Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal | Cases

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Last Angry Man (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 25 November 2011 (→Spokespeople list: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleHolodomor
StatusActive
Request date02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Requesting partyQwyrxian (talk)
Parties involvedPaul Siebert, Lothar von Richthofen, Igny, Volunteer Marek, Vecrumba, Greyhood, The Last Angry Man, Galassi, Lvivske, BesterRus
Mediator(s)User:Steven Zhang, User:Mr. Stradivarius, User:TransporterMan
CommentAccepting statements on image use in the article.
Status of mediation:
10%

Current status of the mediation: Discussing the use of images.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

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

Who is involved?

The list of the users involved. For example:

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

What is the dispute?

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

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

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

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

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

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

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

Mediator notes

Notes by Steve Zhang

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

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

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

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

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

Notes by Mr Stradivarius

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

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

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

Notes by TransporterMan

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

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

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

Another example (a variation on the last one):

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

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

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

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

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

Ground rules

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

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

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

Mediation Agenda

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

[1%] Garner party agreement to ground rules.  Done
[5%] Discuss and document current issues that need to be addressed, discussed, and resolved, over the course of the mediation.  Done
[10%] Re-establish the party stances in the dispute, obtaining opening statements to ascertain what each party wishes to get out of the mediation, and the issues they feel need addressing.
[15%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[30%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[45%] Initiate discussion on the third issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[60%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.
[70%] Assess the status of the mediation, as to how the solutions that have been implemented have helped with the status of the article, discuss views with parties as to how the mediation, and status of the articles is progressing.
[75%] Re-visit previous issues, discussing alternative solutions, if required.
[85%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future
[95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.
[100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.

List of issues

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

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

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

Spokespeople

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

Spokespeople list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I get busy (and that has suddenly become quite likely), I am comfortable with Volunteer Marek's editorial position on the matter at any point where a decision is required if I am unavailable. In the meantime, I'm going to update my WP email to another account which I check more frequently than I have a chance with my personal Email should my input be of particular benefit. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhood, that seems like a reasonable timeframe. But the idea of spokespeople is to reduce the amount of participants, so party X appointing Y as their spokesperson and party Y appointing party X as their spokesperson really accomplishes little. I'll send out notifications today and we will go from there. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case of the active enough participants, like me and Paul, who are going to watch the discussion closely and post frequently enough for the most time, the mutual authorization it is just a provision for the future in case some of us will be absent for a long period (vacation etc.). I hope in such a case one person we'll notify the other. GreyHood Talk 01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm I didn't think of it in that context. I more saw it as "I'll talk for Paul's pov and he will talk for mine", which, on reflection, was pretty dumb. Your explanation makes much more sense. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

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

Discussion

Opening statements

Issue 1 - Image Use

Remember, 200 words or less. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

I think all images currently in the article are good. Of course nothing prevents from adding more images. The biggest problem are Tables: they show exact numbers per an arbitrary source, whereas other sources claim something different. All Tables (or diagrams) with disputable numbers, rather than with ranges of numbers, should be removed. In particular, 2nd Table named "Declassified Soviet statistics" was referenced to source [69]. This link leads to a Russian/Ukrainian language opinion piece, and I do not see this Table and numbers in the source. Remove this Table please. Biophys (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most terrible thing I have learned so far is this struggle around images on Commons. It involves all familiar faces, one of whom is administrator on Commons. This looks to me as a battleground worse than here. How to deal with it? I suggest not to place images in Commons, but download them here if there is so much trouble.Biophys (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is no any valid reason to move lead image. It should stay where it is right now. Just as Marek, I am surprised why this question was brought to mediation. There was no any recent discussions about this at article talk page, except something that takes place at Commons, but this is different project. Biophys (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek

While this is an issue related to this topic I don't think it falls within the scope of this mediation. I just quickly read over everyone's opening statements and just to make sure searched for the words "image" and "photo" in them - there was no mention of this. Basically, the issue of the usage of photographs from the 1921 famine to illustrate the Holodomor WAS PREVIOUSLY a subject of dispute, but my sense of it is that this has been worked out. Yes, some photos from the 1921 famine, or even photos from the 1931 Soviet famine (non-Ukrainian part) have been published around the internets as supposedly illustrating the Holodomor. At the same time there are genuine photos of the Holodomor. What has happened - and this is actually Wikipedia working pretty well - is that after these issues were raised people went out and researched pretty thoroughly which photos were fake and which were genuine. As far as I can tell at this point there's no more controversy on the subject.

