Talk:Holodomor

Golodomor

Hi there! As Bulgarian (Slavic language) I wonder why is голодомор transliterated in English like holodomor, when golodomor is the correct transliteration?... --Stalik (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - as a Ukrainian (Slavic language) I can answer your question - the "г" in 'голод' is an H sound, while the G sound is made by the letter "ґ". As you notice, there is a little vertical stem on the G letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.50.163.103 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. golod and holod are both mentioned here:

Graziosi, Andrea (2004–2005). "The Soviet 1931–1933 Famines and the Ukrainian Holodomor...". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 27 (1–4): 97–115. JSTOR 41036863.

But I've no idea why we use golod instead of holod in English. ColaXtra (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian Г is pronounced more or less like English "H". If it was "Golodomor", it would be spelled with Ґ. See WP:UKR for how we transliterate Ukrainian on Wikipedia. While "G" may be correct for other Slavic languages, it is incorrect for Ukrainian. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say, it is pronounced more or less as German "H". An equivalent of English "H" is Ukrainian "X". One way or the another, "Holodomor" is much more common transliteration in English literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a certain Prince of Denmark might disagree [1] [2] ;) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about transliteration from Ukrainian to English, not from English to Russian or Ukrainian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation is GH as in BaGHdad.--Galassi (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're a typical English speaker, "Baghdad" is pronounced "Bag-dad" (with a hard "g"), so that's a poor example. The sound is a voiced glottal fricative /ɦ/, which has no direct equivalent in most forms of English. English "H" is a voiceless glottal fricative /h/, while Ukrainian Х is a voiceless velar fricative /x/. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but, whereas English "H" is voiceless, Ukrainian "Г" is voiced.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. I didn't say it was an exact equivalent, but it's the same place of articulation. "Murmured H" is a common description for the sound. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussion is about transliteration, not pronunciation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The standard is H, in that case.--Galassi (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Therefore, the dispute is of pure theoretical interest.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

See "Competition Among Victims: Constructing a "Ukrainian Holocaust"" on p. 119-121.[3] The term was introduced into English because it sounds like "Holocaust", which would not be the case if it were spelled with a "g". Most writers refer to it as the Ukrainian Famine. TFD (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And the fact that, y'know, "g" is the wrong transliteration for Ukrainian Г. Unless all scholarly and scientific transliteration systems were constructed for the secret purpose of enforcing the Holodomor—Holocaust connection. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. I cannot agree that "g" is wrong. Ukrainian Г is in the middle between "g" and "h", and both transliterations are wrong. By the way, for, example, Galicia is frequently transliterated with "G". However, again, these considerations are of academic interest only, because Holodomor is more abundant then Golodomor. However, to my big surprise, "Golodomor" is found more frequently in literature, then I expected, so I propose to change the first sentence as follows:

"The Holodomor (or Golodomor) (Ukrainian: Голодомор, 'Морити голодом', literal translation Killing by hunger)"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I am speaking of correctness in terms of mainstream transliteration systems of Ukrainian. The transliteration of Ukrainian Г as "g" is an improper russification—people (like the OP) see Г and automatically assume it is like other Cyrillic versions of the letter. In fact, the sound underwent similar changes as in Czech and Slovak (to a lesser degree Belarusian) by which the notoriously unstable root Slavic *g sound weakened into a murmured-h sound. The sound can thus be viewed as between /g/ (a voiced velar stop) and /h/ (voiceless glottal fricative), but is closer to the latter in its place and manner of articulation, sharing only voicedness with /g/—and the transliteration systems reflect this in their orthographies.

Galicia is transliterated as such for the same reason that we have Kiev and not Kyiv—an overwhelming preponderance of sources using the an older transliteration based in Russian or German. Such is not the case here.

