Jump to content

Talk:Holodomor genocide question

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by My very best wishes (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 31 March 2024 (→Lead doesn't make sense). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bias in this article

I recently encountered a video on youtube titled "The Holodomor Genocide Question: How Wikipedia Lies to You". It's about 100 minutes long and goes really in depth through the sources in this article. The article has changed since then but still uses many of the very problematic sources critiqued in the video. Perhaps something the editors of this page ought to discuss? O-caudata (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Online tankies are not a reliable source and shouldn't be taken seriously. — Czello (music) 14:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend watching the video before commenting, because it's not just the rant of some "online tankie" as you put it, but a genuinely nuanced analysis of the sources used in the article. If you don't have the patience to watch it I could perhaps summarize some of the points made:
  1. Conquest was included as one of the authors arguing that the holodomor was a genocide, even though he completely reversed that stance in light of new evidence later in his life (which really ought to say something giving his self admitted extreme bias)
  2. As is mentioned above in the talk page, Simon Payaslian is given undue attention in the article; in the text cited, Payaslian is simply referring to the holodomor in passing as a genocide, in a list of other (actually unambiguous) genocides. The actual topic of the paper cited is the Armenian genocide, and on that topic he may well be an expert, but why give so much weight to a passing comment of his calling the Ukrainian famine a genocide?
  3. Authors like Wheatcroft and Davies, who are actual experts on the topic, and have authored numerous books on it, do get included in the article, but no context is given to signify that these authors might have more authority on the topic than some of their opponents, like Payaslian who wasn't even writing about the holodomor in the first place, but simply mentioning it in passing. This falsely gives the reader the impression that both authors claims should be given equal weight. It's worth stressing just how one-sided the findings of Wheatcroft and Davies (the actual experts) were; they say in the preface to "The years of hunger" that: "In our work we, like V. P. Kozlov, have found no evidence that the Soviet authorities undertook a programme of genocide against Ukraine. It is also certain that the statements by Ukrainian politicians and publicists about the deaths from famine in Ukraine are greatly exaggerated."
These are just some of the points I remember and there were many more made in the video. If you want to have a more productive discussion about the topic I would advice you to actually watch the video before commenting. O-caudata (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Bibliographies source was discussed at length at Talk:Holodomor genocide question/Archive 2#Simon Payaslian quote is unverifiable due to being a passing comment. The citation links to the multi-part articles introduction only, but the source includes an entire section on “The Holodomor, 1932–1933,” which is accessible to subscribers from its “In this article” sidebar.  —Michael Z. 17:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that Conquest “completely reversed that stance in light of new evidence” doesn’t seem to describe anything I’ve seen.  —Michael Z. 18:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately you're going to have to be more clear about exactly what specific parts of the article you feel are questionable (and why), as it's unlikely anyone here is going to watch a 100 minute video created by someone who is known for misinformation. If there are issues with existing sources we're going to need more to go on than an unreliable YouTuber. — Czello (music) 17:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am very concerned to see a top editor to have initially completely dismissed arguments of bias by saying the source of those criticisms is biased themselves, but also within the same article seem to rely heavily on authors that explicitly call themselves anti-communist.
If bias was a factor for dismissing a source of criticism, then why would it not also be a factor for dismissing a source in the actual article itself?
I am not saying it should be, but this attitude seems blatantly against the standard on POV. AevumNova (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s too vague to respond to. It looks like a general statement of principal, and some may not feel like reviewing a two-month-old conversation in detail to see if they can figure out what people and things you are referring to.  —Michael Z. 17:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your compliment but all I'm asking for is specifics rather than a video by a tankie (who, again, is known for misinformation). — Czello (music) 18:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did agree with you on that point, but I do not think their political labels or vauge accusations of misinformation is entirely helpful. I noticed some issues with the documents at least to me eyes, that I pointed out below though they aren't the same as the YouTuber's criticisms, I hope that is helpful at the very least. AevumNova (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just about authors political inclinations but about the broader wp:reliability of sources, a self published sources with a clear bias is very different from and peer-reviewed academic written by someone with strong personal political beliefs—blindlynx 20:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we discussing this? The YouTuber is not a reliable source. O-caudata’s three points from the video are basically wrong and not reason to reevaluate anything about this article. If there is some different point to be made about concrete changes to the article, then please define it clearly in a new thread.  —Michael Z. 20:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All sources have bias. But I was just saying dismissing criticisms because they come from someone of certain political leanings via use of prejorative term for those leanings isn't healpful.