Images and photos were not mentioned in any of the opening statements which shows that this isn't one of the important problems here. So let's move on since this will probably be taking up a lot of time anyway. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Greyhood did. Ok, but I think he was referring to past controversies not current ones. Will wait for his response. Volunteer Marek  05:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the case, and we all come to an agreement that it's no longer an issue, then we can tick it off the list, can't we :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think VM summarised the issue correctly, and, if no objections will follow within few days (e.g. until Monday) we can consider this issue to be resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. The only issue I recall getting involved in was when Jo0doe was editing the name and info of photos in bad faith in the Commons after he was banned from english wiki.--Львівське (говорити) 17:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jo0doe is still a free man on Commons, which means that while we may resolve the issue here, he will still continue to wage his war on the last remaining front (he's indeffed on ru-wiki as well as here), which may create problems in the future for us. If I ran the zoo, I'd block him on Commons as well to save us from future headaches, but I digress.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Serenity now...serenity now...broke down and checked, yup, he never left. Calm blue ocean...calm...--Львівське (говорити) 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have any disputes on either the current infobox image or the population decrease map in the article which was originally uploaded by Irpen. It would be helpful if we each make a statement to that effect and explicitly agree to discuss any proposed changes to images (photographs, diagrams, maps) on article talk. Making my statement. @Paul, while we're fond of using the "unless we hear otherwise by X" construct, I suggest we abstain from that for this mediation and assume no agreement with any sort of consensus unless explicitly stated. Such assumptions have been a source of grief in the past which we should take all steps possible to avoid. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here. We are in no rush to get a quick resolution, so I'd rather get everyone's opinion rather than rely on silent consensus.We will have a greater chance of long term resolution that way. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on discussion above, let me add something specific about this particular photo. This source [1] "Holodomor Archives and Sources: The State of the Art" by Hennadii Boriak discusses the issue of fake/authentic photos in some depth on pages 23-26. On page 24 Boriak lists the sources of existing authentic photos (1st para). He then has a footnote which says: "Most of the authentic photos are presented in a special section of the web-portal of the State Committee on Archives of Ukraine: http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php" If you click on that link and go through the photos then you get this [2]. Hence this is one of the authentic photos, according to a reliable source. AFAICT no "fake" photos are presently in use in the article. Volunteer Marek  18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Last Angry Man

The current image in the article is authentic, as was being discussed before it was collapsed. I see no reason to either remove this image from the article, or to add disclaimers to it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Greyhood
Collapsed discussion

