Talk:Holodomor

Suggestion

I think we must somehow link the lede of the article to the Soviet famine of 1932–33. Hundreds of thousand (probably more than a million) died of hunger outside the Ukrainian-speaking areas at the Holodomor time. I, personally, quite happy with the clause that Holodomor was a part of the general famine, but I noticed that many people do not like it. AFAIK, there are two reasons (correct me if I wrong):

1. Stating that Holodomor is a part of something bigger may look like trivializing of the tragedy;
2. It contradicts the theory that Holodomor was mainly an ethnic genocide of Ukrainians. The rest of the victims died because of class and social policies of Soviet Government, not the ethnic policies.

I have noticed that in all the estimations of the numbers of victims there we have separation between the whole of the Soviet Union and Ukraine the number of victims in Ukraine varies from a half to two thirds of the total. So, can we say instead of Holodomor being a part of the general famine, that the number of victims of Holodomor constitutes the majority of the death from the Soviet famine of 1932–33. This statement gives a relative scale of the two events. It provides the reference to the general famine but does not imply that they have the same causes, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a fine suggestion. I do think however that Cossacks should be mentioned in the article as well, since (a) the Holodomor hit Kuban and Don area very hard, cf. Robert Conquest's studies, (b) like Ukrainians, Cossacks refer to the famine in their lands as the Holodomor (while other ethnic groups, e.g., Russians, don't even accept the term Holodomor), and (c) it is clear that the Cossacks -- who formed the core of the White Army as well as independent from Russia republics in 1918-1920 -- were targeted as enemies of the Bolshevik State in what Stalin called a "war of holodomor" (in Russian, "война на измор"). Ukrainians and Cossacks are related to each other through a tight historical and blood bond.173.76.253.77 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev, I have no objections for such a suggestion.--Andrux (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Cossacks are a class, not an ethnic group, though the ones in the Kuban would likely fall into the Ukrainian category. They were targeted in the same manner as kulaks were. There's a reason Ukrainian national anthem says "we are of the cossack nation" --Львівське (говорити) 05:38,29 November 2013 (UTC)