"Golodomor" should not be put in the first line of text. If anything, it can be made a footnote that describes it as a substandard variant of the transliteration using Russian standards for a Ukrainian word. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, your Gscholar results are (as usual) problematic. A number of them are Russian, some look to be flawed machine-transliterations and are just citations. If we look at one of the results (Serbyn), we see on p. 182 ""The question whether the Ukrainian Golodomor [sic!] was a genocide..."" (emphasis mine). Clearly, Serbyn regards it as an inferior and improper transliteration. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, I respected you for your polite and balanced posts, and I would like you not to disappoint me. There have been no problem with my gscholar searches before (the problems were with those few users who preferred to ignore them). With regard to this concrete search, I didn't analyse it, because I didn't think the issue deserved serious attention. I just noticed that, in contrast to my expectations, "Golodomor" appeared to be much more abundant. If most of those results are of poor quality, forget about that. However, try to remain reasonable and polite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't intending to be rude. Just pointing out that there is always more to Gscholar results numbers than meets the eye, which I think is a reasonable statement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Let me point out, however, that I did analyze my previous gscholar search results for adequateness of the key word choice. In contrast to this concrete case, there were no mistakes in my previous search results. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This source[4] states that "golodomor" is the Russian word for "holodomor", which in turn is derived from the Ukrainian word holod (hunger) and mor (death, plague). --Nug (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian "golod" and Russian "mor" are complete equivalents of Ukrainian "holod" and "mor", therefore, it is not more a translation then Russian "паровоз" is a translation of Ukrainian "паровоз".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that the novel construction "holodomor" was originally Ukrainian and was then borrowed directly into Russian with Russified pronunciation, regardless of the fact that the constituent words are cognate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On "man made" again and again

According to the new introduction, "The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, "Extermination by hunger"; 'Морити голодом', hunger-extermination) was a man-made famine." One more time some historians (Wheatcroft, Davies, Tauger) have criticized the characterization of Holodomor as "man made" (quotations here). Moreover, this term is never used by the historians who reject the genocidal interpretation (Terry Martin, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Viktor Kondrashin etc.). The "man made" term must be characterized as a particular POV to respect the neutrality of Wp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.244.106 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Its man-made attribution is a fact accepted by all sides and all historians. --Львівське (говорити) 23:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT a fact accepted by all sides and all historians. just read the texts of Wheatcroft, Davies and Tauger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.210.172 (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is pointless- this article is controlled by fanatical West-Ukranian nationalists who ignore reality in favor of their constructed national mythos. I am Ukrainian and even most Ukrainians do not recognize this as genocide, because we are educated people who actually know and understand history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.2.49.171 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC) A conspiracy? West-Ukrainian nationalists? Why not by aliens? And please, stop talking on behave of Ukrainian people. The fact you are Ukrainian don't grant you a right to deny Holodomor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.139.113 (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the term "man-made" correctly, it does not imply intentionality. It simply means the famine was a result of human actions (as contrast to the FAD famine as a result of food shortage due to some purely natural factors). Were collectivisation and food requisitions a cause of the famine? Of course, they were, because without them, the death toll would be sufficiently lower. Therefore, although I initially objected to this term, I currently support it (despite the fact that I still see no evidences that majority view is that the famine was deliberately organized to kill Ukrainians).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The book "Years of Hunger" shows that the primary cause of the famine was a poor harvest caused by very poor weather for 2 years beforehand- thus, it is not man made- perhaps man-accentuated, and man-made-worse, but not "man-made" per se. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.108.53 (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish you truly believe what you say. Otherwise I cannot understand how one could deny the crime caused the death of millions people. --DixonD (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Typical empty drivel. There is literally not a single scrap of evidence to suggest Stalin or any of the other Soviet leadership "planned" the "genocide" of the Ukrainians- it is total propaganda without any basis in fact. 125.167.108.53 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda would be denying it and pretending the same "famine" occurred in the rest of the USSR. Propaganda would be sending troops in to requisition all food in general, kill civilians, and then blame it on the weather. That's propaganda.--Львівське (говорити) 21:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say, to claim there were no similar famine in the rest of the USSR is nationalistic propaganda.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Pre-planned" is not a prerequisite for "man-made." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That is correct: famine that was a result of human economic activity (deforestation, overtaxing, etc) is also considered "man-made". The term "man-made" does not imply intentionality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also intent, for example, the emtpying of cupboards at gunpoint leaving no foodstuffs and then preventing the population so assaulted to seek food elsewhere. Let us not purport this famine was simply some calamity of nature poorly dealt with. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I meant "does not necessarily imply intentionality".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder - Bloodlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.76.165 (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If "man-made" only requires human activity as a justification, all famines deserve the rubric, since everyone behaves and all behaviour has ramifications in the environment. Notice also that capitalism and its pseudo-variants create a permanent famine by expropriating surpluses of everything. Use these criteria and Stalin and his regime are no different to any other state-controlling group.Keith-264 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Read answer to your question here :http://www.massviolence.org/The-1932-1933-Great-Famine-in-Ukraine?artpage=1-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.154.35.234 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is a parody of historical analysis. As already pointed out, it's is controlled by fanatics who are determined to preserve the victim status of the Ukrainians vis-a-vis the Russians, and especially the "Jewish-Bolshevik hordes" of the USSR (Nazi terminology deliberately used, of course, as we are after all dealing with the descendants of collaborators). When large numbers of people tragically die due to famine and civil war in capitalist or western-backed countries, the issue is either ignored or blamed on the weather (or, worse yet, the "primitive" nature of the country in question). But when it happens in a country orientated around socialism, or some other thing the west finds objectionable, it is elevated to the status of a genocide, gets its own memorial day in Europe, and the inevitably absurd wiki page presents contested issues as iron clad facts. Personally I'm looking forward to the page that discusses the genocide of Koreans, Viet, or Natives perpetrated by the US (I won't hold my breath). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.111.179 (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_genocide . I fail to see what your comment has to do with the man made question, really. I'm also fairly interested in what definition of genocide you're using. It appears to either contain "wars in which civilians were targeted" (which is terrible, of course, but not genocide) or possibly "sending a country billions of dollars of food aid, even though you're technically at war with them.", neither of which is a generally accepted definition of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.152.98 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My grandfather died fighting Nazis when he was 20, so I have never met him. My