Alao Michael Z I already created seperate threads for concrete criticism and already agreed that was better then citing a YouTube video that isn't as clear and has to do with issues beyond the scope of Wikipedia. AevumNova (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of BadEmpanada's (valid) criticisms of the article have already been discussed, with updates made as appropriate. While the article may not conform perfectly to how BadEmpanada may wish to see it, it is in a much better state than it was previously, and is still actively edited by an array of editors. If you still believe there to be such flaws, please make contributions to the article in line with the relevant wiki standards. Cdjp1 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since when the youtube has become WP:RS?--Aristophile (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before with similar language, and I don't think there's a compelling reason to bring it up again. The video is well researched and worth watching, but we should not shape our entire article to satisfy a single rando youtube creator. This article is poorly formed and written for a bunch of reasons, but the factual content has improved substantially, especially since this particular video was published. We can close the book on this video, and I ask kindly that we don't use it as a basis of discussion for this article.
As an aside, will note that it is very funny to call someone who describes Stalin as "brutal" and "criminal" as a "tankie." He even says, in the video linked, that the Holodomor was a crime of Stalin's. I guess "tankie" means "anyone who is not a Ukranian nationalist." I really don't think many involved in discussions around this video have actually watched it. They absolutely don't have to watch it to disregard the video as a source, it's a random youtube video by a nobody, but they should probably watch it if they're going to throw bile at its creator. Carlp941 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with this statement. Most of the specific criticisms from the YouTube video have either been cleaned up or are about Wikipedia policies, which while are not useless, are beyond the scope of this article.
But just outright dismissing the criticisms presented due to perceived political leanings is not wise.
I agree with you at this point the video has nothing left to offer. AevumNova (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He’s not a tankie, but he is a Holodomor denier. Just skip to the conclusion: it’s a personal essay explaining away the Holodomor as just the same as the famine in other parts of the Soviet Union, trying to discredit Holodomor researchers as working for ultra right nationalism, alluding to “double Holocaust theory,” and while saying “Stalin was bad,” basically promoting Putinist Moscow’s line of the Holodomor as a hoax that genocide studies scholars have fallen for.  —Michael Z. 00:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I was asking about the scope of article. I've noticed in our discussions that there seems to be some differences in what people mean by the Holodomor when it is spoken about.
1) Some mean a famine that impacted the Soviet Union's rural regions due to poor central planning that harmed the Ukraine as one of the worst hit nations. (The YouTuber would agree with this.)
2) Some mean more broadly the cultural genocide under Russifaction in the Ukraine and see the famine as the result of not prioritizing rural centers during poor crop yields and to be an aspect of a cultural genocide meant to erode Ukrainian identity in order to further entrench a more Russian-centric USSR identity. (I would agree with this)
3) And some mean Holodomor as a purposefully and knowingly engineered famine specifically meant to target the the Ukrainian people to kill them off. (I would venture to guess you agree with this)
And these views represent the plurality of views among scholars, with at different points in its study gaining ground as the premier consensus.
It is important for us to cooperate to make sure that, beyond what we think, we make a good and factual article that's WP:NPOV, it's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking yourself to be perfectly objective and thus all of your views you think are WP:NPOV.
Hopefully we can have some more productive segments in the rest of the talk page. AevumNova (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t expect further engagement after accusing me of “vitriol” and “harassment.”  —Michael Z. 01:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After the attempted mediation, wherein you accused me of being a single topic editor and tried to use my edit count to dismiss me, we were told that we should continue to talk on the talkpages by the mediator.
Additionally, we were instructed to focus on content not contributor as said in WP:PA.
I would be very much interested in reconciliation, and if not possible, at least to focus on the article. AevumNova (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop engaging in vitriol and you will no longer be accused of it. Focus on the content of the article instead of biting new editors. Carlp941 (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got abused for trying to engage with them* and now I’m being lambasted for not. Just leave it alone. I’ve done nothing wrong. Why don’t you tell them to stop ignoring advice they solicited instead?**  —Michael Z. 03:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is surprising that you see no fault in yourself in this dispute. You have offered few olive branches, no good faith, and repeatedly berate those who agree with you (me) on the substance of edits. Please, lower the temparature and stop biting our new editor. I apologize that my tone has escalated this dispute - so let's all take a breather and focus on the content of the article. We want the same thing here. Carlp941 (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. I’m sorry for the disruption here and I’m already trying to leave it behind.  —Michael Z. 20:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not interested in arguing about him, because I don't think this video is relevant anymore, and he was never classified as a reliable source. Can we please focus on the article? Carlp941 (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incredibly concerning way to be talking in a conversation about NPOV 216.57.66.41 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have not watched the video if you think he's denying the Holodomor in the academic sense. What he might be denying is the unproven and still highly debated(as showed by this fucking wikipedia page) that the famine was not intentional. 2601:601:8582:4F40:E435:AFC5:9C0C:6B68 (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-structuring article

We talked about this before. Should we list the positions chronologically rather than by position?

