381,000 in USSR. The 381,000 households amounted to 1.8 million people. Source: Davies's "Years of Hunger"

“On August 7, 1932, the Moscow government imposed death penalty in Ukraine for any theft of public property [9] [10] [11]. Hundreds of peasants were executed each month under the new law. Still, until October 25, Moscow received only 39% of the demanded grain supplies.”

What is not mentioned is that the death penalty for this decree was seldom enforced. The bulk of those prosecuted under this decree were deprived of liberty for 5-10 years. There were amendements to this decree that called for the death penalty to be sentences to "ACTIVE saboteurs"

From Davies's "Years of Hunger", "According to a report of the head of the Supreme Court, by January 15,1933 as many as 103,000 people had been sentenced under the provisions of the decree. Of the 79,000 whose sentences were known to the Supreme Court, 4800 had been sentenced to death, 26086 to ten years' imprisonment and 48094 to other sentences.

“The famine mostly affected the rural population. In comparison to the previous famine in the USSR during 1921–22, which was caused by draught, and the next one in 1947, the famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine was caused not by infrastructure break-down, or war, but by deliberate political and administrative decisions (e.g., see [14]).”

Lies, lies, lies. The harvests in 1931-1932 were far below expectations. There was drought throughout the country and the USSR government issued numerous allocations of grain and reduced the quotas several times.

“By the end of 1933, between five and ten million people had starved to death or had otherwise died unnaturally in Russia and Ukraine.”

The Soviet archives reveal that there 2.9 million excess deaths in the USSR from 1932-1933 excluding Kazakhstan. The rise in infectious disease contributed to these deaths.

“While the course of the events as well as their underlying reasons are still a matter of debate, even the official Soviet statistics show a decrease of roughly four million people in the population of Ukraine between 1927 and 1932.”

Official Soviet data show that the births in Ukraine decreased by 100,000 every year from 1926-1931. The population went from 28.5 million in 1926 to 28.925 million in 1926 to 28.387 million in 1937. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

“Taking an estimate of natural population growth of one to two percent, the calculated loss of population in Ukraine was over ten million during these years.”

Outdated speculation from hard-line Cold Warrior historians. This has been debunked from Lorimer.

“The USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 ([18]), almost a quarter of a ton in each year per each dead in the Holodomor.”

What again is neglected is that these totals were far below export levels of previous years.

(thousand tons of grains) 1930 level: 5832 1931: 4786 1932: 1441 1933: 2319

Source: Davies's "Years of Hunger"

Other information neglected is the rise in infectious disease:

(thousands) 1929: Typhus, 40; Typhoid Fever, 170  ; Relasping fever, 6 ; Smallpox, 8; Malaria, 3000

1932: Typhus, 220; Typhoid Fever, 300; Relasping fever, 12; Smallpox, 80; Malaria, 4500.

1933: Typhus, 800; Typhoid Fever, 210 ; Relasping fever, 12; Smallpox, 38; Malaria, 6500.

Zvesda

Zvesda, fact remains: the quotas were in excess of the available grain. The government was aware of thise. The exports continued DESPITE famine. Any government that exports grain at any significant level during a famine should be considered at the very least stupid. Considering the other crimes of the Bolsheviks, the export of these grains during a famine was outright criminal. I won't dignify Red Star's apologies with any more attention.Dietwald 19:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be kept in perspective in order to prevent the manifestation of POV. Trade continued albeit at a mere faction of previous year. Trade continued due to the Soviet's deep foreign trade crisis which obstructed the acquisition of additional tractors. If Conquest's figure of "7 million" must be stated, then should Davies's of 1.5 million in Ukraine. Davies's work unlike those of Western Cold Warriors almost entirely consist of material derived from archives. What must also be cited are the various measures taken by the Soviet regime to assist famine-stricken regions. Between February and July 1932, no less than 35 decisions and decrees of the Politburo and Sovnarkom authorised allocations of grain for food.--- Pg. 214 of Davies's "Years of Hunger". You can't smear Davies or Wheatcroft as "Stalin apologist" because of how they actually list Conquest's work in their bibliography. By also citing Tauger, these two authors maintain a non POV balance. Zvesda

The idea that the weather was the main factor is simply refuted by the fact that there were absolutely nothing comparable in the part of Ukraine occupied by Poland. The weather does not know the state borders (especially on the plains), there were the same people, the same crops, the same agricultural methods. And Pilsudsky was not exactly a paragon of democracy or a Ukrainophile. Meanwhile people were dying in thousands on the over side of the border and there were nothing unusual on the other side.

