Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 314: Line 314:


===== Comment by The Last Angry Man =====
===== Comment by The Last Angry Man =====
We use what the sources say, the article currently has both high and low end estimates in it, I do not see this as an issue in truth. But Conquests numbers are I believe the most reputable of all studies done on this issue. For those who say Conquest has changed his mind on estimates killed he has not, read Reflections on a ravaged century. [[User:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] ([[User talk:The Last Angry Man|talk]]) 21:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


===== Comment by Galassi =====
===== Comment by Galassi =====

Revision as of 21:15, 17 December 2011

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleHolodomor
StatusActive
Request date02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Requesting partyQwyrxian (talk)
Parties involvedPaul Siebert, Lothar von Richthofen, Igny, Volunteer Marek, Vecrumba, Greyhood, The Last Angry Man, Galassi, Lvivske, BesterRus
Mediator(s)User:Steven Zhang, User:Mr. Stradivarius, User:TransporterMan
CommentAccepting statements on issue two, victim estimates.
Status of mediation:
15%

Current status of the mediation: Discussing victim estimates.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

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

Who is involved?

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

What is the dispute?

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

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

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

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

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

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

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

Mediator notes

Notes by Steve Zhang

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

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

  • Great. Everyone is on board. I want you to all add this to your watchlist, as I will not be providing updates on talk pages anymore. After that, in the discussion section, I want you to each write a brief statement of no more than 250 words. I would like you to answer the following 4 questions.
  1. What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
  2. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
  3. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
  4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

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

  • We really need to get things moving. To do so, I'm going to do a few things. Firstly, I'm imposing a cut-off date for opening statements. Any party that hasn't entered an opening statement, but has been actively editing, by 00:00, 23 October 2011, will not be able to enter an opening statement. By not doing so, you risk being excluded from the mediation. If you wish for another party to act as your proxy, please advise us as soon as possible. I also need a list of current issues that need to be addressed in the mediation. After we have a list, we will go from there, but I think an agreement on what sources to generally use first may be advisable. Let's round out the opening statements first though. If there is some reason you are not able to enter an opening statement by this deadline, please let us know. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few comments to make as I think at this stage it is important to do so.
On the mediation in general: I am concerned that so many parties have negative thoughts at the chances of this mediation. After all, you all agreed to abide by the ground rules, which also required you all to acknowledge that compromise will be required. I also noted that these ground rules are not something to be agreed to lightly. I concur with the views of several editors here that drawn out, prolonged discussion will not be the best way to sort out the issues here. My colleagues and I are discussing ways we can mediate this dispute without walls of text. I also note the concerns of Volunteer Marek about the potential issues that will face these articles down the road. For what it's worth, I'm not planning on going anywhere anytime soon. If disputes re-arise in the future, it takes about 5 minutes to have an admin re-protect the article. I'm working on other things at present as well, but I think it would be wise for me to not show all my cards right off the bat. I don't think any of you have been in a dispute that I have mediated in the past, so I will let my various mediation techniques and methods be a surprise to all of you.
On behaviour: I am rather disappointed to see that poor behaviour has occurred. I'll remind you all that being on your best behaviour within the mediation but throwing mud at each other on article and user talk pages is unacceptable. Take note that the three of us are aware of what is happening elsewhere, but more importantly think for a minute about why we are here. Being snarky to each other does little to our chances here. Put aside what's happened in the past. Put aside your differences for a moment. Consider what you all have in common as opposed to what you disagree on. I don't expect you all to make major concessions from the get go, but at least have an open mind.
On TLAM and Igny's topic ban and exclusion: I personally see it as a bit of an issue that they cannot participate in the mediation, mainly because when one or both of their topic bans expire we will likely still be within mediation and have to backtrack. Topic bans in my opinion serve as a temporary bandaid as opposed to a long term solution, they really just kick the proverbial can down the road. That is my personal opinion anyways, but that has been explored and the deadline has past, so we will proceed without them.
On BesterRus's exclusion: The three of us mediators have looked over the comments of BesterRus over the last few days, the associated AE thread and the concerns that were listed here. It is highly unusual to exclude an editor from a mediation without an official topic ban being in place. This isn't something that we have done lightly, but we did discuss it and have decided that it is the appropriate action for us to take given the circumstances. Injecting oneself into a dispute upon joining Wikipedia is unusual but not prohibited, but the remarks that BesterRus made to certain editors as outlined at both Arbitration Enforcement and this thread at their talk page have lead us to decide that their participation here is not advisable. I note that this only applies to this talk page, issues elsewhere should be dealt with through regular channels. I stress that this is not something we decided lightly, but we have made that call.
On what next:' Over the next few days we will look over all the opening statements, from which we will draw up a list of issues and go through them one by one. We will advise of the next step when we've reviewed the opening statements, but it will likely be to gather a list of disputed sources and get decide on which to use and which not to. The method that this will be done I will keep secret for now, but it will not involve drawn out discussions, there's been too many of them in the past and I don't see it productive to repeat that process.
Stay tuned. I'll be moving opening statements to the talk page and making a few other changes. One of us will get the mediation up and running in the next day or so. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: The topic bans on TLAM and Igny has been modified to allow them to participate here. They are free to join in the discussions here provided they are civilised in doing so (which applies to you all). I'm reading over below discussions and will comment later. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Mr. Stradivarius