My suggestion on the lead image is very simple and I've already stated it in the opening statement basically. I can explain in a bit more detail, but I need to get a few sources for that and we'll do it tomorrow. GreyHood Talk 20:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are relatively small number of Holodomor photographs at all, and there are few to none non-controversial images of Holodomor. For example, a set of 21 photograph is discussed here and is suggested as "the only photographs of the famine that may be accepted as both genuine and authentic". But even those photographs were first published, and likely deliberately, alongside the hoax photos.
The current lead image is taken from the book Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932—1933: Western Archives, Testimonies and New Research Edited by Wsevolod W. Isajiw. — Toronto: Ukrainian Canadian Research 2003. [3] The Head of Ukrainian State Archive (ГоскомАрхив Украины) Gennady Boryak (Геннадій Боряк), however, in his publication called "Публикация источников по истории Голодомора современное состояние и перспективы" (2003 p.10) admits that this book contains at least one known photo from the Russian famine of 1921. Using 1921 photos is a standard way to 'forge' "Holodomor photographs", and the usage of 1921 photos was the source of various scandals and the reason of suspicion towards those supposedly Holodomor photos which were not proven to be 1921, but nevertheless were first published alongside 1921 photos. The current lead image might be 1921 and might be 1931-32 and might be some other year. The depicted person and background don't exactly help to conclusively prove or disprove anything. Therefore doubts remain.
My suggestion is to use a photograph of some Holodomor monument in the lead, while the current lead picture should be removed at all or better inserted into some section below related to Holodomor historiography, with an accurate and extensive caption explaining the problems I've written above, like it is done in the Russian Wikipedia. GreyHood Talk 19:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed discussion
Sounds good to me--Львівське (говорити) 20:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely. First part of caption on ruwiki for this photo sounds just fine. But last phrase tells: "Как отметил Геннадий Боряк (Генеральный директор ГоскомАрхива Украины в этой книге есть по меньшей мере одна фотография 1921 года". Translation: "as Gennadii Boryak said, this book also includes at least one photo from 1921". This phrase should be excluded from caption of this picture. This is a typical propaganda trick: instead of describing this photo, it challenges another (unknown) photo in the same book. As a more general comment, we can use some photos that show famine victims from 1921, with appropriate captions, not to illustrate the "forgery", but to illustrate the general concept of death from hunger in the Soviet Union. Biophys (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
>As a more general comment, we can use some photos that show famine victims from 1921, with appropriate captions, not to illustrate the "forgery", but to illustrate the general concept of death from hunger in the Soviet Union. %) %) %) Are you seriously suggesting this, a propaganda instead of accurate history? Should we use the photos of Great Depression in the U. S. as well, to illustrate Holodomor, like some Holodomor activists already had done? I really didn't expect anyone here to make such a counterproductive suggestion. We should illustrate facts not concepts, and there is no need to try to make some justification for all those previous forgeries and mistakes. Remember also, that many readers don't really read the captions of the photographs, therefore you basically suggest "a typical propaganda trick": insert the photo to the article by whatever means, and be happy with an effect it makes over at least a part of the readership. GreyHood Talk 10:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current image in the article is not a fake. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not fake, but the caption of this image on ruwiku tells that a book which uses this photo also includes another image from 1921. This should not be in caption of this image. Biophys (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I see no reason why one mistake should be singled out. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment in detail, but a general approach of disproving images published in secondary RS using this website is clearly problematic. Biophys (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the long history of deliberate forgeries and "mistakes" in Holodomor publications, when propaganda was considered more important than honest historical study, there should be exceptionally high level of provenance for a photo and a good reputation for a source of the photo to include it without reservations. It should be proven not fake, proven to be 1932-33 in Ukraine. GreyHood Talk 10:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the discussion on commons regarding this particular picture, it was proven this image is from the Holodomor and was released from some cardinals library. There is no doubt to the authenticity of this particular picture. And if as you say "a high level of provenance is needed" why link to an unreliable website like Gareth Jones? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And why is it even an external link in the article? And in a number of other articles? When did this site become WP:RS? The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a link to the commons discussion. Please explain why Gareth Jones site, made by people from the University of Wales, is not WP:RS? GreyHood Talk 10:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can follow the link to commons by clicking on the picture, who says that site is made by the University of wales? I see no mention of affiliation with said university. It is a self published site by Jones great-nephew, Nigel Linsan Colley and does not meet WPR:RS. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:2007ff.jpg
OK, here is the link to the Commons discussion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg. Personally I do not see how it was proven that the photo in question was 1932-33. The page is mostly a long argument between Jo0doe and Mark nutley, with commons administrators caring only about copyrights and edit-warring. Jo0doe's arguments on the page are quite convincing and he had the last say. At least it is made clear that the origin of the image is disputable. Why Jo0doe's arguments were not taken into account in the present version, I don't quite understand. Looks like TLAM and VM simply achieved their preferred version by edit-war after protection of the page by User:Russavia expired. GreyHood Talk 12:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the link to the part of the book it was taken from (fly-leaf and spine). So it was published right on the same page where a 1921 photograph was used [4]. Note 16 on page 24 of Boriak's publication says: Note in particular the fly-leaf and spine of the book (with photos from the period of 1921-1923 famine). So basically at least 2 and perhaps all photos from that part of the book are from 1921-23. For me that's enough to make the following discussion unnecessary: the image is problematic and should be used only with reservations. GreyHood Talk 12:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed discussion