There is also an Occam razor - collectivization and raskulachivanie the way they were implemented should cause the famine and they did cause it over all the Soviet Union. The fact that Ukraine and Kazakhstan were the worse hit might be explained by the myriad reasons, weather included (The authorities require state collection of at least the same amount of grain as in the previous year, so if the weather was even slightly worse than the 1930 year it might spell disaster), there is also a simple fact that in the sparsely populated Northern Russia the population can somehow survive on mushrooms, wild berries, edible grass and by hunting wild animals, but in the densly populated Ukraine it is impossible. I, personally, feel the Genocide theory is a lie, since there was not published a single document requiring preferential treatment of Russians over Ukrainians, but the theory is so well published that we have to somehow mention it (although not as an established fact but as a theory). Maybe the same should be about the weather theory. abakharev 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been documented in Davies's "Years of Hunger" that weather in fact contributed to the relatively disastrous harvest of 1931 followed by a slightly worse harvest in 1932.

The genocide theory is fallacious beyond perception. I can't understand how anyone can go around calling this genocide when there were measures taken by the government to feed the starving population. Ukraine similarly to North Caucasia and Volga Basin, regions also struck by famine, just happened to be a major center of agriculture.

During 1925-1929, there was favourable weather sans a break in 1927. During 1931, June and July were much warmer. The cold spring had delayed sowing and the development of grain. The southeast had suffered from dry-winds in June. In May-July, normal weather pattern in the Volga and Black-Earth regions and on the Ukrainian Steppe was hat warm, dry, south-easterly winds from Kazakhstan gave way to colder and wetter from the north-west. For the first time in twelve years, south-easterlies dominated. Winds became scorching, no rain fell, and earth became parched. Grain yields fell significantly when similar winds in 1891 and 1921 brought rural famine.

"Rain poured down endlessly, roads were turned into a sea of mud, potatoes could not be dug, hemp could not be harvested, the hemp and sunflower seeds were drowned in the firleds" --- RGASPI, 17/2/484, 53

Zvesda

Ok, Red Star, are you going to repeat yourself ad nauseam? We got it. Weather was awful, the Soviets were kind enough to reduce their grain quotas, and the idea of a a man-made famine is absurd, not to mention the idea of a genocide. Davies and others should be quoted because they actually use archives, whereas Conquest simply makes up numbers and was a Cold Warrior. Happy? Now, if you pretend to go away, the rest of the world will pretend to consider it. Dietwald 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Status?

So, AA has totally opted out, the rest is no longer discussing, the page has died. Unbelievable. Maybe we need to get it back to life with unprotect & arbitration?? This is simply disgusting. AA & Co., you have done a great job -- the victims of the Holodomor are duly honoured by the way things are going here. Or not going here. Ain't nationalism a great thing? Dietwald 05:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the half-way variants of Alex Bakharev, ANDRIY_K, Oleh Petriv and Dietwald. My english (en-1) does not allow to discuss the nicety of the wording. But I against categorically version User:Irpen and 172 that Holodomor is caused by bad weather and need to industrializations. AndriyK now is banned to end of February. But he and Oleh Petriv say in support to coordinated versions. But I did not see the positions 172 and Irpen. Or they against coordination and want to start the arbitration? --Yakudza 13:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza, this is disgusting. Were did I or 172 say that H. was caused by bad weather? The dispute has been on how to present the issue whether H. was a Genocide and whether we can call it as such in view of the scholarly disagreement and whether we can use these words in the first line or in the intro while the discussion in the appropriate section shows that there is no agreement on the issue. My point is that intro should not make an assertive claim on the issue that is unresolved. You accusations are totally off-mark and rather unhelpful. Better reread the discussions above carefully. --18:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please. Your editing In the intro Some scholars have argued that poor weather and the military and economic goals of Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin were additional factors precipitating the famine.[1]

Say please 1. You continue to keep the points that this must be in intro? 2. You Support one of variant offered of Alex Bakharev, AndriyK, Oleh Petriv or Dietwald? --Yakudza 19:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yakudza, in this "my editing" you are pointing out the phrase you quote where the weather is mentioned is preceeded by: "The famine was caused by the Soviet authorities seizing the 1932 crop" That is it's clear from this version that the cause of Holodomor was the grain confiscation. As such your statement that "version User:Irpen and 172 that Holodomor is caused by bad weather" is a plain lie. Please discuss in good faith if you want others to take you seriously. --Irpen 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I ever opted out of the discussion. There is no discussion. No well supported facts, references, quotes provided here. I have provided plenty on this page and on the article page itself. I don't know what else should be countered that hasn't been countered. Let's check again. Is "genocide" a common term for the Holodomor? Yes, it is.--Andrew Alexander 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

AA: Do you do this on purpose or are you daft? Do you actually read what is offered as criticism to your arguments? Do you actually care? Does it matter to you what others say? Do logical arguments carry weight with you? You repeat over and over again "Genocide is a common word for holodomor" -- the google search you offer as an argument does not even include the word holodomor. Your search looks for any page that contains premutations of the word Ukraine and genocide on the same page. This is getting boring. I think you really don't get it. The only way you can be arguing in good faith is if you are actually incapable of understanding what others are saying. So, you are either trolling or you are stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but this has really been going on for too long. Dietwald 19:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your argument. "You are either trolling or you are stupid". Because.--Andrew Alexander 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Take your pick.Dietwald 08:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Lies"?