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

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

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

Let me apologise to all the editors involved for the slow progress on this mediation. I have a left open a good long stretch of time today to devote to updating the mediation page here, and I intend finalise a list of spokespersons, summarize the discussion from issue one, and start discussion of issue two. Now that the deadline for deciding spokespersons has passed, we should be able to get this mediation moving a lot more quickly. Watch this space. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by TransporterMan

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

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

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

Another example (a variation on the last one):

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

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

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

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

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

Ground rules

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

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

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

Mediation Agenda

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

[1%] Garner party agreement to ground rules.  Done
[5%] Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation.  Done
[10%] Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing.  Done
[15%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, image use. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  Done
[22%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, victim estimates. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.  In progress
[28%] Initiate discussion on the third issue, sources. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[35%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue, Conquest's position. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[43%] Initiate discussion on the fifth issue, relief. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[50%] Initiate discussion on the sixth issue, classification within the Great Soviet Famine. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[57%] Initiate discussion on the seventh issue, ethnicity. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[63%] Initiate discussion on the eighth issue, "man-made". We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[70%] Initiate discussion on the ninth issue, Soviet intent. We will discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[78%] Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing.
[85%] Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required.
[90%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future
[95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.
[100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.

List of issues

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

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

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

Spokespeople

  • Discussion has been relatively slow as of recent, and I think it may be due to the amount of parties in the dispute. I think in this situation we will take a leaf out of the Mediation Committee's book, and use spokespersons. Basically how this works, two, three or four editors are appointed by the rest of the editors as spokespersons for their collective viewpoints. This spokesperson should be the only one who presents the views of the collective people he/she represents. I'm going to ask each of you to consider nominating a spokesperson, or who you would like to represent your viewpoints, and if you do not wish to do this, to provide an explanation and a commitment to remain active throughout the mediation case. We're still on the first issue and need to crank things up a gear. So, below, list your username, who you wish to appoint as a spokesperson (or if you wish to be this spokesperson). If you opt not to appoint a spokesperson, we need a commitment that you will remain active throughout the case. Thanks. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spokespeople list

Discussion on spokespeople is here
There are no teams and captains here. Or at least, I am not a member of any team.Biophys (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Biophys.

    @Paul Siebert, in debate, each team chooses its own captain; while surely a sign of respect, nominating a captain for another team is poor form. Unless, of course, I've misunderstood and you consent to Volunteer Marek speaking for you in your absence—perhaps while you and other editors are embroiled at the AE you opened in a related topic area after this mediation was already underway, redirecting and disrupting focus by editors here.