best i can tell the chronological order of the authors is :

Raphael Lemkin 1953
Robert Conquest 1986
James Mace 1987
John Archibald Getty 1987
Mark Tauger 1991
Andrea Graziosi 2004
Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft 2004
Michael Ellman 2007
Stanislav Kulchytsky 2008
Hiroaki Kuromiya 2008
Norman Naimark 2010
Timothy Snyder 2010
Ronald Grigor Suny 2015
Stephen Kotkin 2017
Viktor Kondrashin 2018
Nancy Qian et al. 2021

Any corrections or concerns before i re-work things?—blindlynx 17:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me given that the understanding of the famine has changed considerably over the years. This also allows adding earlier forays into the subject, such as those aired at the Nürnberg trials. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please do this. Carlp941 (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this is a good idea. AevumNova (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done please take a look for any weird gaps or mistakes copy pasting i missed—blindlynx 19:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just got back around to looking at this. Looks great! Carlp941 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Mace broken source

In the James Mace section is says "Professor of political science James Mace helped British historian Robert Conquest complete the book The Harvest of Sorrow, and after that he was the only U.S. historian working on the Ukrainian famine, and the first to categorically name it as a genocide, while Soviet archives remained closed and without direct evidence of the authorities' intent." Using citation 23.

I tried to follow this citation as, and I can try to find these scholars, I am fairly certain that he was not the only scholar working on the Holmodor prior to the soviet archives being opened and was brought to the wayback machine. This page had a link to download the article but that link is broken.

As the article does not seem to be accessible anymore could we perhaps find this from another source or find a working link to the article? AevumNova (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the doi link you'll find it. Teh full text is here [1]—blindlynx 15:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thank you for bringing to my attention how to access it, but the text itself does not make any mention of James Mace, much less even make the claim that he was the sole U.S. historian to work on the Ukrainian famine while the Soviet archives remained closed.
I worry that this may have been an assertion by an editor rather then by the source. AevumNova (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, top of page 25 ( page 8 of the pdf) [...] James Mace remained the only historian researching the famine in the United States. [...] James Mace was the first and, for a very long time, the only historian to go on record stating that the famine of 1932-­‐33 in Ukraine constituted genocide. The article devotes quite a bit of time to examining Mace's report in a contemporary light—blindlynx 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thank you, somehow I both missed that with my eyes and when using a text search.
I will have to revisit this later, but what is our policy when a scholarly work makes a claim that no other american scholar researching the famine if we have proof to the contrary? AevumNova (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
who? The article means at he was the only one still working on it immediately after the publication of Harvest of Sorrow—blindlynx 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book had many scholarly responses such as from
Lewin during the extremely brief period (roughly 4 years) between the publishing of the book and opening of the archives. After which the main writer of said book amended views to those not mentioned in this Wikipedia article but are mentioned in the article about the book itself.
Given all of that I'm not sure the significance or accuracy of the statement to the point where it deserves it's focus and citations. AevumNova (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
admittedly saying he was the only one working on it isn't exactly relevant—blindlynx 22:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s extremely relevant to his significance in the field, and to the historiography of the subject in terms of how far it’s come.  —Michael Z. 22:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do? There was a larger then 4 year gap in publication before him that isn't brought attention to AevumNova (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying. Gap when, between what, and how is that relevant?  —Michael Z. 15:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, why is a 4 year gap in a period where 3 of the years scholars knew the archived would be open soon because significant enough to warrant a mention?
Exactly, why is a 4 year gap in a period where 3 of the years scholars knew the archived would be open soon because significant enough to warrant a mention?
Especially considering there were larger gaps between other publications.
Additionally the article's claim that no-one else was researching the topic in that period is dubious at best considering other researchers in the field directly replied to the book in question. AevumNova (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t tell what you’re saying or whether you’re even proposing a specific change to this article. If you are trying to dispute what the article says, then just find some sources that say otherwise. I think I might sit out the rest of this discussion thread.  —Michael Z. 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain what the confusion is. The conversation between myself and blindlyx above is still present and both parties understood the other. AevumNova (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What proof?  —Michael Z. 21:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Switched Opinion' Category?

Robert Conquest in this article is mentioned to have changed his opinion in 2006 and claimed that the Holodomor was not a genocide against the Ukrainian people by the Soviet authorities. Despite this fact, Conquest continues to be mentioned in the 'Famine As Genocide' section. Personally, I believe he should be lumped into a seperate 'Switched Opinion' section, what do you guys think? Piotr Heat (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not claim that the Holodomor was not a genocide at all. He did not switch opinion. These are not facts stated by any reliable source. He gave the opinion that the way the term genocide is used is not particularly useful which is a completely different thing.  —Michael Z. 15:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You then admit that he would no longer define it as genocide? This would be an issue of editorial bias if this was not remedied as it means the article is being misleading of his views. AevumNova (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"He gave the opinion that the way the term genocide is used is not particularly useful which is a completely different thing" How? Are you suggesting that Conquest both views the famine as a genocide and and the same time that he views it as not a genocide? How is that in any way coherent? KetchupSalt (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying the assertion that Conquest said the Holodomor was not a genocide is false.  —Michael Z. 17:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can all of you, like, chill out? I hope the mediation goes well, because you are both arguing with each other in multiple talk sections and it's really disruptive.