In view of many people, Cossacks are an ethnicity, just like Ruthenians. The amalgamation of Ruthenians and Cossacks created the Ukrainian nation and the Ukrainian ethnicity. (The name Ukraine is old, but the concept of the Ukrainian ethnicity/identity is rather young; the Cossack and Ruthenian identity predate the Ukrainian identity). Russia's 2002 and 2010 censuses list Cossacks as an ethnic group (a subethnic group, to be more precise). In 1918 Cossacks formed independent states -- the Don Republic and the Kuban's People Republic -- and there were plans to make a federation of three republics – together with the Ukrainian State. Denikin destroyed these plans. The constitution of the Don Republic listed Cossacks as a major ethnic group of the republic. The Kuban Cossacks are tightly connected to Dnieper Ukraine, while Don Cossacks are tightly connected to the Eastern Ukraine (the area around Donets river). In 1708 Peter the 1st of Russia, also known as Peter the Crazy, waged a war against Kondraty Bulavin and destroyed the eastern part of the Don Cossack Host in the Eastern Ukraine, annihilating over 30 townlets (stanitsas).173.76.253.77 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ruthenian is just another word for Ukrainian. Cossacks were Ruthenians, and then Ukrainians. The Russian census is a different matter, as Russian cossacks have virtually always identified as Russians. They are cossack by class, and those who still follow the cossack traditions choose to check off 'cossack' as 'nationality' on the census as a matter of pride. You could say that sub-groups of cossacks form their own sub-ethnic groups, like Kuban Cossacks being their own thing with their own dialect/language, traditions, etc., but cossacks on the whole are not an ethnic group in of themselves.--Львівське (говорити) 16:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I will respectfully disagree on the equivalence of the terms Ruthenian and Ukrainian. There is no such thing as Russian Cossacks-- there are Kuban Cossacks, Don Cossacks, Ural Cossackcs, etc. all sharing a unique common culture. Cossacks -- the descendands of Cossacks -- do not identify themselves as Russians. The "checking off" as "nationality" is not a matter of pride, it is about the truth. You can perhaps read this http://kazaki-narod.jimdo.com/, which is a petition to the President of the Russian Federation regarding the census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.253.77 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well the term Ukrainian supplanted 'Ruthene' in the 20th century, most but not all adopted the new nomenclature. It's literally a synonym...I don't know what else to tell you. As for cossacks, Kuban, Don, Ural, etc. are geographic indicators, but each host has it's own ways. Yes they share a common culture, but that's just as any military family shares a common culture, for example. Further, cossacks do self identify as Russian...just as Ukrainian cossacks in Ukraine identify as Ukrainians. I don't know how to go further than that. Regarding the census, Russians also checked off 'Siberian' instead of Russian, so there's that. I read the link and in my opinion this appears to be a recent phenomenon as there's been a bit of a cossack revival of sorts in post-Soviet Russia. While what you say is illustrated here exactly as you said...that doesn't necessarily carry over to cossacks in the 1930s in Ukraine and the Kuban, we would have to find a historical text to confirm self determination apart from Ukrainian/Ruthenians in this period. Especially since it's only a few years after the revolution (with their monarchy falling and repressions beginning, they could be galvanized as separate from Russians more so today than in the 30s) --Львівське (говорити) 00:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link http://forum.kazakia.info/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=2115 to the book "Geography of the Russian Empire" published in 1843. It lists Cossacks as one of the peoples in the Russian Empire, along with people called Rossiyane (which, according to the author, include Malorossy, Belorossy, Velikorossy). It says the Cossacks share with Rossiyane the religion and the language, but otherwise are completely different. So they are not even included in the category "Rossiyane" (Btw, Rossia is a Greek-based spelling of Ruthenia). Ukraina is a term that once apllied strictly to areas used to describe the territories controlled by Zaporozhian and Don Cossacks. (see the map in wiki article on Cossacks). Take care. 173.76.253.77 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe 'Rossiyane' is a reference to the three 'Russian peoples'. Rossia is the Russian spelling of Russia, not Greek... I think the easier way of remembering it is you have the Rusyns (who align with historical Rus) and the Rossians (who align with the new state to the north, Russia/Rossiya). Historical Rus (Ruthenia in Latin) covers Ukraine and it's people continued with the 'Rus' based ethnonym, but in the 20th century a national upheaval began and they identified with the region of Ukraine to set them apart more distinctly from Russians, who also laid claim to Rus. The whole cossack thing is very interesting; I still think it's class based (thinking their society is separate and distinct from the simple peasants). In the Ukrainian case cossack culture is extremely intertwined with the Ukrainian identity, all of Ukraine's historically great statemen were cossacks (You couldn't say Khmelnitsky or Mazepa were cossacks and not Ukrainian, for example) so in that case I don't think it's separate. In the Russian Cossack case, they are outside of the geographic area of Ukraine, so it wouldn't make sense to identify as 'Ukrainian' or 'Ruthenian', so they identify with their own pockets. You also have a history of cossack rebellion towards the Russian state, from Razin to the Don Cossacks during the time of Peter, so I can see why they would want to be separate from the forces of Russian nobility.--Львівське (говорити) 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, just want to point out that pre-Soviet Ukraine was ruled by a (cossack) Hetman (in this case, Skoropodsky), and during the civil war the Kuban Host joined Ukraine more on that here, and this article argues to the Ukrainian origins of the Don Cossacks (not Kuban, but they're mentioned) so I think targetting Ukrainians and Cossacks kind of goes hand in hand since the two are so related.--Львівське (говорити) 22:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

About «Cossacks». Let me remind you, that articles of wikipedia should be created based on RS. So, if anybody would present any RS on Holodomor, saying that «Cossacks» were among victims of Holodomor — why not to mention them in the wiki-article? But not before that.HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:51, 29

You obviously have zero familiarity with RS on the Famine.