Read the discussion again, all the links posted by Jodoo do not back his claims, not one of them do. The other link is WP:OR by another editor, totally fabricated in an attempt to discredit a photo. There is enough proof in that discussion to prove the photo is not fake. I will quite happily post it over here and you can try and rebut it if you so wish. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already posted the links I consider most relevant (the screenshot of a book and Boriak's quote). Please rebut them. GreyHood Talk 13:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to rebut an argument not made, were is this quote from Boriak? The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat: Note 16 on page 24 of Boriak's publication says: Note in particular the fly-leaf and spine of the book (with photos from the period of 1921-1923 famine). GreyHood Talk 13:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhood, there are no pp24 on this .pdf I have downloaded it to double check. And a search shows no match for "fly-leaf and spine" Have you linked to the correct .pdf? The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's page 4 of the PDF and page 24 of the publication. Note 16 can be easily find anyway. GreyHood Talk 13:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest instead of looking at the citation you look at what that citation is supporting. Might I point out one photo being included in a book does not invalidate the others. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The citation says photos which means that from 2 to all photos included into the fly-leaf and spine are from 1921-23. That means that any other photo in the named parts of the book is under suspicion. GreyHood Talk 13:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, it means one is. You need to produce a source which states the current photo in the article is not from Cardinal Theodor Innitzer collection [5], the burden of proof is on you to prove this photo is not from Holodomor. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the plural form photos has quite clear meaning. Your link does not work, and btw. being from a collection of some cardinal who never was in Soviet Russia is no way conclusive. As for the burden of proof, I'm not going to prove it was not from Holodomor. I do not think it is possible to conclusively proof anything in this case, unless we find a publication that clearly states the photo is from 1921-23 or some other year and place than 1932-33 in Ukraine. Given the limited number of supposedly authentic Holodomor photos and the amount of forgery and controversy, the lack of proof it is not 1932-33 isn't enough to conclusively prove it is 1932-33. But I've already presented the sources that indicate that it might be not from 1932-33 in Ukraine, and if we use the photo in the article, these sources should be inserted in the caption. GreyHood Talk 14:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it published anywhere? I mean the PDF file by Hennadii Boriak. It looks like a self-publication on the internet. I would completely disregard such "sources" having a lot of academic publications about Holodomor. Biophys (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boriak is described in media as either Head or Deputy Head of the State Comittee of Archives of Ukraine, as well as Deputy Director of Institute of History of Ukraine; he is Doctor of Historical Sciences. The PDF is taken from Harriman Review published by Harriman Institute. In this light your phrase I would completely disregard such "sources" looks strange and out of place. GreyHood Talk 15:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, it was published in Harriman Review (we do not have even article), an internal publication of Harriman Institute. Did it went through a peer review process? They do not tell anything about their editorial policies, but I think the answer is "no". This is simply a local university web site for any publications by their faculty. This is still essentially a self-publication. It can be used to source the personal opinion of Boriak (we do not have an article about him either), however this is not a good source to disprove reliable secondary sources, such as published books. Biophys (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having Wikipedia articles on authors or journals is nice, but little relevant to the question of their quality. Judging by the offices he holds, Boriak is among the top authorities on the Ukrainian archive materials subjects. His work in Russian is called "Публикация источников по истории Голодомора современное состояние и перспективы". I suspect that the real original name of the work is Ukrainian and can't find anything on the publication with Russian name. Harriman Review seems quite substantial publication, even if not peer-reviewed. I doubt that it "is not a good source to disprove reliable secondary sources, such as published books" when those books contain significant mistakes which make it a question whether they were properly reviewed themselves. Overall, we have a serious specialist holding several of the top official positions among academic historians in Ukraine, and decent, though perhaps not a top level journal. It's RS by all means. GreyHood Talk 16:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone, I think we should stop this conversation here. Free discussion seems to be creating some antagonism, so I ask you to please to stick to writing statements in your own sections, 200 words maximum, as outlined above. If anyone wants to redo their statements based on what has been discussed, then feel free to add to what you have already written, or to redo it (I recommend using {{cot}} and {{cob}} to collapse unwanted wordage). Thanks for your cooperation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Marek, for some reason the link does not work for me, as I've already said to TLAM. GreyHood Talk 19:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boriak one or the archives one? If it's the Boriak one I can email it to you.  Volunteer Marek  19:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both links work fine for me...--Львівське (говорити) 19:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, strange, the archives link didn't work for me until while after many attempts I checked it through the Google view first. OK, seems like now I have a full picture, I should mostly give up with this issue, even though the publication Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933 remains problematic and likely should not be qualified as RS because of its multiple use of wrong photos. Still my proposal to use Holodomor monument in the lead instead of not entirely convincing photo of this child (moving the photo to some subsection) remains intact. But this is not an important issue anymore. GreyHood Talk 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhood, are you sure that you don't want to pursue this issue any more? If your reasoning is merely that your views have been opposed by some of the other editors, then I invite you to reconsider. Giving up does not equal compromise, and the mediation process is here precisely to ensure that everyone's voice can be fairly heard. This mediation is not a vote; we will be deciding things based on consensus, compromise, and on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please be aware that if you want to address images during the mediation, then now is the time to do it. If you do decide to leave things as they are, then we will not be coming back to this issue. I urge you to consider this carefully, and to make absolutely sure that this is what you want. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is as follows: Volunteer Marek demonstrated me, that Gennady Boriak, the main source I used to demonstrate that the set of pictures including the current lead image is problematic as a whole, at the same time indicates that the particular image (the discussed one), is believed to be authentic. Seems this fact should be accepted and not argued anymore, unless some other RS with a contradicting view is found. I still do not find the image good and entirely convincing (the child's malnutrition is not clearly and undeniably visible), and still propose to use it in the body of the article if use at all, while using some Holodomor monument in the lead. GreyHood Talk 13:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Greyhood regarding the appropriateness of the image: a high contrast b/w image of a healthy but slim child will look similarly. The signs of malnutrition are really hardly visible here. However, I do not think we need to waste MedCab's time for discussion of these details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Vecrumba