grandmother told me how she survived Holodomor in the 30s in the Don area by eating field mice. She sincerely believed Stalin was not responsible (only some local officials were blamed) and she cried when Stalin died in 1953. She did not know that Stalin knew what was going on from Sholokhov's letters to Stalin. People who understood what was going on became "collaborators" as you put it, but I don't blame them because Stalinism was just as bad as Nazism, except that people were not aware when taking up arms against Stalin. The hunger was a mass event in Ukraine and adjacent southern Russia, which offered most resistance to Bolsheviks. This area is culturally very different from the rest of the former Russian Empire, and never experienced slavery like other parts of Russian empire, so people resisted Kolkhoz slavery the most, and that's why they were killed. Stalin explicitly called Holodomor "the war of attrition" ("Война на Измор") in his response to Sholokhov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.255.146 (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be confusing two very different issues: was the famine man made and was it genocide? I think it is pretty clear from all the evidence that it was man made; i.e. it was the result of actions of the Soviet state, and indeed it was predictable that it would lead to mass death. But as the famine also occurred in non-Ukrainian areas, I would think prima facia that the case for calling it genocide is weak; it was a Communist atrocity against peasants in general, not Ukrainians in particular. Whatever your views on those two issues, it would assist discussion if people kept the two issues separate. cwmacdougall 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not Ukrainian, but I do think it was a genocide that targeted several groups. The fact that Ukrainians were not alone does not make it a non-genocide.72.74.255.146 (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It would only be genocide if they were targeted because they were Ukrainian. If they were victims because they were peasants, along with peasants of other nationalities, then it would be a different crime. But in any case, this issue should be separated from the issue of whether or not it was "man-made"... cwmacdougall 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's technically not "genocide" only because killing off classes of people didn't make it into the final "official" definition. Current scholarship has relaxed on such artificial distinctions as long as a target population is clearly identifiable. Ukraine and the Ukrainians were clearly targeted as defined by the boundaries enforced to prevent escape from the primary famine area. It's a bit disingenuous to argue that because victims were not 100% limited to Ukrainians, "genocide" does not apply.