A friend of mine discussing the invaladity of wikipedia mentioned this article, and said it was wrong because of these issues:

Tables Registered births and registered deaths in famine-stricken areas -- show that 4 million people died in the several republics hit with famine, with less than 2 million deaths in the Ukranian Socialist Republic. The primary figures on excess deaths amount to 2.9 million, then you have to add the figures from Kazakhstan which amount to another 1.5 million, the deaths in the OGPU system (0.3 million)" (pp. 412-416) This table and quotes are taken from The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933[/i]. Volume 5 of [i]The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia. Basingstoke (England) and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

As the book Fraud, Famine and Fascism, The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard by Douglass Tottle showed, all the high estimates are based upon lies and gross exaggerations.

Now, since I have complete faith in wikipedia, and it's editors. I'd like this to be examined, and explain why there is this contradiction, since I do not know enough about this subject. Chris M. 16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How were these figures derived, and from what sources? —Michael Z. 2006-02-04 16:38 Z

Mr. Chris, your friend Zvezda, or Mr. anonimous, or both of them who littered this page many times already, have recieved all answers to their questions. Please see for comprehensieve answers above and in archived history. At this time they are being ignored by disputants and their "representatives" in your face will be too. Please do not fall under influence.--Oleh Petriv 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you mind humoring me with a few quick reasons for why that's wrong? If it's not too much trouble. Chris M. 06:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1. it disagrees with the range of figures accepted by most historians. 2. It comes with no verifiable source of the figures (at least not here; I don't have a copy of the book and I can't read an xls file). 3. You cite these as precise figures, when most historians will only provide an estimated range, because they say that precise figures will never be available. —Michael Z. 2006-02-05 06:52 Z

1) So what if it disagrees with the range of figures "accepted" by "most" historians? 2)Sources a, b) Registered births and deaths RGAE, 1562/329/108. These are the 1936 TsUNKhU evaluations. They differ slightly from earlier evaluations as explained in Wheatcroft, TSD 3, 867-880 c) Estimated population based on 1926 and 1937 censuses, a number of official population estimates, movements in mortality and natality registration and estimates of over registration. d,e) Crude birth and death rates based on a,b and c above f) Average normal mortality is taken as average mortality rate for 1927-9 and is calculated from e above. g) Excess mortality above 1927-9 level of cdr for 1932 and 1933 are simply the 1932 and 1933 levels of mortality (cdr) in e) less the average level of mortality in f). h) Excess mortality in numbers of deaths is calculated from the excess mortality level (cdr) in g) multiplied estimated population size in c) divided by 1000. That is the sources used in the table where the figures come from.

"So what if it disagrees with the range of figures "accepted" by "most" historians?"—so they were all "wrong" and this one is "right"?

1937 census? Weren't the census-takers shot and their work suppressed or destroyed? —Michael Z. 2006-02-06 05:53 Z

Nope, didn't say they were wrong. You yourself wrote this "...historians will only provide an estimated range," and this particular estimation claims 1.5 million died unnaturally from the "Holodomor". While Wikipedia's page claims the estimations by historians range from 5-10 million and that 30-50% of the Ukrainian died from the famine (as opposed to this historians estimate of 5% of the Ukrainian populace perished). I see no reason why not to amend the range to 1.5-10 million and 5-50%.

The 1937 census was classified in the Soviet Union but is now avaliable.

In regard to the 1937 census, it has been misrepresented by western Cold Warrior historians. Numbering at 162 million, the population of the USSR was 6 million below projection contrary to the lie from the West that the 1937 population was 14 million below projection. Davies's and Wheatcroft's "Years of Hunger" explains, "However, if the net increase in population (that is, births minus deaths) shown by the official registrations is added to the 1926 population, the 1937 total becomes not 162 but 168 million."

The primary factor for why the population did not conform to the projection was due to the decreased number of births. As the chart posted by a user above shows, the number of registered births in USSR were as follows: 1927: 6,197,277; 1928: 6,192,347; 1929: 5,993,795; 1930: 5,684,412; 1931: 5,270,120; 1932: 4,828,318; 1933: 3,776,503. Thus, in the pre-famine period of 1927-1931, there were 2.1 million projected births that never took place. During the famine of 1932-1933, an additional 3.7 million projected births never took place. Overall, 5.8 million projected births in the USSR from 1927-1933 never occurred.