As I understand it, the photograph is from the collection of Cardinal Theodore Innitzer, which consists of information and pictures he collected from the famine in the Ukraine (not in 1921-22). @Greyhood, given WP:RU's partisanship, holding it up as an example to follow in an area of historical contention between Russian and its neighbors is usually not the best approach. If anyone has something to say, please say it here and say it in English. So if there are any non-English sources which pertain to calling the specific picture into question, please translate and provide here.

I should add that Innitzer formed a famine relief committee in September 1933 and was not involved in the famine a decade earlier. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the last exchange elsewhere with Greyhood, it would appear that issues over the picture have been resolved. While I prefer the picture that is in the infobox as it stands, I am not completely averse to adding a monument picture and potentially rearranging. Do we want to discuss that at this point? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worthwile to discuss it. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Not sure if I'm supposed to be commenting here or above) - I think that given that the above question as to the authenticity of the current image is resolved, whether or not to use this particular image or some other one essentially comes down to aesthetics. In other words, it's a matter of taste. IF there is a very good high quality image of a monument somewhere out there (that is PD) then we might consider using it. In my experience though a lot of these photos of monuments are fairly ... amateur ... oh ok, they're mostly crappy. So I would need to see a very nice one to consider changing from the present one. The present one is illustrative and draws the reader in, which - as long as there are no questions as to its authenticity - is exactly what we want. It entices people who come to the article to actually read it. In that sense it's exactly what should be there. But if someone can propose viable alternatives I'm willing to consider it.  Volunteer Marek  03:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These monuments are the nearest candidates, since they've acquired some of an iconic status. Surely they are much more recognizable, when it comes to the topic, than the present image. GreyHood Talk 19:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does Ukraine have freedom of panorama?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the image is fairly iconic too, I think. From these two photos I'm going to immediately veto the one on the right. The one on the left would be a potential candidate, IMNSHO, if the photo itself was better (basically too much background, bad framing etc.) But like I said, this comes down to aesthetics. Volunteer Marek  20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you all seem to overlook a very simple thing: since there is no freedom of panorama in the US and Ukraine, these images cannot be used in the infobox per WP:NFCC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it mean that these images should be removed from the gallery as well? I really dislike no FoP.. GreyHood Talk 20:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only. They should be removed from Commons also. However, I may misunderstand that, so you should better can ask there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In discussions above it was proposed to proceed to other issues. For now it seems that the participants of the discussion are quite able and willing to negotiate the possible future replacement of the lead image with a better one, if such one is found. Also we might need to remove some copyright-problematic images.
I'm of double mind whether to support moving to the next issue at this point. One one hand, it seems that we've achieved some understanding and the remaining questions are too minor and better be resolved after this mediation or independently of it (via work on Commons removing panorama-violating images etc.). However, making more research on Theodor Innitzer, the man from whose archive the current lead image was taken from, my suspicions towards the photo somewhat renewed. The person was a Nazi supporter to a great degree, as well as anti-Soviet and anti-Communist it seems. I believe we at least should provide a link to Theodor Innitzer in the photo caption if it stays in the article. GreyHood Talk 00:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, the famine was in 1932-1933. Whatever happened later is not material. And who is to say that seeing (his perspective) what the Soviets did (and did not) regarding the Ukraine would not drive him to embrace extremes of anti-Sovietism? Let's stay on topic, we're not opening the conversation to slurring pictures by subsequent events. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the problem is not in Innitzer's anti-Sovetism. We need to decide (i) if Innitzer is a primary or secondary source, and, if he is a primary source (and I am inclided to think so) then (ii) if reliable secondary sources exist that confirm authenticity of this particular image. If yes, I see no formal reason for removal of this photo, although the signs of malnutrition are not so evident from it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, we're talking about historical photos here, so they will all more or less be primary sources. In fact, strictly speaking that's what historical photos are (in fact they are one of the "primary" primary sources used in historical research). It is a little weird in the sense that with regard to these kinds of images (broadly speaking, not just here) Wikipedia practice tends to depart from the strictly interpreted "only secondary sources" line, but it's also understandable. Likewise posters, or what have you, from 1920, are strictly speaking "primary sources". If you were going to be pedantic about it then ALL these kinds of images, across scores of articles would be removed on WP:PRIMARY grounds. But that's not how WP:PRIMARY usually is interpreted with regard to images.