As for man made, you can't argue it wasn't man made when family homes were raided, all their foodstuffs removed from their shelves and cellars, and families were left to starve. This is, of course, beyond the confiscation of grain, including for seeding the following season's crops. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it could be called "classicide" or "peasanticide", and certainly it was manmade, but I don't think the English language has changed to include non-ethnic based mass murder in "genocide", nor should it. cwmacdougall 2:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I came to the talk page after noticing the 'man made' line at the very beginning of the article. I know little about this event (which is why I came to the page), and have no opinion on whether it was 'genocide' or 'intentional'. I do, however, have a problem with using the the phrase 'man made', particularly as a simple factual assertion right at the beginning of the article. The nature of the event, and its causes, can and should be dealt with within the article - there is no need to make an assertion right up front. The term 'man made', in this context, would seem to, in any event, have no clear, common academic meaning (we could , of course, outline what is meant, but that is the purpose of the article.) I tend to think that, if by 'man-made famine' we mean a famine that would not have occurred if people had acted differently, then most famines are 'man made'. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think "man-made" would indicate the likely and predictable result of policies, whether it was intended or not, as opposed to the accidental result of misguided policies; it is negligence rather than just oversight. I believe the evidence supports that description (but not "genocide") and thus it is reasonable to have it in the opening summary. cwmacdougall 8:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are millions of people who starve to death around the world every year. This is a "likely and predictable result" of, for example, world governments not giving a high priority to preventing these deaths and devoting sufficient resources to the problem. If different policies were in place, these deaths would not occur - does this mean it is 'man made'? - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Main image

It seems unfortunate that the image in this article's lead section can't be one that effectively communicates the immense scale of the Holodomor, as is communicated by the main image in our article on The Holocaust. I've occasionally seen Holodomor photographs of starved bodies stacked like logs, or of platoons of Soviet troops seizing food supplies from peasants. Would that type of image be preferable for this article, or are there none available under the correct license? --Mors Martell (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The two images used for this article come from very unreliable sources and it is highly doubtful that they are representative of the alleged atrocities. See the chapter titled "Famine Photographs: Which Famine?" in Douglas Tottle's "Fraud, Famine and Fascism". So I propose that they be removed. -- Shilbhadra (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone out there thinks Douglas Tottle's book is reliable? How funny. Tottle's book is as objective and reliable as propaganda published in the USSR, or Holocaust revisionism.Faustian (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There should be a FAQ required to read before making talk page requests like this.--Львівське (говорити) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If Hearst Press press propaganda and Yellow journalism can be considered a reliable source why not Douglas Tottle's book? I have failed to find any responsible authority which has validated these photographs as authentic Holodomor photographs. Shilbhadra (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Because, from what I recollect, it has no scholarly basis.--Львівське (говорити) 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Inevitably Tottle won't be popular here as he completely demolishes the complete trash represented on this wiki page. And before any one insults the victims of the Jewish Holocaust by comparing his book to neo-Nazi revisionists, it should be noted that the crimes of the Nazis are extremely well documented, whereas the claims made on this page tend only to be supported by anti-Communist hacks and ultra-right Ukrainian nationalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.111.179 (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Tottle is not just unpopular, but also unacceptable as a source. He was a trade unionist not an academic and his book was published by a Communist propaganda house, clearly biased. cwmacdougall 13:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

To anon IP, clearing out cupboards and food storage cellars leaving families with no food to eat, at all, is completely documented and has nothing to do with anti-communist hacks or any other labels you wish to toss around. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfair deletion of ten sources, including hiding known facts about the famine.

My ten sources (and two paragraphs) were deleted without any justification. (Instead, personal attacks were used towards me.)

Since my post explained both views, & did so with nine sources (5 for the theory that the famine was purposeful, & 4 for the theory that it was accidental,) this was especially unfair.

IMO the deletion reveals the political bias of the group guarding this page: to only show one side of the events, & therefore hiding well-sourced basic information that explains how five other grain producing areas also suffered from crop failure & deaths- not just the Ukraine.

(I provided three sources for that claim.)

It appears that those guarding this page don't want people to know this famine affected many areas because they're (in a one-sided way) actively promoting the theory that the famine was created to hurt the Ukraine, purposefully.

As I said before, to understand the Holodomor event you must understand the areas involved in the famine.