The weak argument of "it doesn't show deaths in resettlement camps" in trying to discredit the chart posted by an above user is unacceptable. This topic is about famine in Ukraine, not the hardships endured by those in labour camps and other areas of deprived liberty. Deaths in camps, a rather insignificant factor, numbered at approximately 300,000 during the famine years according to Wheatcroft & Davies's "Years of Hunger"

—Zvesda

Another try

Let's see if this works:

Discussion of Introduction
Locked version	Currently proposed version
The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор), also known as Ukrainian Genocide,[1] [2] [3] was the 1932–1933 man-made[4] famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia populated by ethnic Ukrainians. The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities.[5] The Soviet government admitted the famine's existence only in the late 1980s. At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 (close to a quarter of a ton per each victim in each year).[6] The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas under the pretext that people travelling for food spread "anti-kolkhoz agitation". The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people[7]. The rationale behind the famine as well as the exact number of casualties is unknown because the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general. Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among them Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City. The fourth Saturday of November is the official day of commemoration of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine. Still the Holodomor remains a politically charged topic for many parties, especially in Russia. Some Russian authors continue claiming that the Holodomor was not an act of genocide but a "mere famine".[8] Holodomor is the noun derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom, (Морити голодом) "to inflict death by hunger".	The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) was a famine on the territory of today's Ukraine, as well as some regions of Russia(see Famines in Russia and USSR) in the 1932–1933, also known as the Great Famine. The Holodomor was the result of deliberate policies by the government of the Soviet Union. Many authors refer to the event as the Ukrainian Genocide, or even Ukrainian Holocaust, stating that the Holodomor was engineered by the Soviets to specifically target the Ukrainian people. While historians continue to disagree whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide as defined by the United Nations, numerous governments have officially recognized the Holodomor as genocide (see section #Was the Holodomor genocide?). The term Holodomor is derived from the Ukrainian expression moryty holodom (Морити голодом), which means "to inflict death by hunger". Further text to be incorporated into the article body: At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 (close to a quarter of a ton per each victim in each year).[6] The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas under the pretext that people travelling for food spread "anti-kolkhoz agitation". The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people[7]. The rationale behind the famine as well as the exact number of casualties is unknown because the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general. Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among them Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City. The fourth Saturday of November is the official day of commemoration of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine. Still the Holodomor remains a politically charged topic for many parties, especially in Russia. Some Russian authors continue claiming that the Holodomor was not an act of genocide but a "mere famine".[8]

I posted the whole Introductin here. I suggest to leave untouched left panel and start editing right one. Please explain your opinion below in a constructive way, support with valid arguments. --Oleh Petriv 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Too long. Let's cut off the intro after the etymology. The rest belongs into the body. Dietwald 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oleh, I don't agree with the "proposed version". It skips another common name of the Holodomor from the first paragraph. Besides, it doesn't add in any way to the quality of the article. Simply reshufles important facts away from the intro. The problem is, there is no point of editing the text before the editors agree on the common principles. The principle "it's not a genocide so we must erase that word" doesn't suit me. Together with 26 countries. Sorry to be "blunt", but we need to come up with a common view before starting cutting the intro.--Andrew Alexander 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The principle is that since it is not universally agreed to be Genocide, unlike the Holocaust, the debate on whether Holodomor was a Genocide belongs to a chapter the article already has. Calling it a Genocide or claiming that it was not in the intro is not NPOV. So many people are tired of repeating this to you. If you persist, it means the dispute between you and others is unresolvable in the usual ways. Mediations and RfC are useless here because we already have more attemtps of people commenting and mediating than any of the formal requests would generate. I see the arbitration as the solution and whatever I think about Andrew Alexander (or whatever he thinks and says or said of me) is irrelevant to taking this to ArbCom. We need to get this article moving. As for our personal differences, we can live with them. --Irpen 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A common name doesn't have to be universally agreed on. It exists so it has to be mentioned within the first paragraph.--Andrew Alexander 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, based on your 'logic', another common name for "Andrew" is "troll". Here is a google search that proofs that. So, You agree that troll is a common name for Alexander?

