Jump to content

Talk:Holodomor

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.227.87.240 (talk) at 03:14, 14 February 2010 (→‎Where?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FAOL

Template:WP1.0

A gentle reminder to all editors

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." - WP:NPOV -moritheilTalk 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates range

Hi, please provide a quote from "Million Feared Dead of Hunger in South Russia" confirming "Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 1 million" it is a source for --windyhead (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

Yushchenko does not blame Russia for Holodomor. Where to put this in the article? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very strange. Is there anybody who'd blame Russia for Holodomor? in case I'm not mistaken, Holodomor was a result of the policies by the soviet communist regime whose leader wasn't even a Russian. So what has Russia to do with anything here?--Termer (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A popular meme, especially amongst some nationalists in Eastern Europe and their neocon supporters in the west, is that all the other republics were simply Russia's unwilling puppets, and therefore current day Russia must take full responsibility for everything bad that happened during communist rule. Obviously this is revisionist nonsense and shouldn't be presented as a legit viewpoint in the first place. Additionally, I would think Yushchenko is just trying to score some points with the moderates in Ukraine before the upcoming election, so I don't think this is worth putting in the article. Although maybe it could go in his own article. LokiiT (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I draw your attention here to the fact that Russia is the legal successor of Soviet Union. Also, please note that rhetorical use of terms like 'unwilling puppets' and 'revisionist nonsense' weakens any text's claim for objectivity. Lastly, the premise of the argument is 'obvious revisionist nonsense.' Does anyone know what is revisionist nonsense? Why is revisionism presented as nonsense? Is the history not always in the process of being rewritten? Any historical argument has to be grounded on facts, I see none here.

The term first appeared in print on July 18, 1988

Hi, please provide a quote from the source confirming "The term first appeared in print on July 18, 1988" [1] --windyhead (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets improve the article

few things that pop out for me right away: who exactly considers the Holodomor "one of the greatest calamities to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history"?

and

"Millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe". Is it just me or does "an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe" sound a bit over the top? No disrespect meant but surely calling it "unprecedented" would at least need an explanation why and how it was "unprecedented". The human history has had its dark moments before and after Holodomor, so is this "unprecedented" really appropriate here? Hope you see what I mean.--Termer (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unprecedented peacetime catastrophe - thats what Britannica says --windyhead (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, initially the author meant that this catastrophe was "unprecedented" in Ukrainian, not world history. Obviously the statement needs some clarification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Paul! I've fixed it. For the next, anybody knows who exactly considered the Holodomor "one of the greatest calamities"? --Termer (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that sometibes we can be unanimous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always intend to be unanimous with whatever the sources say. And currently there is nothing to WP:VERIFY with that the Holodomor was "one of the greatest calamities". So it needs to go.--Termer (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that would be correct. Only disputable statements need to be supported by sources. It is hard to imagine that loss of about 10% of population is not one of the greatest calamity. Note, the text states "one of the greatest calamities", not "the greatest". WP encourages us to use common sense, and to doubt that that was "one of the greatest calamities" is against common sense. In addition, according to WP:LEDE citations are not necessary in a lede. I propose you to restore this statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No commentary any kind, especially unsourced commentary is necessary on wikipedia articles. The readers can and should make up their own minds based on sourced facts in the article either the famine was "one of the greatest calamities" or "the greatest..." etc. In case anybody is known to have said that about the subject, and it can be verified, there shouldn't be any problems with including such commentaries in the article.--Termer (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News flash