Anyway, Conquest's claims of genocide primarily rest on claims of intentionality, and it is noted in the article that he retracted the claim of intentionality in a letter given to other scholars. He does not, in any sources I find, ever retract his claim that the holodomor was a genocide. Per WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH that is enough. I, as a reader, believe that really weakens his allegation of genocide - enough for his opinion on the matter to be entirely discarded. But, as an editor, I will not jump that conclusion in the article. We present what he said because he is a notable scholar with a reliable track record on his research (although his conclusions are far more controversial), and we don't editorialize or synthesize. We let the reader decide. Carlp941 (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thabk you for the very productive post! Mediation has been contacted and I contacted Michael Z to ask that we both wait for Meditation before continuing any discussion on the topic!
I appreciate your helpful comment and insight however! AevumNova (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What article says what about Conquest’s “retracting the claim of intentionality”?
We state facts from reliable sources, including expert opinions and academic consensus. I don’t recall seeing “letting the reader decide” as part of Wikipedia’s principles.  —Michael Z. 16:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should wait for mediation before continuing this discussion on these talk pages :) AevumNova (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AevumNova, your DR request at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Holodomor genocide question was closed yesterday. Please try again and make sure you ping me with the correct name user:Mzajac.  —Michael Z. 16:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to Wikipedia. Could you please file the request as it's something you asked for initially? AevumNova (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I said if you can’t get consensus but want to continue pursuing this, your option is to go to dispute resolution. I don’t think it’s worth any effort, and what I believe you should do is pursue other, more productive editing.  —Michael Z. 17:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. To clarify are you saying you would work with a meditator or are you saying you would not? AevumNova (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be willing to respond to a filing. Perhaps a mediator would help you formulate clearer proposals. But I doubt you’ll convince me that these proposals would improve the article.  —Michael Z. 17:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me you want a mediator because you know I will try to compromise but you will not? AevumNova (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am telling you you may want a mediator if you wish to continue to pursue this. If you envision some compromise between what I see as right and wrong, then go ahead and propose it, and I will let you know if it sounds good.  —Michael Z. 18:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to engage with you with courtesy and respect but it seems to me that WP:COURTESY WP:BITE WP:NPOV have not been followed here. You have said you are unwilling to work with a mediator and would only respond to a filing.
I have tried to engage with you with courtesy and respect but it seems to me that WP:COURTESY WP:BITE WP:NPOV have not been followed here. You have said you are unwilling to work with a mediator and would only respond to a filing.
I will no longer be engaging with you aside from brief messages to remind of that when inevitably replied to by yourself until such time as we can agree to mediation.
Your own personal views should not be a factor when discussing scholarly research. AevumNova (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say I am unwilling to work with a mediator. I cannot decide how I will respond to something that hasn’t happened yet. Please don’t act pissed off at me because I won’t do all the work for you of convincing me that your proposals are any good.  —Michael Z. 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your mediation discussion in relevent talk pages. Thanks. Carlp941 (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. It won't happen again. AevumNova (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BITE Carlp941 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. WP:CIVIL applies well here. You are intent on arguing with me when I agree with you. I'm not going to play along with that. Carlp941 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely calmly simply commented on one factual claim and one statement of encyclopedic goals.  —Michael Z. 19:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Regarding your suggestion I wonder if it would then be appropriate to include both his initial and later statements with citations but not present any commentary on what that means for the purposes of avoiding WP:SYNTH but maintaining WP:NPOV? AevumNova (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea! It's already on Robert Conquest's article. That's not necessarily a reason alone to add it here, fwiw. But given that it's relevant here, the source is solid, I think it belongs here too! Carlp941 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to make the edit. I have been harrassed by another user and no longer will be contributing for my own mental health. AevumNova (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! I'll get to it tomorrow. I am sorry this discussion has degraded your mental health. That's not what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Carlp941 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez guys, I like went away for a couple weeks and what mess do I see here now? Piotr Heat (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

In an article like this, it is generally a good idea to try to write the lead without mentioning the names of specific scholars, but instead try to summarize the major views without names attached. Of the four names in the current WP:LEAD, Payaslian is not mentioned in the article at all, Marples and Grynevych not very much. This is not optimal summary of article text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s silly to name Payaslian: he’s only mentioned because some editors don’t like the content and want to portray it as a minority opinion among others, rather than a representation of current academic consensus in the field. It’s actually part of Oxford Bibliographies and backed by the O.B. Editorial Board on International Relations and published by Oxford University Press Academic. Should be considered a reliable source and used as a source of facts.