The way I think of it - and the way that I think the policy is being implicitly interpreted - is that if a particular historical image (poster or photo) was re-published in a reliable secondary source, and the way that it is being presented in a Wikipedia article accords with how it is being presented in that reliable source(s), then it is no longer a primary source but a secondary source.
So based on that, since we DO have reliable secondary sources which confirm the authenticity of the image, I think we can consider it as a secondary source in this instance.
Innitzer's personal politics, as atrocious as they may have been are then irrelevant here. The photo was not taken by him, it was just "in his collection". If secondary reliable sources confirm the authenticity of the photo then we go with that.
I do think we should move on. In answer to Steve's questions as to where everyone is - well, I think they're waiting on the mediators to mediate which involves pushing the discussion forward. Are we being too nice or something? We can fight more if you want us to. Volunteer Marek  03:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some source is primary does not mean that it should be removed. Our policy allows us to use it, if we draw no conclusions based on it. I see no problem with using this particular image, however, I would prefer to see the evidence from some reliable secondary source that this image is an authentic Holodomor photo. It would be good if someone provided such a source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right in that if we include the image, the conclusion that is drawn - which here is "this is a photo relevant to the Holodomor" - needs to come from a reliable sources, which is essentially the point I'm making above (I've seen a lot of images being used in articles where all the conclusions are NOT drawn from third party, reliable sources... hmmm, now that I've thought about it I'm gonna go and remove some I think). However, WE DO have evidence from a reliable source that this is an authentic Holodomor photo. It has already been provided above - Boriak. Ok, let me start a fight here: "I'm tired of saying this over and over again!!!!!" (exclamation points included for the sake of confrontation)
Note to meds: see, this is what happens if you let a settled issue fester, it just re-appears again. Better to move on to new stuff.  Volunteer Marek  03:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, it seems my colleagues have/are away, and I myself have been a bit busy (I appreciate your comment at Wikipedia Review about me). As I see it at present, the discussion seems to be around whether the images proposed in the lead section are truly representative of Holodomor, and the concerns about using certain images due to either the difficult of verifying they are indeed authentic and from 1932-33, as opposed to another famine image misrepresented as a Holodomor image, or the image not being freely licensed. licensed. Does that sound about right? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Then we should forget about Innitzer and focus on Boriak. In connection to that, my question is:
"Does anybody think that Boriak is not a reliable source?"
If some evidences that he isn't will not be provided in close future, we can leave it is the infobox, and move to the next issue. However, if some sources express another viewpoint on this particualr image, we should better move it to the article's body. I personally am neutral regarding that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen anything to suggest that he isn't. I don't think anyone here has questioned his reliability either. I think the best conclusion to this part of the mediation is: leave the image (status quo) but be open to alternative images if and when these should be offered. Ok, let's go, #2 will be more fun. Volunteer Marek  04:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect you will object against Boriak. Let other users to express their opinions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said,I don't object against Boriak as well. But we need to provide a link to Theodor Innitzer in the caption and on the image description page. Anyway we should have a link on the source of the image, and we have an article about it. GreyHood Talk 09:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you have no objections against the image? I agree that the link to Innitzer must be provided with brief explanation of his political views. Let me also remind to every one that the we had the same issue (an Nazi supporter, Rauschning, as a reliable source) in another article, and, if I am not wrong, one of the participants of the present discussion argued that this source cannot be considered as reliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor is not an article about the Cardinal, there is no need to mention his politics at all. I can agree to an internal link however. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the image stays (at least, for a while), the internal link to Innitzer will be provided. Does anyone object against moving to #2?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Innitzer did not take the picture himself. His political views subsequent to the event are not material to the content here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Picture stays, if there is an appropriate image of a monument that can be added. We can move to the next item for discussion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning, I did write to the archive (or as close as I could get, Email-wise) to see if I can get any additional information on the Innitzer collection, that was a week or so ago. I'll share any response I receive. A Happy Thanksgiving for our U.S. editors! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