There are thousands of documents like this http://www.bibliotekar.ru/golodomor/33.htm and www.slavakubani.ru/read.php?id=1453 that portray the Famine in stanitsas across Kuban and Don regions. 173.76.253.77 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Will you be so kind not to discuss my skills (WP:PERSONAL)? As about so called «RS» you gave above — text on http://www.bibliotekar.ru/golodomor/33.htm doesn't have any mentions of «Cossacks», same thing about the second link you provided — www.slavakubani.ru/read.php?id=1453 And you know what? — I'm not surprised, as history of cossacs finished long before 1932 — immediatly after Civil War in Russia bolshevists evaporated all cossacks. You should read this article — ru:Расказачивание. There is, surely, similar article in English — Decossackization, but it's not so reliable by facts and far behind it's Russian sister by it's content. HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You have not read the links I have sent you, haven't you. The articles do mention both Cossacks and stanitsas (Cossacks lived in stanitsas, organized in yurts, headed by elected atamans, and non-Cossacks lived in villages (selo, derevnya), organized in volosti, headed by starostas. This is a rather relevant detail, no?). The links I posted mention the citizens of stanitsas, not selas or derevnyas, starved to death. The majority of those citizens were Cossacks. Regarding the history of Cossacks being finished 1932, how do you explain http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A6%D0%98%D0%9A_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_%D0%BE%D1%82_20.04.1936_%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%81_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B5_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%9A%D0%90 , which is a 1936 decree of the Soviet government lifting the ban on the service of the Cossacks in the Red Army. And how do you explain that more than 100 Cossack regiments in the Red Army were formed during the World War II? And thank you very much for pointing me to "Decossackization" and "Raskazachivanie" articles. Incidentally, I have contributed to both articles at various points in time.173.76.253.77 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

* In this case it will be a kind of original research. Geohem (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I gave you a quotes of top-ranked ukrainian historian of Holodomor Stanislav Kul'chitsky, who wrote (you here everybody speaks Russian, so you understand what he wrote, but if you by some reasons can't read my cyrillic alphabit above (AGF, AGF) — I'm happy to translate it for you into English); «russian (in the name of top scholars Zelenin and Danilov) and western scholars threat ukrainian famine as part of general soviet famine of the time». This is statement of the person, who's name mentioned 16 (!!!) times in the wiki-article! And you started war edits against this statement! This is tertiary RS by it's nature and should be added to the wiki article without any doubts. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

* Just distortion of a meaning. And in this book he wrote: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. Geohem (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, this is just one sentence taken by you without paying an attention to the conclusion part as cited by Geohem. Moreover, there are other references (e.g. this one) published in peer-review journals in English, suggesting Holodomor as separate from other famines event.--Andrux (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