Grynevych wrote a 2008 historiographical survey on study of the Holodomor in Ukraine, and Andriewsky wrote another on its study generally in 2015, so these are significant sources about the debate itself.  —Michael Z. 20:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I am correct, Payaslian isn't mentioned because what he said was merely a passing comment on other more unambiguous genocides. His main research paper was on the Armenian Genocide and thus the stuff he talked about in regards to the Holodomor, as I said before, should only count as a passing comment and not an actual take. Piotr Heat (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest I mostly lurk on the wikipedia talk pages so I can't claim to be an expert on the rules, but if it's a passing comment shouldn't it be removed or replaced with something less ambiguous? 118.210.208.235 (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to replace it with, that's the thing. Piotr Heat (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed or moved then, since he's WP:LEAD-only. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, there is consensus for something in the lead and until we get consensus on what to replace it with there's no sense in removing it. Per wp:Leadcite overviews that aren't in the body can—and probably should—be cited in the lead—blindlynx 19:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s not a passing mention at all. The Holodomor is mentioned in the introduction because “The Holodomor, 1932–1933” is one of the nine major sections on specific twentieth-century genocides.  —Michael Z. 19:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it described at all beyond that entry? Otherwise that would indeed qualify as a passing mention. AevumNova (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone has a new overview source we can discuss there's no point in having this conversation yet again—blindlynx 19:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is in violation of wiki-standards. Comments in passing are not to be used. AevumNova (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read over the last discussion of this in april? If you have anything to add it would be more productive than rehashing it—blindlynx 19:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you deny that using passing comments is against Wikipedia standards?
I am not interested in being bited or deflected from this specific issue.
This is a matter of wikipedia style on my end as opposed to what seems to be righting great wrongs on your end. AevumNova (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mention is in the introduction.[2] The Holodomor is the subject of an entire section (you can see the section title in the “In This Article” sidebar). Only the intro is publicly accessible without library or paid access.  —Michael Z. 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be pre-mature to use the reference without confirmation of the context of its use. I will see if I can get access to it and get back with you, hopefully with a better source from the text for or against the use of the genocide classification:) AevumNova (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i personally thing this one is good [3]. But WP:PAYWALL also applies here—blindlynx 20:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree but there does not appear to be an issue of a paywall but rather that there is no more information to access, paywall or otherwise. AevumNova (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to the source to confirm that? Would you prefer the article i linked as an overview?—blindlynx 20:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20230119151501/https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0105.xml
Apologies I'm on mobile ATM, I'll read your source and get back with you after I get my groceries :) AevumNova (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't mention Payaslian. It also doesn't argue for Holodomor as genocide but instead acknowledges the controversy and academic debate that comes from the intentionality of the material condition. It also argues that the use of the term Holodomor only to mention genocide has not been useful from the author's POV and instead argues that it should collectively refer to the agricultural collectivization, Russifaction, and de-kulakification and other such topics.
I did argue that we should either narrow our sources that mention Holodomor as solely reference to genocide OR, more ideally in my opinion, broaden the scope of the page to include these other aspects of Ukrainian repression under the USSR.
TLDR: It's a good source but to quote it as supporting the idea that Holodomor was genocide in the lead wouldn't be appropriate. AevumNova (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To quote it on a state of the current(ish) academic debate in the lead in place of or with teh current one—blindlynx 23:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely a better source. It's 8 years old however. Definitely not absolete to my knowledge but other sources can be re-evsluated. We have lots of secondary sources that are used definitively in the article from over 40 years ago used in place on newer sources on academic debate AevumNova (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know but the more recent one is Payaslian..... you see the problem?—blindlynx 16:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I see your point. At least this author is actually an expert in this field and it's not a passing reference. I would use this over Payaslian. AevumNova (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said if anyone actually has access to oxford biblio it would be worth confirming one way or another16:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC) —blindlynx 16:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the source and looking at other articles by the same website it appears that that sidebar is simply a tool to see if the subject one looks for is in the article. There does not appear to be a paid version of the article that goes into more detail beyond the passing reference.
I have looked at this author prior to see if they mention it in other words with any amount of focus but his scholarship is focused on the Armenian Genocide.
For this reason I do not believe this citation is up to Wikipedia standards. AevumNova (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re literally saying it proves the Holodomor is not a subject of the article because there’s an index listing the Holodomor as a subject of the article. You’re so badly misinterpreting the web page[4] that I don’t even know how to counter that except to literally read and describe the contents of the page to you.
You can see the article title “20th Century Genocides” at the top next to the picture of the flags. On this page you can see two subheadings: “Introduction” and “General Overviews,” followed by the bibliography of general overviews. At the bottom it says “ Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login.” At the top of the left sidebar is the login form and a link to “sign in via your institution” if you have an access through a library or university. Below that is a list of headings in the entire article/bibliography, starting with the two mentioned above, and ten more. One of the sections that you do not have access to without logging in is “The Holodomor, 1932–1933.” The Holodomor is one of the nine cases featured in this bibliography for which “a consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to),” according to this introduction. It is implied that that section, like the one shown, has an overview of the Holodomor and a bibliography for the Holodomor.  —Michael Z. 15:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the BIBLIOGRAPHY not the ARTICLE.
Additionally, no, the sidebar brings up keywords in the article wether they were mentioned literally once like in this article or multiple times.