And Here are 1,230,000,000 (1.23 billion) pages which -- according to your logic -- proof that the ukrainian famine never took place. And hereare 305 million pages that show -- according to YOUR logic -- that hoax is a common name for the Ukrainian famine. I AM USING THE SAME SEARCH LOGIC FOR 'PROVING' THIS THAT YOU USE TO PROVE YOUR POINT. Just for the record. Dietwald 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, this table is FOR EDITING. All you said below the table has to be in it (in proposed version). This is a sand box. All other users are to correct you/me/themselves in there. Is it so difficult? Why do we have to go into personal accusations again (Dietwald)? Correct currently proposed version, state your arguments below in short and clear form (even if you have to repeat them) and wait till others will say a word. One key point in this discussion is to try to understand other party. This is also invitation to Irpen to edit the text. I want to see if he really wants to remove the word "genocide". I have doubts. I do not think that anyone here opposes to this word. There is just a problem with emphasis on it. If we present both views in balanced way we can move forward. If not - Arbitration is worst case and my opinion on it is firm.--Oleh Petriv 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there have been no further edits to the proposed entry, could we maybe move forward now and either unprotect the page, incorporate the current version, and then continue working on the text? Should the edit war resume at that time, we really should move to arbitration. It's a shame the article is dying.Dietwald 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Now

Lest I get myself suckered into even more personal attacks, I will refrain from commenting on anything AA is going to say here in the future and instead support wholeheartedly an arbitration process to be started.

At the same time, I wish to apologize to the wiki community for my most recent outbursts against AA. While I stand by my assessment of him, they were inappropriate. Dietwald 12:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Feels more like point-counterpoint than a coherent article.

While I think the historical record proves that soviet grain requisitions and the decision not to engage in any famine relief contributed greatly to the number of deaths, there is another side to it. Ukranian peasantry strongly resisted collectivization, and there are many personal and official accounts of ukranians slaughtering their herds and not planting or sowing any crops as a form of resistance. The obvious result of these actions were famine. The soviet authorities (stalin) chose to punish the ukranians for thier behavior, and so refused to aid them. My understanding is that the problem was twofold. The soviets requisitioned some grain, but there wasn't enough being grown there to begin with, so the requisitions were particularly devestating. The article only mentions that in one sentence, when it may very well have been largely or completely responsible for the famine. Collectivization was not a disaster because it was inherently flawed. It was less efficient than the individual plots in most cases, but had the peasantry cooperated they would have produced enough food both for soviet export and for personal consumption. The article starts out very POV and gets less so as it continues, still, it would be preferable to make it NPOV throughout.

Other notes: Was it genocide? I think that's a bad question. A better question is: Was it systematic cultural reppression? I think the answer to that is pretty clearly yes. The intention was not to destroy the ukranian people but to destroy their culture. Cultural Genocide? maybe. Genocide? No.

--Irongaard 04:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Irongaard has a point. I think the resistance activities of the Ukrainian peasantry should be mentioned. It's mentioned, for example, in the PBS Series "People's Century", and Robert Conquest provides the voice-over, if I am not entirely mistaken. This aspect was included a long time ago, but I think it was actually AA who removed it pretty quickly. I have not bothered about this aspect anymore, though that aspect should be included. Yes, this will start another war here, but I think we should at least discuss this aspect. Dietwald 07:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, forgot one thing: whether collectivization was inherently flawed or not depends on what one refers to. IT was intended to make agriculture more productive. It did not. It was intended to create more equality among peasants. That it did. So, from an agronomic point of view, it was flawed, from a political point of view, it eventually was a resounding success. Dietwald 07:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to beleive and I would like to see the refs that would point out that the resistance to collectivization was particularly fierce in UA, compared to other parts of the USSR and, if it is indeed the case, that scholars make a connection between the resistance and the famine. Voiceover by Conquest, a respected scholar no doubt, is a reference all right, but since Dietwald is not entirely sure, I request some assurances. The connection between resistance and famine contradicts my grandma's stories she told me and her family were not kulaks, far from it. Despite being of the poor peasant stock, they barely survived the famine and many in their village died: "kulaks" and not. In general, the stories of how tough and resistive Ukraine was for Bolsheviks are greatly exagerated. Ukraine was the place of the country were Bolsheviks had the least problems, compared to many other places. --Irpen 09:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, the reason why I have not pressed this point is because I am not as sure about this aspect. I would like to see it discuss here on the talk pages, though. I am sorry to be unable to provide more detail on this, but I will try to find some time to find some more information on this some time in the future. It's not that important right now. Dietwald 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have partial data from Ukraine. The Germans were relatively willing, the Ukrainians in the middle, the Poles the most anti. The result was that the Polish authonomy was cancelled and the majority deported to Kasakhstan. The biggest peasant revolt I know was in Tambov region, which is in Russia. Xx236 11:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy now, (I realize that usually graces the beginning of the defense of a weak argument, but bear with me) but in the next few days I'll try to marshall together some sources discussing ukranian resistance. I have a few decent documentaries and books on the subject, I'll go through them for specifics. Irpen, I think the collectivization resistance in ukraine was particularly fierce because it was coincided with stalin's program of cultural reppression of the Ukraine. Additionally, Ukranian peasantry had little history with farming collectives, having always prefered individual plots, while many of the other areas of the soviet union had previously had farming collectives. Sources are forthcoming, I promise. Perhaps a side note: I was curious as to how reputable Alec Nove is considered in these parts. I've read a good number of his books on the soviet economy, and they seem to synch up decently with declassified russian documents and CIA reports on the soviet union, but I may be missing something. --Irongaard 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Irongaard - Stalin's policy toward Ukrainians was changing, there were periods, when Ukrainians were supported against minorities. Divide et impera. If you have data about Ukrainian resistance 1921-1938 you may put it into History of Ukraine and/or History of the SU. Russian Wiki contains many data and links about the Holodomor. At this moment I tend to believe that Stalin fought rather peasants than Ukrainians, but I may be wrong. The main goal was industrialisation, the peasants were to finance it. Xx236 10:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I intend to resume work on this article, picking up where we all left off in the next few days. I all of sudden became much busier at work than I'd expected a couple of weeks ago. My apologies especially extend to Irpen and Dietwald, who were closely collaborating with me here a couple of weeks ago. 172 | Talk 19:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see some people are still alive. Felt like being in that joke about the last man on earth who is in a room when suddenly somebody knocks on the door... gg. Ok, let's move forward? Unprotect, put in the current version, and move to arbitration should the Usual Suspects move straight to edit-war to a version ante-status-quo? Dietwald 13:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor#Causes_and_outcomes