    It might be appropriate to suspend this mediation until the aforementioned AE request is closed so editors can give matters here the appropriate attention they deserve.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to suspend, any blocks given out to PS will be one week at most, if longer perhaps he can post on his talk page and we can copy his comments to here? I think the issues with the image usage is resolved and perhaps we might move on? The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peters, I do not think we can speak about two strictly outlined distinct camps here, so any attempt to speak in terms of opposing parties are hardly productive. I nominated a person who, in my opinion, is able to express the opinion of a significant portion of participants, and will do that in polite and non-combative manner. I do not see why cannot I do that.
With regard to myself, I believe I will be able to express my own opinion directly, although, since I expect that during next few months I probably will not be able to continuously monitor this discussion, I authorise Greyhood to speak on behalf of me during the periods of my inactivity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, I in turn authorise Paul Siebert to speak on behalf of me in case I'm inactive for some period. I also do think, that there are no strictly distinct camps, and there are certain common points between the supposedly opponent editors, or at least we will be able to find such points in many cases. GreyHood Talk 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to speak for myself but in case of absence I feel that Lothar or Marek could pinch hit.--Львівське (говорити) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer to speak for myself or be silent. While I think that there are some contours of "opposing sides" here (so Vecrumba is not too far off), I expect that on some particular issues there might be "within side" disagreement as well "across sides" agreement. Basically, I don't know yet whom I will agree or disagree with on what. I do think that if need be I can reasonably explain the position of other parties and even defend these positions in cases where I happen to personally take a different views. However, I also think that in cases of temporary absence, such as due to some AE nonsense, the option of allowing the person to post to their talk page and copying the statements here would be far more preferable. Volunteer Marek  22:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the speed of progress here, I think the first issue has been reasonably well addressed and mostly resolved and I suggest we move on to the next one. Volunteer Marek  22:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So me and Paul authorized each other, and the ever-retired Biophys authorized TLAM. I think the need for the other participants to authorize specific spokespeople to speak on their part in this mediation is quite clear by now. We have 12 participants on the list, and if we wait for each one to voice his opinion on every issue, the process will take ages, literally. Volunteer Marek is an obvious candidate indeed, so I'd propose the less active participants of the discussion to authorize him or someone else as a spokesperson. If a spokesperson makes statements contradicting the position of the editors who authorized him, they always can come and express their position on their own. I believe we need no more than 4-5 (spokes)persons to lead the discussion and to be waited for, otherwise this will turn into quagmire. GreyHood Talk 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VM gets my backing. Biophys would have been a possibility as well, but.... yeah. I can't shake the sinking feeling that we will see more such losses in the future. Igny seems to have dropped off the face of teh internetz, Biophys has withdrawn as well for the time being, and TLAM is once again embroiled in arbitration proceedings. The modification of the topic-ban for Igny and TLAM seems to have sadly been of little use.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so Lothar authorized VM, and me and Paull authorized each other. I'd propose not only to sent all other involved participants a remind notice, as Steven Zhang proposes, but specifically request them by those notices to choose spokespeople (who will present those other participants' position in their absence), or leave the discussion otherwise. Some reasonable deadline for choosing spokespeople would be nice, I'd propose the 1 December. GreyHood Talk 13:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I get busy (and that has suddenly become quite likely), I am comfortable with Volunteer Marek's editorial position on the matter at any point where a decision is required if I am unavailable. In the meantime, I'm going to update my WP email to another account which I check more frequently than I have a chance with my personal Email should my input be of particular benefit. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhood, that seems like a reasonable timeframe. But the idea of spokespeople is to reduce the amount of participants, so party X appointing Y as their spokesperson and party Y appointing party X as their spokesperson really accomplishes little. I'll send out notifications today and we will go from there. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case of the active enough participants, like me and Paul, who are going to watch the discussion closely and post frequently enough for the most time, the mutual authorization it is just a provision for the future in case some of us will be absent for a long period (vacation etc.). I hope in such a case one person we'll notify the other. GreyHood Talk 01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm I didn't think of it in that context. I more saw it as "I'll talk for Paul's pov and he will talk for mine", which, on reflection, was pretty dumb. Your explanation makes much more sense. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like we will have to proceed this way, as discussion is becoming too slow. All other parties apart from those listed in this section are excluded from the mediation, until such time they are able to fully participate, and must approach us and request to participate. As for the discussion on commons, I think that leaving it there may be a bit of a mistake, as English Wikipedia != Commons. Will mull over that for a while. I agree that for now we should move on to the second issue, which is "How to portray the estimates for the numbers of Holodomor victims made by various historians." Thus, I'm collapsing the section on issue 1 for the time being, and we will move on to section 2. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately there have been somewhat related discussions at other controversies. Hopefully we can get things back on track here at steady, albeit slow, pace. I do agree we need to move on to more substantive article content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 07:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By spokesperson
By user

Please feel free to update this list if there are any changes. 07:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes

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

Discussion

Opening statements

Issue 1 - Image Use

I have reviewed all of the discussion on issue one, and I have drawn up a list of conclusions, which are based heavily, and in part copied completely, from the list Greyhood posted in the discussion. Some of these points seem uncontroversial, but some haven't been confirmed by all of the spokespersons yet. In particular, I would like to hear the opinion of The Last Angry Man, who has not yet commented on the details of these conclusions, and also of Volunteer Marek, who seemed to be in favour of them (but I want to be doubly sure before moving on). I am assuming that Greyhood and Paul Siebert are in favour, due to their comments in the discussion. All of the other users have either approved one of these users as their spokesperson, or seem to be inactive; however, comments by all mediation participants are welcome. Here are the conclusions:

  1. Photographs claiming to be from the Holodomor should be proven to be authentic by third-party, reliable sources. We shouldn't use photos whose authenticity is disputed by reliable sources, and we also should use photos that appear in reliable sources that illustrate different events (such as the Russian famine of 1921).
  2. We should leave the final decision of whether to keep the current lead image to commons, where it is undergoing copyright investigation.
  3. The captions of authentic photographs should include the available information on the author of the image or the original source, such as from the collection of Cardinal Theodor Innitzer. They should also reflect the descriptions of those photos in reliable sources as much as possible.
  4. Some of the photographs in the mediation could have problematic copyright status, particularly due to the lack of freedom of panorama in Ukraine and in the US. These matters should be taken up at commons, however, rather than in the mediation.
  5. Hoax photographs are a notable part of Holodomor historiography, and could usefully be included in Holodomor articles. However, they should be placed in a special "hoax photographs" section (or similar) so as not to confuse the reader, and the captions should clearly label the hoax photographs as hoaxes, in a straight, neutral, and accurate way.
  6. The fact that there are very few authentic photographs of the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine should be mentioned in all the main articles related to the Holodomor (Holodomor, Holodomor genocide question, Holodomor denial, etc.). The sets of photographs which are considered authentic should be outlined, along with when and how they were created and published. The fact that there were multiple cases of misuse of photographs in Holodomor-related publications, exhibitions etc. should be mentioned in all the main articles related to the subject. Depending on the character and scope of the particular article, the image-related questions might require from several paragraphs to a separate section.

Please let me know if you support these points, and if all the spokespersons are in agreement then we can move on to issue two. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response:
  1. Of course, this is just basic Wikipedia policy.
  2. Mmmm, not quite. There's a good bit of fishy stuff going on Commons as we speak. I think it would be fine to keep the current photo if it's possible regardless of what happens on commons, maybe by uploading it to English wikipedia itself. There really is no serious copyright concerns with regard to the image (the person who is arguing otherwise cannot make up their mind as to whether the image is a "fake from 1921" or a "copyvio from 1933" and is basically trying to argue both sides simultaneously just to get it deleted). We should ignore that noise and decide for ourselves - which I though we already did.
  3. Again, this is just basic Wikipedia policy.
  4. This concerns the alternative images proposed, the "monuments". In this instance the proposal is correct.
  5. This is essentially right. I do have some worries about how it's done, because I've seen this kind of thing abused before, but as long as this is done in a responsible, source-reflecting, manner (and I totally trust Paul and Greyhood to do it) then that's fine.
  6. Yes.
Ok, but honestly, I'm experiencing a bit of a burn out in regards to this question. Additionally, winter break is coming up and that means I'll have less time to devote to this process. So we *really* should get things moving along and go on to the other questions. Volunteer Marek  08:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can totally understand the burnout. I can appreciate that everyone wants to move on to the next issue, but then again, I don't think we can simply ignore the investigation over at Commons. If we simply upload the image here instead, then it will only lead to another copyright investigation over here, and I'm not sure that admins would look too favourably on that. How about this as a compromise: we move on to the next issue, but we keep an eye on the Commons discussion. If the image is kept, then no action by us is necessary. If it is deleted, then we discuss what to do on the article talk page, taking it to an RfC if necessary. How does that sound to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that sounds reasonable. But let's keep in mind that commons is commons and en-wiki is en-wiki and they are two different things. A bad decision on one - or the other - does not necessitate a replication of this bad decision on the other - or the original one. Volunteer Marek  10:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. I'll wait for confirmation from the others, and if all is well, I'll start the discussion on issue two. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed in case there would be no uploading and inserting the image to the article (if it is deleted from Commons) without pre-discussion and RfC. I want to add right now, though, that as far as I know it seems to be general practice that all free images on all wikies are to be copied to commons eventually, and only fair use images from a particular wikiproject don't go to Commons. So, either it should be proven that the image is free and has place both on Commons and on en-wiki, or there should be some strong reasoning for fair use. GreyHood Talk 21:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone - sorry to keep you waiting still. This is just to say that we are waiting for comment by The Last Angry Man before we move on to issue two. I've left a note on his talk page, and I think I will set a deadline of 00:00 Thursday 15th December (UTC) - one week after I posted the original list of conclusions asking that he comment - before we move on without him. Hopefully he will be satisfied with the current spokespeople even if we move on without input from him, but he is of course welcome to drop by and comment at any time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to chime in here, I've been relatively inactive as of late, but hope to contribute more once we get onto issue two. As for the issue of uploading the image locally as opposed to commons, or citing the image as fair use, we would still need to know the original source of the image and publication date to be able to upload it, so it doesn't really solve the primary issue we have here. But for now, we need to kick things up a few gears, so we will leave it for now and move on to issue two. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more quick comment on image(s) - while this particular image is subject (somewhat) of dispute, there are other images which are not controversial and whose authenticity is beyond doubt. Some of them are here [1], but there are also other ones from the Weinberger book which could be used. Yet, the Holodomor article does not include any of these, and the "associated articles" don't either. Can some of these images (for example [2] or [3]) be added? Volunteer Marek  14:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the most convincing pair of images and looking very similar, but I'm mostly neutral on the question of addition of one of them. Thanks for removing the images with controversial captions from related articles, by the way. GreyHood Talk 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Angry Man still hasn't got back to us after a week, so I've moved the discussion on to issue two, victim estimates. I'd be very grateful if you could all leave a statement in the appropriate section below. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 2 - victim estimates