Rediscoverer2 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

what are your claims and sources? this article is under heavy watch and if you want to put something in that bucks scholarly consensus, you'll have a hard time. --Львівське (говорити) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

> what are your claims and sources?

My sources:

^ Engerman, David. [Modernization from the Other Shore.](http://books.google.com/books?id=UkFlO7hoxOMC&pg=PA194&dq)

^ ["Famine on the South Siberia".](http://www.philosophy.nsc.ru/journals/humscience/2_98/15-MAL.HTM)

^ ["Demographic aftermath of the famine in Kazakhstan".](http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2003/0101/analit02.php)

^ С. Уиткрофт (Stephen G. Wheatcroft), "О демографических свидетельствах трагедии советской деревни в 1931—1933 гг." (On demographic evidence of the tragedy of the Soviet village in 1931-1833), "Трагедия советской деревни: Коллективизация и раскулачивание 1927-1939 гг.: Документы и материалы. Том 3. Конец 1930-1933 гг.", Российская политическая энциклопедия, 2001, ISBN 5-8243-0225-1, с. 885, Приложение № 2

^ http://web.archive.org/web/20030429084514/http://www.unimelb.edu.au/ExtRels/Media/UN/archive/1998/319/stalinismwasacollective.html 'Stalinism' was a collective responsibility - Kremlin papers], The News in Brief, University of Melbourne, June 19, 1998, Vol 7 No 22

^ a b c d e f Dr. David Marples, "The great famine debate goes on..", ExpressNews (University of Alberta), originally published in Edmonton Journal, November 30, 2005

^ a b c d e f Stanislav Kulchytsky, "Holodomor of 1932–1933 as genocide: the gaps in the proof", Den, February 17, 2007.

^ a b c Finn, Peter (27 April 2008). ["Aftermath of a Soviet Famine".](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042602039.html) WashingtonPost.com. Retrieved 21 July 2012. "There are no exact figures on how many died. Modern historians place the number between 2.5 million and 3.5 million. Yushchenko and others have said at least 10 million were killed."

My two paragraphs, [as seen here](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&oldid=532260552) are:

The Soviet famine of 1932–1933 affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union including Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region and Kazakhstan,[3] the South Urals, and West Siberia.[4][5] This famine lead to the deaths of millions in those areas and severe food insecurity throughout the USSR. The subset of the famine within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is called Holodomor.

The causes of the Holodomor are a subject of scholarly and political debate. Some historians theorize that the famine was an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization.[6][7][8][9] Others claim that the Soviet policies that caused the famine were an engineered attack on Ukrainian nationalism, or more broadly, on all peasants, in order to prevent uprisings. Some suggest that the famine may fall under the legal definition of genocide.[10][8][9][11][12]

Rediscoverer2 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The information you included better fits within the article body rather than lead and the way it was included promotes a particular point of view.Faustian (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing, this was my take as well. It crowded the lead section and was formatted poorly; some best fit in the body (or is already included in some capacity) and the other read like a POV push.--Львівське (говорити) 21:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

> Pov push

Was it the first paragraph (listing of countries affected) that was a POV push? We both know that is not true. Or, do you think it the second paragraph? (explaining both theories with many sources.) Obviously that wasn't POV either.

What's pushing a POV is the way the wiki is currently written (hiding known facts.)