Using passing comments is against Wikipedia standards of style especially when being employeed for editor POV. Given the author's body of work it would not be considered of importance in any case and would be a case of undue weight, the author is an expert in specifically the Armenian Genocide and has not published a work that includes the Holodomor.
This is a clear example of cherry picking sources to serve POV AevumNova (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The website is Oxford Bibliographies. Every article is a bibliography.
Developed cooperatively with scholars and librarians worldwide, Oxford Bibliographies offers exclusive, authoritative research guides. Combining the best features of an annotated bibliography and a high-level encyclopedia, this cutting-edge resource directs researchers to the best available scholarship across a wide variety of subjects.[5]
You are on the wrong side of WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:COMPETENCE, because you can’t even understand what you’re looking at when it’s spelled out for you. Your participation here is becoming disruptive. —Michael Z. 15:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your original comment TBC, and as several users have pointed out to you here on this page. It has been who has been disruptive Due to you attempting to own a page.
Why are you attempting to use a summary of a bibliography by a non-expert in Ukraine studies instead of the actual source in the bibliography? AevumNova (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedic part of this authoritative article by an expert on genocide says there is consensus that the Holodomor is among 20th-century genocides is why.  —Michael Z. 16:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The person in question is an expert on Armenian Genocide not the Holodomor. This would be like quoting an expert on Christian theology for a Jewish theological concept.
Additionally, the comment on the page is passing and therefore against standards of style. The source being summarized should be cited instead. AevumNova (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Giving that up and repeating the old arguments now? You’ll never get consensus for a change by turning this discussion into an even more confusing mass of verbiage where the same lines get repeatedly raised and contradicted.  —Michael Z. 17:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to add regarding the usage of passing comments by a non-expert Michael? AevumNova (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Continuing to misrepresent a source won’t get you anywhere. Why don’t you find your expert sources that contradict it, instead?  —Michael Z. 20:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bere to push POV, everyone here can read your source and see what it is. People who 100% agree with you on this subject have suggested other sources as better for lead in this discussion.
Please remain mindful of NPOV and don't try to own a page. AevumNova (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going to second this. Carlp941 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the disagreement is about 2nd paragraph in the lead. It was written to summarize consensus (or lack of it) on this "question" among historians. Perhaps this paragraph could be improved, but how exactly? Please suggest an alternative version of this paragraph. I do not see any. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply remove the first sentence so that it starts "The topic remains a significant issue in modern politics" as the rest of the paragraph makes things sufficiently clear. I would also suggest adding what non-Western, non-Ukranian, non-Russian sources have to say. KetchupSalt (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed AevumNova (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how to define “non-Western, &c.” sources and why we should not be happy with simply reliable sources, but here are a few:
    • Kazakhstan: “As opposed to the Ukrainian Holodomor, nowadays, the Kazakh famine is not classified as genocide.”[6]
    • Kazakhstan: “The Great Famine in the 1930s has been referred to by Kazakh researchers as “Goloshchekin’s Genocide,” “ethnocide,” “Holodomor,” “ethnic genocide,” and “national catastrophe” of the Kazakhs. According to T. Omarbekov, the term “Kazakhcide” is also justified.”[7]
    • Romania: “Holodomor, the Ukrainian Holocaust? . . . By comparing these two grave tragedies, similarities inevitably surface.”[8]
    • Israeli-edited Encyclopedia of Genocide has a chapter “Ukrainian Genocide” (p 565).[9]
     —Michael Z. 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not entirely certain these resources were read by you in their entirety. AevumNova (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two sources pertain to Kazakhstan which is not the subject of this page.
    The third source makes it clear that the intent is to ignore the UN definition of genocide, and in addition equates Russia with the Soviet Union, a popular move among Holocaust deniers. In claiming there are similarities, it ignores the difference between nation and class, a conflation that lies at the heart of Hitlerism. It also claims the Soviets had a policy of murdering orphans, citing The Soviet Story as the source for this, a film commissioned by the Union for Europe of the Nations which sports such illustrious members as Lega Nord. This should be enough to suspect the film is not a reliable source, and indeed as the page for the film says: Sokolov later emphasized that he simply offered expert advice and told Šnore that some of the things he claimed were based on obvious falsifications.. The film predictably repeats many other reactionary tropes. Is this the calibre of sources we are to accept? Let's continue to look at this source, because it is even more revealing. It admits the lack of mens rea on the part of the CPSU. It claims the CPSU's goal was to "bring [Ukraine] to its knees" but cites zero sources to back this extraordinary claim up. It claims communism is a "utopian" ideology despite Karl Marx having spent much of his adult life taking utopian socialists to task for their unscientific ideas. It claims Marx and Engels were pro genocide, which they were not (this notion comes from failing reading comprehension on issue no. 194 of Neue Rheinische Zeitung). It claims the NSDAP was socialist and in so doing repeats literal Nazi propaganda. It cites Ernst Nolte because of course it does. It then proceeds to try and psychoanalyze the dead, another favorite pastime of reactionaries besides putting words in the mouths of the dead. In this case the dead person is Stalin. The implication is that Stalin, despite being Georgian, sought to further the interests of "Mother Russia" (again repeating the reactionary notion that Russia and the USSR is the same). The author goes into speculations so wild that I feel compelled to quote them verbatim: Hypothetically, one might assume that Stalin’s next logical step, combined with his open hate for Ukraine,would be to bring Ukrainians to their knees by destroying their national identity, their cultural and political life, their religion and their intellectual elite.. One might assume indeed. And finally it concludes with this gem: The only pressure on Russia to declassify information comes from Ukraine and the Ukrainian Diaspora (notably Canada) (emphasis mine).