The time has finally come - we are moving on to issue two. My apologies about the (ahem) minor delay. So, without any further ado, I would like each of you to provide a statement on issue two, which is:

  • How to portray the estimates for the numbers of Holodomor victims made by various historians.

Please let us know your opinion on this issue, and what you think we should address in the mediation; also, please keep your statement within 200 words. I will leave a reasonable amount of time for participants to leave statements, no longer than [until] 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC), after which we will proceed with the issue two discussion. I'll be looking forward to reading what you all have to say. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - as the posting of statements has been relatively slow thus far, I will update the deadline very slightly. We will be accepting statements until 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC), or until all the spokespersons have commented. As of this writing, Volunteer Marek is the only remaining spokesperson left to comment before this second criterion is fulfilled. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Paul Siebert

Whereas I support all what Fifelfoo wrote, my post is more concrete. We need to come to an agreement about the sources we will use. Firstly, I suggest to make a stress on the sources published after the "archival revolution" (1991), when most formerly classified Soviet archival documents became available. The earlier works provided both exaggerated (Rummel, early Conquest) of understated (Anderson and Silver) figures, and should be discussed in the section devoted to the history of our knowledge about Holodomor/Soviet famine (a section I suggest to write later). Secondly, the modern sources can be separated onto two types: (i) the articles/books authored by scholars who did their own archival research of the demographic consequences of collectivisation/famine, and (ii) the books that rely upon the data obtained by others. I propose to use type (i) sources. The exhaustive (or almost exhaustive) list of Western scholars who do their own studies of demography of the Soviet famine (1932-33) have been provided by Rosefielde in his article "Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s" Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987. They are:

  1. Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov
  2. Wheatcroft
  3. Conquest
  4. Ellman
  5. Nove

Those authors (along with Rosefielde himself) have done their own studies, based on archival data and the original works of Russian and Ukrainian scholars. Others just use the figures provided by these six authors (or uncritically cite outdated works published before prerstroika), so they should be considered as tertiary sources per our policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lothar von Richthofen
Comment by Igny
Comment by Volunteer Marek
Comment by Vecrumba
Comment by Greyhood
Comment by The Last Angry Man

We use what the sources say, the article currently has both high and low end estimates in it, I do not see this as an issue in truth. But Conquests numbers are I believe the most reputable of all studies done on this issue. For those who say Conquest has changed his mind on estimates killed he has not, read Reflections on a ravaged century. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Galassi
Comment by Lvivske
Comment by Biophys
Comment by Ljudyna
Comment by Fifelfoo

Scholarly articles and books in scholarly presses that are historiographical or field reviews should be used to weight and order the presentation of views in terms of field acceptance. Within this, estimates that are attributed in the scholarly literature ought to be presented. Notable FRINGE theories, including official claims by involved State apparatus should be presented late in the article, or appropriate section, with attribution and clarification of context derived preferentially from field reviews, or where field reviews are unavailable, from other scholarly works. In particular, the analytical and typological schema of the scholars should be preserved and explained, this may not necessarily be found in the same location as the figure, but may be contained in the introduction or first few chapters (that serve an equivalent purpose in history to the "methodology" section of more instrumentalist social science). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/02_October_2011/Holodomor&oldid=466400040"