Rediscoverer2 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea of the Holodomor being merely a subset of the larger Soviet Famine is a particular POV; the way you tried to write the lead makes it seem like the POV. You listed the subset theory first, in the lede. An analogy would be to edit the article about The Holocaust placing in the lede a statement about the context of Nazis killing all sorts of people (Poles, gypsies, Soviet POWs), them listing all the non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, and finally listing the Jewish victims. Even if this were done with sourced statement, it wouldn't be the right thing to do, and someone reverting such statements wouldn't simply be "hiding known facts." Also, perhaps you are not aware, but using "the Ukraine" (rather than Ukraine) as you did in the edit summary is considered offensive to some Ukrainians, which probably colors how your edits were perceived.Faustian (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea to draw strong parallelisms between Holodomor and the Holocaust is also a POV, and this POV is minority view. Regarding "the", read this: both "the Ukraine" and "Ukraine" is acceptable. Interestingly, why did you decide that Ukraine can modify the rules of English language? That reminds me of the story about "in/on Ukraine" in Russian: as far as I know, the Russian usually say "on Ukraine", but "in Russia/America/France" etc. Modern Ukrainians also feel offended, however, I see no reason for that: Russlian language develops according to its own standards, and, as soon as the Ukrainians do not consider Russian language their state language, I do not understand why did they decide they have a right to set new rules in a foreign language.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't drawing parallels between the Holodomor and the Holocaust but making an analogy between adding a bunch of info about non-Jewish victims in the lead of the article about what happened to Jews, and adding a bunch of info about non-Ukrainians into the lead of the article about what happened in Ukraine, for the purpose of "context.". As for the Ukraine, anyone readng blogs or comment sections sees this used primary by Russian nationalists emphasizing that Ukraine is a borderland of Russia. That's just who uses it most of the time, nowadays. Your link basically says as much this: Those who called it "the Ukraine" in English must have known that the word meant "borderland", says Anatoly Liberman, a professor at the University of Minnesota with a specialism in etymology. So they referred to it as "the borderland". "After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians probably decided that the article denigrated their country [by identifying it as a part of Russia] and abolished 'the' while speaking English, so now it is simply Ukraine. "That's why the Ukraine suddenly lost its article in the last 20 years, it's a sort of linguistic independence in Europe, it's hugely symbolic." The Germans still use it but the English-speaking world has largely stopped using it. So, to summarize: Ukrainians copnsider it offensive, and the English-speaking world has mostly stopped using it. Yet this user has used it. Hmmm...Faustian (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an example of circular argumentation: "since Holodomor was directed against Ukrainians any attempt to add information about non-Ukrainian victims are unacceptable; that Holodomor was directed against Ukrainians stems from the fact that mostly Ukrainian population was affected by the famine." That would work only in a situation when it the idea that Holodomor was directed against Ukrainians were universally accepted. However, we all know that was not the case, and that is one of major differences between Holodomor and the Holocaust. Therefore, the Holocaust could be used as an example only in a situation when some strong analogy was implied. Since no such analogy existed (at least, it is by no means a majority viewpoint), your example is a bad example, and it is de facto a trivialization of the Holocaust.

Regarding "the", again, I don't think Daily Mirror is a Russian nationalist source. And, by the way, let me remind you that some countries, such as Denmark, have a direct reference on the borderland position in their names, but they do not feel offended by that. I would say, exaggerated attention to "the" is a indication that something is significantly wrong with national consciousness of some Ukrainians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

My analogy involved mass deaths in which one group was, in each case, a disproportionate victim. It is thus a valid analogy. Daily Mirror seems not to use "the" consistently: [5]. IT is up to Ukrainians to determinewhat they consider tobe offensive. As the source indicates, Ukrainians consider it to be offensive, and most Engish-language sources have stopped using it. Yet this editor has chosen to use it....while adding info that pushes a POV that minimizes, relatively, the Holodomor. Faustian (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue why did you decide Ukrainians were affected disproportionally in the areas where the Soviet famine occurred. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going from memory Ukrainians were about 1/3 of the USSRs population at that time but about 1/2 of the victims of famine in the USSR at that time. Faustian (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You guys know that you are most likely bothering to respond to a sockpuppet of an indefinetly banned user who's been bugging this article and many others with the same nonsense for like the past 7 years? Look through the history, this is the same person under a different guise, all over there. And he was indeffed for a reason. Rational conversation is not a possibility. Just revert him and WP:DENY.Volunteer Marek 03:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am astonished that such an experienced editor as you resort to the personal attacks of that kind (accusations that lack evidences are deemed personal attacks). I myself witnessed a situation when some new user joined the edit war few days after a sockpuppet of some banned user had been identified and indefinitely blocked. This new user was geolocated (my guess) in the same area as the previously banned sock, demonstrated the same behavioral pattern and even the similar writing style. This user was blocked, but unblocked by arbcom because some unequivocal evidences had been provided that persuasively demonstrated he was not a sock. Interestingly, initially I was 100% convinced he was a sock, and this example taught me to avoid making premature conclusions.