I am afraid to add it to the article just yet, but here is an interesting report for discussion. (Igny (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It doesn't look like news really. It has been going back and forward since Raphael Lemkin in 1953 coined the famine as "Soviet Genocide in the Ukraine". Just that the UN Genocide convention doesn't include social, religious etc groups in the term unlike Lemkin did. Therefore yes, currently nobody can really consider the Holodomor legally a Genocide according to the convention, and therefore there is nothing new in this newsflash really.--Termer (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is strange though that the section Was Holodomor a genocide? starts up with Robert Conquest and his views. at the time when in chronological sense it would be Raphael Lemkin who raised the question originally. So it seems this needs to be fixed.--Termer (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When and where did he raise the question? (Igny (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
When looking for the source on this I only found the UCCLA blog and the report in Ukr Embassy in Canada. Are there any independent sources? It is not that I do not trust UCCLA, it is just that it is not the first time Ukraine fabricated facts during its campaign to gain international recognition of holodomor as genocide. (Igny (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
What are you talking about. Lemkin's essay is a known work on the subject. In case you're looking for secondary sources that refer to it here is one that first came handy: published by Oxford University press; Oxford Journals; Journal of International Criminal Justice, that among other things says about the work: Raphael Lemkin's essay 'Soviet Genocide in Ukraine' is one of the earliest writings on the subject by a non-Ukrainian scholar. etc.--Termer (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Roman Serbyn? (Igny (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
What about Roman Serbyn? In case you're referring to the author of the article than yes, that's waht it says .--Termer (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just keep waiting for a non-Ukrainian source of Lemkin's views on Holodomor. (Igny (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, didn't get it, the Oxford University press who published this work by Lemkin and the New York Public library where its held are Ukrainian sources in your opinion?--Termer (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford University published a work by Serbyn, not Lemkin. As I do not have access to NY public library I wonder is it the only copy of Lemkin's speech? Why noone brought this up other than Serbyn? I would still be interested in circumstances of this speech, and the context of his claims and Lemkin's actual words and not an essay by Serbyn. Do these words literally belong to Lemkin? Why couldn't I find any more sources on this speech other than reprints of Serbyn's paper? (Igny (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You're incorrect. The source Journal of International Criminal Justice says it right from the beginning [2] "We publish a piece by Raphal Lemkin". And Serbyn has written an introductory note to this, its all there n black and white.--Termer (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some extensive search I found what I was interested in.

Text was probably originally composed for Lemkin’s address at the 1953 Ukrainian

Famine commemoration in New York. Later Lemkin added it to the material he was

gathering for his elaborate History of Genocide which was never published. Ed, Roman Serbyn.

It was never published by Lemkin, only a few Lemkin scholars knew about this speech. On the other hand, phrases like "was probably composed", "ignored or downplayed by most of the scholars" are a bit worrying. (Igny (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, its pretty clear, what wasn't published back then was History of Genocide by Lemkin. The essay under discussion however has been published by multiple sources like its clearly spelled out in there.--Termer (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10 million

Hi, recent edits put "over 10 million of people starved to death" and so on into article, but that's not what the source says. The source given says "cumulative loss" which is not the same. --windyhead (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved: was at [[Talk:User_talk:Windyhead]]
Please explain what you mean by "the source says 'cumulative'". My source does say cumulative losses, but cumulative losses means not only Ukrainians, but other nationalities as well. Which is why I never claim that 10 million Ukrainians died - instead I say people. And this still doesn't actually explain the removal of the two other additions of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxenbrigg (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, cumulative losses means starved to death + unborn + so on. --windyhead (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor court hearings begin in Ukraine

The court of appeals in Kyiv has opened hearings into the "fact of genocide-famine Holodomor" in Ukraine in 1932-33 yesterday (Kiev-time). Only I do not understand who will be sentenced, Stalin In absentia??? Anybody knows some more on this? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It almost did. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress states 7-10 million.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress states 7-10 million. - this statement is correctly reported and must not be deleted. It does not state that the death toll estimate is 7-10 million. It only reports what the Ukrainian Canadian Congress found through their inquiry. Please do not mis-quote WP:RS that the all info must come from peer reviewed sources. By deleting this NPOV is introduced into the article. Bobanni (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The source is not peer-reviewed, and it does not present any new data. The source states:
"The seven to ten million assessment stated in our Statement of November 10, 2003 comes from various sources such as: Robert Conquest’s book “Harvest of Sorrow,” the Final Congressional Report of the U. S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine and the findings of an International Commission of eminent international jurists convened by the Ukrainian World Congress which rendered its final report in 1990. The number seven - ten million ascribes seven million to the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR and three million to other areas of the USSR including Kuban, the North Caucases in Russia and Kazakhstan."
In other words, it just summarizes the data that are always presented in the article, i.e. it is a tertiary (and not the best tertiary) source. In addition, it clearly has been misquoted, because the number of 10 million relates to whole USSR, not to Ukraine. Since the number of victims is a subject of historical studies, not of opinion of non-scholarly sources, UCC's own opinion is hardly relevant.
I remove these data as redundant and incorrectly quoted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor&oldid=343904341"