* Stanislav Kulchitsky has his own valid oppinion. And this oppinion is that famine in Ukraine was differ to general famine in USSR of that year. And this is oppinion of respectfull scholar, i.e. «secondary sorce» in local terms. When scholar Stanislav Kulchitsky gave his review on historiography of Holodomor, he acts as «tertiary source». This is the difference between these two statements of Kulchitsky. His personal point of view may be added to the wiki-article with proper attribution (NPOV). Information, which is taken from reliable tertiary source must to be added to the wiki-article. And if we trust Kulchitsky on Holodomor issue - and we do trust him, as his works are used even in the artice — intentions to reject his review on historiography of Holodomor are not fair. HOBOPOCC (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad that no any further objections to my proposal to add statements of Stanislav Kul'chitsky on current historiography of Holodomor, which is tertiary source in it's origin, should be added to wiki-article without any doubts. My proposed adding is here in bold: «The Holodomor... was a man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR in 1932 and 1933...and a part of a general Soviet famine of 1932–33.<ref>Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5</ref>»HOBOPOCC (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Such statement is incorrect. It is not in agreement with the summary of prof. Kulchitskiy review work: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. There are other sources to support the uniqueness of Holodomor, as compared to feline in USSR, please see the discussion above.--Andrux (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You are doing WP:NOTPOINTy now. I already explained why and how personal point of view of professor Kulchitsky («secondary sorce») to be separated from review of professor Kulchitsky on historyography of Holodomor («tertiary source»). And I gave you direct citacion of professor Kulchitsky: «...историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного» and I make translation of the text for our non-Russian speaking editors: «...historians (of Russian school Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet hunger... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-union famine...». Yes, professor Kul'chitsky personelly disagree with such position of world scholars, but he honestly declare present scientific approach to the Holodomor, even it's not according to his theory. If you denay such simple for understanding fact — I have nothing to do, but to rise this discussion to higher level. HOBOPOCC (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Kulchitsky didn't write about "Russian school". He has written about two of them: Danilov's and Zelin's point of view. By the way other researcher Kondrashyn has written that in the West and in Ukraine consider the Holodomor as an exclusively Ukrainian phenomenon <ref>http://www.idd.mid.ru/inf/inf_05.html</ref>. Geohem (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You are providing wrong information about professor Kondrashyn. He declares that there are two schools in Ukrainian and Western scholarship - one traditional - that famine in Ukraine is part of general soviet man-made famine and another alternative school - declaring that Ukrainian famine was an unique one. His opinion doesn't make any conflict with review of professor Kulchitsky, as Kulchitsky says that bigger part of Western scholars stays on the grounds that Ukrainian famine is part of general soviet famine. HOBOPOCC (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Where does Kulchytsky state that the majority of western scholars support the Soviet view?--Львівське (говорити) 17:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about «Soviet view» and Kulchitsky's view on it (такой вот каламбур получился). I think you mix up «russian view» and «soviet view». Soviet view on everything was over in 1991, Soviet system does not exist from that time, lucky we are. And what Kulchitsky actualy said in his book of 2007, I posted on this page already three times and now I make it for forth time and speciall for you: "...В. Данилов и И. Зеленин опубликовали в журнале «Отечественная история» (2004, № 5) программную статью «Организованный голод. К 70-летию общекрестьянской трагедии». В ней остро осуждалась хлебозаготовительная политика Кремля, которая стала причиной рукотворного голода во многих регионах СССР. Однако историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного..." (Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5) HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but Google translate says he said, "Sovietologists and Russians in Western countries are also considering a large part of the Ukrainian famine in the context of the entire USSR"...--Львівське (говорити) 19:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I was confused by your «User talk:Lvivske|говорити». Anyway, I already translated this text above, but no problem, I would do it for you again: «...historians (of Russian school — Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet famine... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-Soviet-Union famine...»HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the suggestion of 173.76.253.77 (why not register like most of us?), I don't think you can say 'Stalin called [it] a "war of holodomor"' That is not really a good translation of the Russian, "война на измор". cwmacdougall 11:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give a better translation? The word "izmor" has a very clear message, which is to kill by hunger. Too bad "izmor" is not a common English word, but perhaps it would be on day, like Holodomor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.253.77 (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

How about "War of attrition"? "izmor" is usually translated as "attrition", which is different, plus "Holodomor" has a host of connotations, at least now; Stalin didn't call it that. cwmacdougall 2:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not simply translate it literally? It doesn't have to be confined to predefined idiomatic jargon. It means "War of starvation" or "War by starvation". Rhetoric such as, "Enemy of the people" et al didn't mean anything in the English language until its usage became familiar within the context in which it was intended. Keep it succinct. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A few comments from a "neutral" party