Fourth paragraph down in this section. The word should be drought not draught. Page is currently protected so I can't correct this. -- Krash (Talk) 18:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Movement, Please!

Is there any chance this article is ever going to be revived? Has unreason finally defeated reason? How wonderful -- Stalin would enjoy this. 11:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny how some people can only get involved to destroy, but can't be bothered to move a finger to actually build this page. Thanks, Andrew, for contributing to yet another defeat of Stalin's victims. Hope you feel proud. Dietwald 12:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The lead

Very well done, Irpen. Bravo! --_Lysy^talk 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! That's a music to my ears. I think a small modification to the lead is needed to say that estimation of loss of life vary widely, but all reasonable estimates are in the millions range. Just could not come up with the good phrase off hand. Will think about it when I have time or anyone is welcome to add that. Other than that, I suggest we freese the intro and return to the article itself. --Irpen 22:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added the info about the millions of casualties to the lead. I think we can now go back to the rest of the article. --Irpen 04:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Two same troublemakers resort to large scale reverts undoing the work of multiple people. What is this if not trolling? --Irpen 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The article is protected again. Please note that edit wars do not produce 'any results besides getting everybody involved stressed out. Discuss the desired outcome, negotiate a version that all can live with, and when you are ready to resume editing, place a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. If you need other editors to make comments on the dispute, place a request for comments. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is INSANE. Somebody, PLEASE, get the arbitration thing going. I am only online twice a week or so, thus I am hard-pressed to do more than what I have done in the past. Irpen, like your intro. Dietwald 14:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I don't see what good is coming from stopping anyone editing this article. I'm unprotecting, and will watch very closely. Be warned that I'm generally intolerant of edit warring in circumstances like this. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I will continue to watch the page as well. Please discuss here before you revert any edit that is not clearly defined as vandalism under our policies, especially any reverts to a version that existed prior to this round of protection. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos

There are a number of very strong photos in the article but they are very small and are almost unreadable (esp photos #2 and #3). Maybe we could zoom them out to the size 250..300? The article is long and we can accommodate it without problems. Also there seems to be a revert war over which photo to put to the top. I do not see this be a matter of principle, so maybe just have a straw poll? I, personally would prefer the photo #2, with the city folks walking through the dying people, but it does not seem to be an option for the other editors abakharev 06:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the child swollen from hunger symbolizes the famine best and is a very emotional image fitting this tragedy. I would prefer that one on top. Also, the one with three corpses lacks the source to begin with. --Irpen 06:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaint on WP:AN/I

Andrew posted a request for assistance on the admin incident noticeboard (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=43297483&oldid=43295812]). I see fomr the above that there has been sustained edit warring over this article. Without weighing the merits of the competing claims, I looked at the most recent revert by Andrew and it seems to me that Irpen's version is stated in more neutral terms, and his tone is closer to that of an encyclopaedia - Andrew's reads to me as being more polemical. I repeat, though, that this is just the tone and presentation - good intentions and references are evident on both sides.