It seems like the issue with the lead image is resolved in principle but let me remind you how the issue #1 was worded:

  • Which photographs to use and how to portray them, considering the history of fake Holodomor photographs in existence or, more broadly, Image use

We've discussed more than one image, but might have not covered or agreed upon all possible image-related questions so far. Below I'll try to make conclusions from what we have already discussed, extrapolating the treatment of the discussed image to all authentic photographs, and mentioning other issues found in the discussion above. Some of the later issues in the list were discussed very briefly or not at all, and might need further clarification.

  • 1. Usage of the proven authentic photographs from 1932-33, Ukraine. By that we mean the images fulfilling the following conditions:
    • 1.1. The photograph should be among the images which are not only used, but specifically claimed to be authentic by reliable sources, as well as being 1932-33, Ukraine. This official Ukrainian archive in combination with this publication by Boriak, an Ukrainian high archive official and scientist, provide us with some or perhaps all photographs following this condition (though not all photographs there are stated to be 1932-33 rather than 1929-1933).
    • 1.2. The particular photograph should not be disproven to be authentic or strongly questioned by some reliable source, and should not belong to a set of images which in its entirety is disproven to be authentic or strongly questioned by some reliable source. Given the history of misuse and mistakes even by the supposedly most reliable sources and publications, this condition should supplement 1.1.
    • 1.3. The photograph should not appear in the reliable sources which use it to illustrate completely different events, such as the Russian famine of 1921, the Great Depression etc.
    • 1.4. The photograph should not breach the general Wikipedia rules of image use, in particular there should be no problems with copyright issues.
  • 2. The lead image.
    • 2.1. The current lead image has been found to fulfill the conditions outlined above and may stay in principle.
    • 2.1. The current lead image has been found to be authentic 1929-1933 image (the section of the site is called Контекст трагедії (1929-1933): офіційні фотодокументи translated as "The context of the tragedy (1929-1933: official photodocuments)"), but its description doesn't specify whether it was 1932 or 1933 in Ukraine rather than 1929-1931, and the given publication "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933" has been found to contain at least several misused images from 1921 and therefore of dubious reliability in the image area; on page 24 Boriak mentions only engineer Alexander Wienerberger's photos as authentic 1932-33, not other photos from cardinal Innitzer's collection.
    • 2.2. The image has not been found entirely convincing and illustrating the subject at best by some editors here, and other editors have agreed to replace the lead image if a better one is proposed, be it another proven authentic photograph, or an image of a modern monument (other categories of images such as maps, photographs of official documents were not discussed so far, but I hope they are also could be considered as replacement).
    • 2.3. While the two points above seem to be agreed upon and editors involved in the mediation are unwilling to further discuss the lead image here, it should be decided whether we are free to start the relevant discussion on the alternative lead images at Talk:Holodomor before this mediation ends. Perhaps the mediators could resolve this question.
    • 2.3. The image is currently under copyright investigation on Commons and will be deleted if the relevant information is not provided until January. Commons admins also request additional sources to attribute the image as 1933 as its description currently states, or other year.
  • 3. Captions of authentic photographs.
    • 3.1. The captions of authentic photographs should include the available information on the author of the image or the original source, such as from the collection of Cardinal Theodor Innitzer.
    • 3.2. The captions of authentic photographs should follow the descriptions of those photographs in the reliable sources as close as possible.
  • 4. Usage of modern photographs.
    • 4.1. Some of the modern era photographs in the article were found to be problematic from the point of view of copyright, in particularly the lack of the freedom of panorama in certain countries. This might lead to removal of such photographs, though some of them might be reloaded later to be used in a limited scope of articles on fair use terms.
    • 4.2. The possible copyright problems and removals, however, are to be decided not in this mediation, but on Commons and according to general rules. Editors, willing to pursue the issue on Commons or on the image talk pages in the English Wikipedia, are free to do so before the end of this mediation and there is no need in pre-discussing or discussing it here.
  • 5. Usage of hoax photographs. Currently some hoax photographs continue to be used in certain articles related to the subject, e.g. Holodomor denial. Given the fact that the usage of hoax photographs is a notable aspect of Holodomor historiography, such photographs might be relevant to use in Holodomor-related articles, if they fulfill the following conditions.
    • 5.1. The hoax photographs should be placed in special sections titled Hoax photographs or in a similar way so as not to mislead the readers.
    • 5.2. The captions should in a straight, neutral and accurate way describe the hoax photographs as hoaxes. That is, not like it is done in Holodomor denial, where the description starts with A photograph widely believed to depict Holodomor victims instead of A hoax photograph widely used to depict Holodomor victims, and where the scientists who indicated the hoax character of the image are labeled Holodomor denailists.
  • 6. Reflecting the questions related to hoax and authentic photographs in the text of the article. As this and other discussions have shown, this is a notable subtopic covered by reliable sources, both scholarly and media.
    • 6.1. The fact that there are very few authentic photographs of the 1932-33 hunger in Ukraine should be mentioned in all the main articles related to the subject (Holodomor, Holodomor genocide question, Holodomor denial etc.).
    • 6.2. It should be outlined which known sets of photographs are considered authentic, when and how they were made and published
    • 6.3. The fact that there were multiple cases of misuse of photographs in Holodomor-related publications, exhibitions etc. should be mentioned in all the main articles related to the subject.
    • 6.4. Depending on the character and scope of the particular article, the image-related questions might require from several paragraphs to a separate section.
  • 7. Usage of maps.
    • 7.1. Maps of Ukraine and sorrounding areas, as well as the USSR in the whole, depicting the 1932-33 hunger spread and reflecting statistics of fatalities, harvest etc. should be based on reliable data from reliable sources.
    • 7.2. If the methodology behind the data on which the maps are based is faulty or questionable (such as getting the data not from the primary statistics exclusively, but by extrapolation of the limited pieces of data to a wider scope), the relevant aspects of methodology should be reflected in the map caption.
    • 7.3. If there are reliable sources criticizing the methodology behind the data on which the maps are based, be it a criticism of the particular study or a criticism of the approach in general, this might be the basis of removal of such maps and data.