(1) Reference above to people "checking off" Cossack as their ethnicity on the census it misleading. There were no boxes to check, no ethnic names on the census forms, just a blank space for the individual to list his own "nationality" [narodnost' in the 1926 census, natsional'nost' in later Soviet censuses]. The census administration took those inscribed names and applied a "dictionary of nationalities and languages" to them and reclassified those who identified with groups such as Cossack into one of the accepted larger "nationalities" that were used in the census reports. Cossack was not one of those nationalities, so respondents who self-labeled as Cossack ended up counted in the census as something else, most likely based on the language that they claimed as their "native language" (rodnoi iazyk). (I know this is how things worked in other regions, such as Central Asia, where people who labeled themselves with the generic word 'Tyurk' were put into the Soviet censuses as Uzbek, Kazakh, Turkmen, etc., according to their language.) Thus, if census respondents called themselves Cossack by nationality but said that Ukrainian was their native language, it's likely that they were classified by nationality in the census statistics as Ukrainian; and if they self-identified as Cossack but their native language was Russian they were likely classified in the census as having Russian ethnicity/nationality. (2) One more brief point: the notion of a population deficit is understood in the field of demography as a decline in population size or growth relative to some normal or expected number. Typically this is due to a deficit of births, such as when a war or a famine reduces the number of births from normal or expected rates. In wars such birth deficits come about often because of the separation of soldiers from their wives, or the deaths of soldiers; but wars also affect the non-combatant population when married couples defer having children until times become more normal, but also infant mortality rates can be very high (20-30% or even higher) among the civilian population because of the lack of good nutrition or health care, among other causes. In the United States, the birth deficit during World War II was followed beginning in 1946 by an extended baby boom, which lasted til about 1960. (In the Soviet Union, there was no post-war baby boom because so many males were missing and there was a famine in 1946-7.) In famines, birth deficits can come about because of malnutrition and high fetal and infant death rates.~Mack2~ 05:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree with your second point. (And we China had similar controversy on the death number caused by the Great Leap Forward) However, the main article also cited the decision of the court, in which death and "birth deficit" are both considered "demographic losses" due to the famine. I think it kind of makes sense. Since parents being forced not to have children due to lack of food is also a form of disaster. Ahyangyi (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Another attempt to add "see also:Soviet famine of 1932–33"

@Andrux:

First of all, sorry for saying it wrong as Due to the importance and quality of Holodomor, it should be placed at the front. The "redundant" link is deleted, for your rigorousness --- I overlooked which page it was, and I confused this with the Soviet famine of 1932–33.

Secondly, I see that this issue has brought forth numerous debates. I personally have no energy or intent to make any lengthy arguments here, but seems that this issue is a bit heated up. I think I should leave the solution to everybody here then. -- Salute. SzMithrandir (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

SzMithrandir, everyone here is welcome to discuss the controversial edits! You are right that the topic is "hot" and there many evidences (as you can see in duscussion above) supporting Holodomor as a separate from Soviet famine event. --Andrux (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Holdomor Propaganda?

ukraine was not the only one who expierenced a famine, more russians died in the famine of 1921 than in holdomore yet you dont see russians bitching about. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xu4g3l_russians-suffered-most-under-communism-not-ukrainians-or-baltics-9-million-death-people-forgotten_news So how is it a genocide if a drought happens? The article should question more what really happened and not some propaganda. Just the fact alone that they choose some name like holdomor that is similiar to holocaust shows there is some agenda which makes me very suspecious. The article should at least explain where this name comes from and who populaized it. --Locktarogar (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

it appears you've been indoctrinated with soviet propaganda. read a history book before trying to make a coherent argument here. If you're just trying to troll, this won't go far. Also, the article does explain the name, it's literally the first section: Etymology.--Львівське (говорити) 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Locktarogar, if you read up you will note:

• as compared to the Russian famine of 1921 where international aid was provided and accepted, here Stalin suppressed news of the famine and, obviously, failed to accept any aid;
• Ukrainian households stripped of all foodstuffs, left with absolutely nothing and left to starve, this wasn't just a requisitioning of grain;
• Ukrainians were cordoned off and not allowed to leave the famine area, condemning them to die.

You would do well to study some history to put this tragedy into proper historical context instead of complaining that Russians don't bitch about the famine. They weren't targeted the way the Ukrainians were. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion about the lede

I think the opening paragraphs sort of pussy foots. In comparison, the article about the WW2 holocost comes right up and provides an estimate about the number of dead that gets precised later on in the text. Here, we start off with a vague estimate of 1 to 12 million that is really only of academic interest and should be deeper in the text. The best current estimate is what needs to be lead off with in my humble opinion. Given the current state of affairs in Ukraine, I don't want to jump in here and start making edits because it's probably a very controversial topic right now but this is my suggestion.

Considered genocide by thirteen states

It is not sourced that the states official recognized it as genocide. --Wrant (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

...what?--Львівське (говорити) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not source, there it no source for the statemant "recognized as a genocide" where do you take the information from? --Wrant (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)