If Andrew has additional facts (which I think he does) these can surely be worked in in similarly neutral terms. Please do not edit war, I am sure that with a bit of reasoned debate a suitable compromise can be reached. It does not look to me as if there is any fundamental dispute as to the nature, cause and seriousness of the famine - you seem to me to be in violent agreement! Just zis Guy you know? 16:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's go sentence by sentence of what was erased. First you erased a commonly known term from the first paragraph. There is a long debate on this page by the people who refuse to accept it. However, the term passes the definition of a "common term" according to Wikipedia standards (please read WP:NC - "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Is this not neutral?). Second, you erased the sentence "The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities." It is referenced and seems neutral. Then you erased a referenced sentence "At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 (close to a quarter of a ton per each victim in each year).^[22]" Again, I don't see anything not neutral here, please correct. Then you deleted "The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas under the pretext that people travelling for food spread "anti-kolkhoz agitation"." Is this not neutral? If not, please explain why in detail. Then you erased two paragraphs: "The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people^[23]. The rationale behind the famine as well as the exact number of casualties is unknown because the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general." and "Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among them Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City. The fourth Saturday of November is the official day of commemoration of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine. Still the Holodomor remains a politically charged topic for many parties, especially in Russia. Some Russian authors continue claiming that the Holodomor was not an act of genocide but a "mere famine".^[24]" Both paragraphs are well supported by references. For instance, each country added to the list above was supported by a reference within edit comments. I can't find anything not neutral about this text. Again, my opinion could be subjective, so I need your explanation of why you deleted this material.--Andrew Alexander 02:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, one of the problems is with your attitude of throwing everything into the lead. This is your common approach dispayed in many articles. If you have a thing or two to add, you go straight to the intro to make your point said most voicefully. I've elaborated on this style of yours many times before, incluidng on this very page. That you persist with the discussion until you get a the result you want is nothing new either. I tried to talk to you many times in the past and so did others. Your tactic seem to drain everyone into tiredome by pestering and then claim that your points are "ignored" and launch a complaint against your opponents accusing them in conspiracy. Also, I recently reviewed the History of UA Britannica article that you used as a ref here. You subtly misrepresented what is said there when rewriting it for this article and I will get to editing that when I have time. More is said above and in the archives if the visitors to this page have time to read it all. I would very much appreciate the third party's neutral look. --Irpen 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not erase any particular sentences, I looked at two versions of the opening paragraph and took the view that one of them was stated in more neutral terms. Andrew's version gave the appearance of advocacy. Like I said, I make no judgment in respect of the factual accuracy or otherwise of the content, I just felt that Irpen's version represented a better starting point for building a consensus view since the purpose of this article is to document the facts, not to assert a particular political slant on them or to promote a particular agenda. Revert warring is ridiculous and sterile. Complaining on the Admin noticeboard when you don't get your way is similarly unproductive and amounts to WP:POINT - article content issues are best sorted by consensus, failing that there are various processes like mediation, article RfC, article improvement drive and so on. Andrew, you are right that your view of your own work may not be neutral. So, see if you and the other editors can now work together to include the verifiable facts in language which is as dispassionate as Irpen's that will be great. Just zis Guy you know? 09:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Just zis Guy you know, you did erase quite a few sentences by your edit. I asked you what was not neutral in those sentences. Instead of answering the question, you ask me to "be neutral". Would you like me to stay away from editing this article? I am ready to do this. I have added 90% of the facts to this article for the last half a year. You come in, erase, then lecture me on neutrality without answering simple questions. Have it your way. I am out.--Andrew Alexander 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Now go back and actually read what I wrote: I did not erase any specific sentences, I compared the tone of two versions of the introduction and I am of the strong opinion that Irpen's version, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of individual facts, is more encyclopaedic in tone: your version reads like advocacy. So Irpen's is a better version form which to build a great article. I have nothign against including verifiable facts (althjough I note that some of what you are trying to promote to the lead is actually stated lower down anyway), what I do not like is coming to an article and having the feeling right away that it is trying to recruit me to right some injustice. Just zis Guy you know? 08:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, this cheating of yours is appalling. Right after you said this above, you again reverted to non-encyclopedic intro. Moreover, you pasted there two pieces from the sections that followed (word for word) and added a ref (Bilinsky) which actually doesn't say what you claim. The Bilinsky's article is very interesting and I read it from top to bottom. While I think author makes several overstretched conclusions, this is a very serious study. However, while the author hints what Lemkin might have said (an unusual stretch in a serious academic work) you go one step further by putting in Lemkin mouth the thing that he didn't say (or at least it is not clear from the ref you added whether he said that). As such, your edit is a simple revert to the intro preferred by you but only worse because you pasted two pieces in the intro from further down in the article and made added a false statement not supported by your ref. The useful thing you did, was bringing up Lemkin an Bilinsky's work, but they don't belong to intro. What I think needs done, is adding the info on Lemkin and an extra ref to the "Was H a Genocide" section. Also, the revert wars mess up the numbering of the ref section. To address the problem created by your latest edit and the edit warring in general, three steps need to be taken.