GreyHood Talk 14:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the main participants and spokespeople should indicate the points which they disagree with and which need further discussion and why. The other points would be then accepted by default, the discussion on them stopped and the consensus achieved. GreyHood Talk 14:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm, for the most part, 1 through 4 seem fine. Let me think a bit more about the others. (after two minutes of thinking) - the general thrust of 5 and 6 seems correct, though I think it's a bit off topic. #7 however is not something that has been discussed so far and this in fact seems like more relevant to one of the other issues which are further on the agenda. Volunteer Marek  08:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 7 That is not how things are done, if there are criticisms of a map or methodology then that does not make a source no longer usable, people can and will find fault in everything. If a source is critiqued then that ought be mentioned, we do not just drop a source because someone some were did not like what was written. I will look through the others later The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope at least you don't mind the quite obvious points 7.1. and 7.2. As Volunteer Marek proposes, we may discuss this later, perhaps under #2 of the general agenda, at least when it comes to the map depicting victim numbers. GreyHood Talk 14:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to mediators and everyone. There is a related discussion started by Lothar on Commons: [7]. Another discussion followed on the talk page of the Holodomor lead image: [8]. And guys, please, next time inform everyone here about the related discussions, nor only some people, like Lothar did (sorry for forgetting about mentioning the first discussion here myself right when I encountered it). If a discussion on Commons is related purely to copyright issues, that's OK not to bring it here, but if historical aspects of the authenticity are involved, I think it is relevant to notify the participants of this mediation. GreyHood Talk 14:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I must confess that the development of the discussions mentioned above, namely this new thread have made me to change my position a bit, and now I myself oppose the points #2.1. and #2.3 proposed by me above, at least until more evidence is presented. The reason is as follows: while the image fulfills requirements on proven authenticity mentioned in #1, its description fails #3.2.: The captions of authentic photographs should follow the descriptions of those photographs in the reliable sources as close as possible. Now I'll reproduce my latest comment from Commons:
By this comment on en wiki Volunteer Marek has convinced me that Boriak supports the authenticity of the images on the Ukrainian archive site (On page 24 Boriak lists the sources of existing authentic photos (1st para). He then has a footnote which says: "Most of the authentic photos are presented in a special section of the web-portal of the State Committee on Archives of Ukraine).
However, now I must agree this may mean only that this is an authentic photo from the late 1920s or the early 1930s. The description on the site doesn't say it is 1933 (and not, say, 1932), doesn't say it is from the 1932-1933 hunger (the section of the site is called Контекст трагедії (1929-1933): офіційні фотодокументи translated as "The context of the tragedy (1929-1933: official photodocuments)"), nor does it say that the child is a "victim" (and not just some undernourished child from the era of collectivisation). I'd agree only with the suggestion that it is the photo related to Ukraine since it is placed on the Ukrainian website and reproduced in the books about Ukraine, but still I'd not be 100% sure about that.
It seems so far there is not enough evidence to say the image depicts the hunger of 1932-1933 or even 1933 in particular. Perhaps examining the caption and the usage of image in what is supposed to be the original publication could give some more details (note that the title of the book Hungersnot: Authentische Dokumente über das Massensterben in der Sowjetunion doesn't speak about Ukraine in particular or about 1932-33, but rather about mass deaths in the Soviet Union in general). GreyHood Talk 18:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unsurprised really, the image is authentic, this is as pointless as the debate on commons. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to repost what I wrote on commons:
Greyhood, I think you are confusing what the title of an exhibition is, "Контекст трагедії (1929-1933): офіційні фотодокументи", which does indeed cover the entire period 1929-1933, with the how the source within the exhibition describes this particular photograph: "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933" - hence from the Holodomor.
I think we should leave this issue of the image where it is and let matters resolve themselves on commons (though who knows what kind of crazy shit can happen there). Let's move on to the next issue, or talk about these maps that you put in above, that haven't been discussed so far. Volunteer Marek  21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused with this title as well until today. "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933" is the name of that 2003 Canadian publication, which mixed the authentic images with those of the 1921 hunger. Obviously that publication is not a reliable source, at least when it comes to images. If you can provide an information from the original 1930s publication, or some other reliable source which didn't make serious mistakes with illustrations, that's OK, but the current sources are not enough. They are enough only for the assertion that the image is from 1929-1933. GreyHood Talk 22:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhood, since your position has changed a little bit, could you please present a revised version of "Conclusions"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Paul's request above, I have made hopefully an obviously non-controversial addition to point #1.1, that the images should be from 1932-33, Ukraine. I've stricken out points #2.1 and #2.3 and have written new ones, just describing the situation as it is there, without any decisions or proposals. But now I'll propose some things.
Proposal 1. We all accept points #1, #3, #4, #5, #6 since nobody so far has opposed these points, and we need to move further.
Proposal 2. We discuss point #7 of the proposed conclusions as a part of the discussion of the point #2 of the general mediation agenda.
Proposal 3. We leave the final decision regarding the lead image to the discussion on Commons, since now copyright issues are investigated there, and admins request additional sources for the correct attribution of the image. Unless the relevant information about the original 1930s publication is provided, the image will be deleted.
Proposal 4. Until the question with copyright is resolved positively, and the additional information is brought into discussion on Commons to conclusively show that the image is 1932 or 1933 in Ukraine, rather than 1929, 1930, 1931 or other year, we remove the image from the article or place it into the comment tags.
VM seems to support Proposal 2 and Proposal 3. And since I doubt there will be consensus on Proposal 4, perhaps the mediators should take decision on this point. GreyHood Talk 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rare thing that a mediator would decide on something unilaterally. That said, to steal a phrase from a fellow mediator, "If in doubt, leave it out." I've read over the commons discussion, and the main issues from a copyright perspective are that we don't know with certainty when the image was first published, and who published it. Are there no alternative images we could use that both the release date and the original author is known? Brokering a compromise is important, but if the image violates our policies, or appears to, then I would question its use. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of images in these collection which are specifically attributed as 1933, are known to be published in 1930s and have a known or at least very likely author. Some of this images are on Commons in the commons:Category:Holodomor. Well, in fact even those events are not of 100% provenance, but that's the best we have. GreyHood Talk 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've had some unfortunate instances of unilateral actions in the past (not that such is being contemplated here!). I'll have my feedback added here soon. BTW, given that the Holodomor "conflict" has been going on for years, there is no train leaving the station. My own perception in these matters is that a slower process is more likely to lead to consideration of positions and potential compromises. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the situation on Commons, the question with the lead image will be resolved in one and a half month anyway, so we indeed may do nothing about it here and just wait. I just thought it is against the spirit of Wikipedia to display the image with dubious copyright status and unknown attribution which might be not related to the event it is supposed to depict. GreyHood Talk 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that the current lead image came from here, from the book Holodomor 1932-1933 rokiv v Ukraїni: Dokumenty i materialy? Or am I reading this wrong? Also, unless I'm mistaken, all of these images seem to be copyrighted (per the copyright notice at the bottom). Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. There is, however, supposedly the original 1930s publication, where other images from Innitzer's collection were published. But this source has not been checked by anyone, so it is unknown whether this particular image was used there, how it was attributed and what was the copyright. GreyHood Talk 12:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the copyrights in that collection, some of these images should be in public domain in Austria, where they were published in 1930s.See the Austrian license here for example. Other images from that collection on commons use an incorrect Ukrainian license, though. GreyHood Talk 12:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/02_October_2011/Holodomor&oldid=462396932"