In connection to that, I strongly suggest VM to choose between two options: (i) initiate SPI, or (ii) apologise and abandon his behaviour. If Rediscoverer2 is a sock, he must be blocked, if he is not a sock, he must be treated by his peers with due respect.

Regards. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's probability. We have WP:DUCK for a reason. Note that even when I brought up that he was a banned user he didn't even deny it. Ok, look, the facts are that this is an editor who has wasted a tremendous amount of time with this kind of behavior (not to even bring up issues of harassment etc.) Any common sense assessment of the situation indicates a very very very high chance that this is the same guy. Now, I guess there's some small chance that this is a new person. I guess I could spend hours and hours trying to prove conclusively that is the case. But there are better things to do. If he wants to come out and argue that he's not User:Jacob Peters let him, we can discuss it then. But honestly, this guy socks so much that if I tried to file an SPI for every new sock that pops up I'd be doing nothing on Wikipedia except spending my time on those SPI reports. I'd become User:Mathsci or something.

Anyway. If you think there's something useful in what he's trying to add, content wise, bring it up here and we can discuss it. Without the disruption.Volunteer Marek 03:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, my experience taught me that simple coincidence of behavioural pattern is not sufficient to make a conclusion about sockpuppetry. So far, I see just one user here who violated our policy, and this user is you, VM. You accused a new user of sockpuppetry, and you should either support your accusations with solid evidences, or to apologize. If Rediscoverer2 is a sock, that will be a demonstration that, in this concrete case you were right. However, it still will not be a confirmation that your behaviour is acceptable in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if SPI are so time-consuming I suppose that having to do one every time a sock is created gives a large advantage tro the sock-puuppet creator.04:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(Re to Paul Siebert, edit conflict) Again, we have WP:DUCK for a reason, so that disruptive editors are not enabled in wasting other's time.

And think of it this way. Given the history of the article, any major changes, especially ones which are so drastic and which smack so heavily of POV pushing need to be discussed on talk here first. So regardless of whether this is a sock of an indeffed user or a brand new pov pusher, the edits should be reverted. That's as far as the article content goes.

As far as the particular account goes, if he's not Jacob Peters, then the worst thing that has happened is that I wrongly accused him of being a sockpuppet, which he is always free to deny. I'm actually doing him a favor by NOT filing an SPI (essentially because I don't have the time) as most likely he would be blocked in that case. Again, for the millionth time, under a millionth username. But I haven't filed an SPI and he's not blocked. And? His edits are still not acceptable. Volunteer Marek 04:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see no problem with reverting these changes. Of course, all of that should be discussed first. However, you cannot and you should not propose just to ignore and revert a user who even did not exceed 3RR so far, and who started a quite polite discussion on the talk page. If you think he is a sock, and it seems obvious per DUCK, just request him to be blocked. However, I see no reason why a new user (let's assume there is 10% he is not a sock) should provide any evidences to you: who are you to request him to provide an evidence that he is not Jakobs Peters (remember, if Rediscoverer2 is not a sock, he has absolutely no idea who Jakobs Peters is). And, by the way, how do you think could he prove he is not Peters? --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I just can't help but chuckle at the irony (is that the right word here?) of a "Paul Siebert" defending a "Jacob Peters"? May I suggest some literary characters from anarchist Czech writers as inspirations for usernames instead? Volunteer Marek 04:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