    All this leads me to one of two conclusions: either you did not read the third source, or you actually did read it, thought it was accurate and decided it was a good thing to recommend in here. Whichever it is, this source is such a wonderfully laughable read I'm going to show it to some good friends of mine.
    I cannot access the fourth source. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @KetchupSalt I've accessed the last source from @Mzajac, the entry in the encyclopedia is from James Mace, and not a novel entry but taken from sources we already cite in James Mace's section of this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I broadly agree with your analysis and agree that Michael likely did not read these sources in their entirety or is interpreting them incorrectly - we don't need to cast aspersions upon his motivations. Please keep Wikipedia:Assume good faith in mind:
    "Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all around."
    I don't think any of these provided sources pass the smell test upon reading. There is a lot of reactionary anticommunism baked into the sources before any serious fact finding or analysis begins. That doesn't mean I think an anticommunist couldn't write a serious history of the Holodomor, but when it's so front-loaded, I am immediately skeptical. There are likely comparisons to be made between the Holocaust and Holodomor - I feel that is a trivial observation. But the speculation and equivocation contained within these writings is both morally and academically repugnant. Better sourcing has been provided, I am not okay using these sources here. Carlp941 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead doesn't make sense

Paragraph 2 cites one historian who says there's a scholarly consensus that the Holodomor was a genocide, then proceeds to cite three historians who say there isn't a consensus and a sentence about how it's a contentious issue. For there to be a consensus that would suggest the overwhelming majority of historians agree. Perhaps more historians need to be cited in the lead. Presumably if there is indeed a consensus it should be relatively simple to find a few more historians who agree. 203.214.54.59 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited consensus is only among liberal historians and does not represent the scientific view on the question. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Citation needed.] Oxford Bibliographies is a reliable source on the scientific view.  —Michael Z. 02:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to explain the sum total of historical and dialectical materialism in a WP comment. You must acquire your own learns. WP is usually good in having a pro-scientific bias in most fields. Sadly political economy is not one of those fields; subjectivism is still rampant. Hence the incoherent mess that the original commenter brings up. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should also add an example of unscientific behavior common to many liberal sources, as context for editors who are unawares: the conflation between nation and class. For example Lemkin conflates the bourgeois intelligentsia in a nation with the entire intelligentsia of that nation. This has many unfortunate implications. Implications that are obvious to anyone with knowledge of the ideology of the NSDAP and its rise to power. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Citation needed.]  —Michael Z. 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ketchup you are arguing against Wikipedia's NPOV policies. That a historian is using a different lense aside from a very specific interpretation of the Marxist lense does not discredit them as an academic source on wikipedia. Additionally, in terms of orthodox scholarship, history is seen as a humanity and not a science, though I understand that some speicific Marxists believe themselves to have a purely objective and scientific lense on history, that belief it not relevant to the pages. AevumNova (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. They’re arguing that Wikipedia can’t call something a consensus unless the commies and tankies are part of it, as per the article dialectical materialism, a “science” based in part on the writing of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. See WP:FRINGE and WP:RGW.  —Michael Z. 23:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you start off with POV as well.
They are arguing that only a specific reading of Material Dialects is valid scientific history.
We do not know of which ideology he ascribes but it is likely some form of Marxist-Leninism.
Also communism is a broad category. He most certainly wouldn't agree with the anarchists as they reject Dialects as the sole lense of history for an example.
It's just best that POV isn't given heed. And that includes form you as well, you are notorious for inserting POV. AevumNova (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that Material Dialectics IS considered a respected viewpoint in philosophy of science and history. It's just not the sole respected one. It is also found way before Lenin, Stalin, and Mao and is not solely used by Marxists, let alone even solely by Communists Or Socialists.
The best way to address biased suggestions is not to throw your own out there. AevumNova (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, I don’t see any sources telling us what the material dialecticists who are respected in the field of genocide studies say about the Holodomor. Just protest against reliable sources in this article with a lot of florid language from Marxism 101. WP:NOTCHAT.
They also wrote about “fact that the genocide narrative is a form of Holocaust denialism”: Talk:List of genocides/Archive 10#Definition of genocide and Holodomor. RGW based on fringe theory without any basis in sources from genocide studies or Holodomor studies.  —Michael Z. 23:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are mixing good criticism with POV and your own biases.