1. Your another bad faith edit needs reverted.
2. refs need to be reformatted to the inline format where the numbers are generated automatically.
3. Ref to Bilinsky and info on Lemkin needs added to the appropriate section and the ref list.

Of these, I will do as much as I can today. I am asking others for help. This is a tedious work. Finally, I am glad you placed the note at WP:AN/I. it exposed the article and behavior of its participants to a wider audience. The responses it generated were what I would have expected. --Irpen 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you, whoever reopened the article. And thanks to the others for staying on the ball. The intro right now is really nice, I think. Everything in there, even references to the more controversial words. Maybe we can try to to leave the intro as it is now, though here and there flow COULD be slightly improved, and move on to the article? There is a lot of work that needs to be done there, lot's of sloppy wording and structural problems.Dietwald 09:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I went back to it. It states the case baldly, and is the more powerful for that: the reader is presented with the stark reality without the suspicion that somebody is trying to recruit them to a campaign. It is a very strong opening, in my view, and if the rest of the article can be brought up to that standard we could easily be looking at a featured article candidate - FAs are often thorough and scholarly treatments of subjects which are somewhat off the beaten track. Just zis Guy you know? 12:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TzG! I am very happy that the intro I rewrote gets such responses from several editors. Too bad Andrew Alexander keeps reverting it. I will try to address the problem again (see my entry above). I will need all the help I could get. Besides, the Cultural purge material is presented in a grossly POV way, but this I know how to handle now once I read the sources A. A. claims to have used. I will get to that in a due time. The useful thing is that I am also going to learn the inline refs that was a mumbo jumbo for me until today. --Irpen 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Material

This page is in dire need of drastic restructuring. It seems that much of the material within this article was merely plucked out from the sensationalistic "Black Book of Communism". This is supposed to be an independent online encyclopedia, not an outlet for imperialist propaganda.

"By the end of 1933, between five and ten million people had starved to death or had otherwise died unnaturally in Russia and Ukraine."

Pardon my skepticism, but where is the evidence for this alleged death toll? Are these merely outdated estimations from rabidly anti-Communist Westerners to the effect of Robert Conquest who wrote speeches for Margaret Thatcher? I thought there was a non-POV policy at this website.

RGAE files show that in Ukraine there was a total of 1.54 million excess deaths in 1932-1933. Source: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Keep in mind that the above data of births and deaths is a revision that occurred in 1934, one year after the famine.

According to RGAE 1562/329/107: (1933) 1933: Current registration of deaths in Ukraine: 1,309,000

According to RGAE 1562/329/108, 6 (mid-1934) 1933:Revised registration of deaths in Ukraine: 1,909,000

This is all derived from Davies and Wheatcroft's "Years of Hunger" in the final chapter.

"The exact number of the victims remains unknown; the Soviet Union long denied that the famine had ever existed, and the NKVD (and later KGB) archives on the Holodomor period have never been fully disclosed."

Why would the NKVD deal with agriculture and the the demographics of USSR? The purpose of this agency was to eliminate internal counter-revolutionary threats to the power of the Soviets. To repeat, RGAE archives show that there were 1.54 million excess deaths in Ukraine from 1932-1933.

"even the official Soviet statistics show a decrease of roughly four million people in the population of Ukraine between 1927 and 1932."

Now this here is a lie. If you'd take a look at the chart that I've linked, Ukraine's population went from 28.9 million in 1926 to 28.6 million in 1931 to 28.4 million in 1934 to 28.3 million in the 1937 census.

"Taking an estimate of natural population growth of one to two percent, the calculated loss of population in Ukraine was over ten million during these years."

This is inaccurate because Ukraine's population declined by about 50,000 annually even from the famine-free period of 1926-1931.

"The premeditation of the mass murder can also be judged from the official Soviet figures of grain exports. The USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 ([15]), almost a quarter of a ton in each year per each dead in the Holodomor."

Address this one: how could there have been a premeditation of mass murder in Ukraine when according to pg. 214 of "Years of Hunger" by Davies and Wheatcroft states that between Feb. and July 1933, no less than Politburo decisions and Sovnarkom decrees authorised 320,000 tons of grain for food to be issued to famine-stricken areas? Plus, it must be taken into perspective that the export of grains during 1932-1933 was a mere fraction of the level of previous years. The following manifests this fact: (exports of thousand tons of grain)

1930: 5832 1931: 4786 1932: 1441 1933: 2319

"The Soviet authorities made sure to prevent the starving Ukrainians from traveling to areas where food was more available."

Actually, the Soviet authorities made sure to assist starving Ukrainians as I showed in my above refutation.

Zvesda