VM, this post is a direct personal attack: do you realise you accused me of defending a banned user, and draw some conclusions based on my nick name. I am grateful that you value my sense of humour, however, please, don't forget about our basic policy and elementary rules of politeness. In future, please, try to avoid such allusions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict^2) It honestly wasn't meant as a personal attack or an insult, neither did I draw any conclusions from your usernames (I think you're confusing the verbs "to imply" and "to infer"). I was just amused by the irony. If "defending" wasn't the appropriate word, then substitute "discussing" for that. Volunteer Marek 04:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am neither defend nor discuss Peters: we are discussing your behaviour towards a user who has not been proven be a sock so far. Such users must be treated with respect. No exceptions. Full stop.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that users ought to be treated with respect and namecalling is uneccesary, since SPIs are far more time-consuming than creating sockpuppets if we have to go through SPI every time there is a very high likelihood of sockpuppetry (as in this case) when dealing with a likely sockpuppet, it seems that sockpuppetry can "win" by attrition.Faustian (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That argument would be acceptable if there was a flood of socks on this page. However, in the current situation it does not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This (perhaps sock) has already caused a lot of editors to spend a lot of time on stuff other than editing. It doesn't take a flood to be disruptive.20:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying "this is most likely a sock of a banned user" is not a personal attack, especially when that fact is ... most likely and lots of evidence points in that direction.Volunteer Marek 20:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that stopped to contribute may serve as an indirect support of this your idea. However, I still believe that your behaviour was unacceptable: you cannot propose just to ignore a user simply because you believe he is a sock. Thus, if you exceed 3RR reverting a person who is, according to your belief, a sock, you still can be blocked, and event subsequent SPI will demonstrate you were right, your block still will be justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

<- Sure, if it got to a point where 3RR might be breached, I'd go to the trouble of filing an SPI first. Here however, the account was being reverted by multiple users and I think I only made one revert.Volunteer Marek 20:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was the following: 3RR violation is a policy violation, and it does not matter if your opponent is a sock or not. Similarly, a proposal to ignore some user as if he were an identified sock is a violation of the policy. You cannot do that, otherwise you may be subjected to sanctions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we have a more unconstructive conversation? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think it is unconstructive, feel free not to participate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Did famine occur within the borders of the USSR 1932-1933 or ony within the borders of Ukraine?Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Read answer to your question here : http://www.massviolence.org/Mass-crimes-under-Stalin-1930-1953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.154.35.234 (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That being the case, Stalin behaved just like any other state-controller rather than an anti-Ukranian chauvinist.Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know many state controllers who killed from 4 to 6 millions people in less than one year, during peace time... — Preceding unsigned

Odd how the number of victims seems to increase from 1, to 2, to 3 and now 6 million people. More of a bidding war than an attempt to take history seriously. What an awful joke this is.

comment added by 92.154.35.234 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 

The point is that since the famine occurred in Ukraine and other territories and since Ukraine had famines in 1922 and 1892, blaming the 1932-1933 famine on a Stalinist conspiracy against Ukrainians needs to demonstrate the differences. As for other state controllers, British Prime ministers made the effort in Ireland and the Scotch Highlands in the 1840s and in India C18th - C20th. Various US Presidents have also made promising efforts as the Iraqis will explain (the ones who are still alive that is.Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you didn't read this : http://www.massviolence.org/The-1932-1933-Great-Famine-in-Ukraine?artpage=1-5 , or you didn't understood what you've read... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.154.35.234 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I prefer this http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20%27The%201932%20Harvest%20and%20the%20Famine%20of%201933,%20SR%2091.pdf Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

you seem to ignore that History, as other Science is progressing : your document was published in 1991, the one I have provied was published in 2008, and using sources base on opened soviet archives.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.154.35.234 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A source that takes Conquest seriously is one I discount; teleology tooKeith-264 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wheatcroft and Davies praise Conquest's work, so I guess you'll have to discount them, too. You really should acquaint yourself more thoroughly with the literature on the subject before making rash contentions over what constitutes reputable scholarship. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

blind reverts

What's with the blind reverting of sourced, relevant content? Explain to me how a historian's book is not a valid source for what said historian stated in his book. The name of the section is genocide denial; what sort of neutral point of view would one be looking for in such a non-neutral position?

Yeesh, I remember now why I stopped editing. Some things never change. LokiiT (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tottle was discussed above.Volunteer Marek

Tottle isn't a "historian", he's a union activist. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

He was discussed above but I don't see a consensus that his work is discredited; his own page states that he has academic support. There are far less credible sources being used in this article. LokiiT (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

His own page finds a Left-wing historian in another field and a Professor who stood as a Communist in Canadian Parliamentary elections supporting him. Even if we grant respect to their judgements, Tottle would still be a secondary source, not an acceptable primary academic source. He was a Communist trade union activist published by a propaganda house, and not remotely acceptable as a Wikipedia source. cwmacdougall 2:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)