Yes we shouldn't include scholars that use MD just because they are eusing MD out a sense of False Balance.
However, saying something shouldn't be in there because it's "Marxism 101" is not the appropriate reason to deny using them. That would imply you are specifically trying to write the article without involving anything even tangentially related to a certain POV which is POV and Righting Great Wrongs at the very least.
There is plenty enough reason to deny their request within wikipedia policies without needing to resort to violating wikipedia for your own POV AevumNova (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is no “something.” They haven’t proposed adding any something. They’ve only objected to using an authoritative source about academic consensus on the Holodomor, because of some OR argument about the Marxist POV they espouse (and apparently another POV about the Holodomor negating the Holocaust), without even mentioning any sources about the Holodomor. Is this not adequate criticism?  —Michael Z. 04:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read my prior comments instead of skimming them. Your comment here shows you didn't. AevumNova (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will take this comment as evidence that you have not read Stalin. Please do so before judging the reliability of sources pertaining to the USSR under Stalin's tenure. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful of NPOV. AevumNova (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has POV on many topics, and for good reason. Alchemists aren't allowed to peddle phlogiston theory in articles on chemistry. WikiProject Chemistry doesn't have to entertain the notion that the Philosopher's Stone is real. Chemists do not have to give equal consideration to Priestley as to Lavoisier. WikiProject Physics doesn't have to give NPOV consideration to Aristotelian laws of motion. I'm fairly certain I've seen a WP: page that explicitly expresses that WP has a pro-science POV (though I can't remember which).
You are correct that are many academics in the field of history that are not scientists. This is unfortunate. These academics cannot explain why certain events come to pass and are therefore prone to all kinds of nonsense grounded not in material reality but in subjectivism. This subjectivism is plain to see in many sources cited in the article, for example Naimark who attempts to psychoanalyze the dead. This casts serious doubt on the reliability of such sources. For this pro-science stance I have been repeatedly personally attacked.
To some editors it appears inconceivable that someone might seek explanations to things that don't rely on Great Man Theory. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you were correct this does not matter. Wikipedia is not for Righting Great Wrongs.
Additionally, on a personal note, while Material Dialectics Is a useful lense in history it is one of many. In fact it's not the only materialist lense. Heck in philosophy the notion not subjectivism is a materialist philosophy not a rationalist one. You are confusing materialism with objectivism.
The fact you are using it to try to explain actions in history does not make your view of history scientific. History is not a science and by definition can never be a science.
One of the most important measures or a science is has it shown predictive qualities. Dialectic Materialism has been about as accurate as predicting the fall of capitalism as religious sects predicting the end of the world.
Like any other historical lense it has had to readjust itself to try to explain unpredicted social phenomenon in its framework like Fascism and the fall of the USSR.
TLDR: Your own, at best FRIMGE, beliefs about a certain historical lense being scientific has no weight on Wikipedia's policies on reporting on scholarly sources. AevumNova (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(FYI, History, international law, genocide studies, Holodomor studies: these are all humanities, not sciences. Dialectical materialism (material dialectics?) is a philosophy, not a science (is it ideological?). Isn’t philosophy the least scientific branch of the humanities?)
Anyway, that’s immaterial. If you have something from reliable sources about the non-“liberal” or dialectical-materialist views about the Holodomor as genocide or not, you’ve had plenty of time to bring them to this conversation. I guess there’s nothing. I see no basis for the objection in WP policy, reliable sources, or common sense.
Sorry for all the wordiness. I think we’ve probably more than exhausted this discussion.  —Michael Z. 21:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't such thing as more or less scientific it's a binary category. But yes it's not a science it's a philosophy of science.
Yeah I agree this is blatant POV and Righting Great Wrongs by Ketchup here.
Even if Ketchup was correct, and I don't think they are, it's not our place to displace more orthodox scholarly consensus and theories in favor of more fringe views AevumNova (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(In many fields of the humanities, academics may make use of data and quantitative analyses or other scientific methods to answer concrete questions with an assessed level of precision – philosophy not so much.)  —Michael Z. 23:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see what you mean. But using science as an aspect of a humanity does not make a humanity more scientific.
Also philosophy of science absolutely uses scientific findings to orient itself for obvious reasons. Philosophy is an extremely vast field that is hard to paint with such large strokes. AevumNova (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, 2nd paragraph of the lead is rather problematic. It suppose to summarize content of this page, but it does not. It singles out Marples about whom we do not even have a subsection. It seems to distort views by Kulchinsky (in footnote) described in his section. Of course one can use strong tertiary sources on the subject in the lead, but only the first reference in this para qualify as such. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's a mess....have you read the Grynevych and Andriewsky papers? i think they offer the best summary of the scholarly debate and we shoudl use them in the lead—blindlynx 19:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not read them. Can you just fix it, please? My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look, apologies in advance for the typos—blindlynx 19:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is certainly an improvement. Ref #13 provides an excellent footnote. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor_genocide_question&oldid=1216566073"