Talk:Holodomor

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 (quotes from statements by various governmental authorities) | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |

Vote on Collectivization Section

Should this section be removed and summarized in 1-2 paragraphs or should it stay the way it is now. Perhaps we should vote in order to see what the consensus is, rather than engage in revert warring.Faustian (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• The article currently is unweildly, with a lot of fluff. This section should be summarised and shorted and those interested in more specific facts they should be redirected to more spegific information Bandurist (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

* As unwanted information in Proclamation_of_Ukrainian_Independence – [1]?

Section simply has an incorrect name which originated from the past. Correct name should be

• Fault in Agriculture and Collectivization issues

While as regards to attempt by cooperative of editor – it’s actually same thing which happened with unwanted information from UPA – Sluzhba Bezbeky NKVD_units_dressed_as_UPA_fighters sections were simply removed – and no intend to make them better – simply removal to the bottom of WP visit list – as far as link visit at article is always very low. So this glare bad faith tactic. As far as I can see – you actually does not provide any contributions related to topic of this article while your edits it’s clear blanking and even OR by distorting the source or selectively provided data and understatements . While I once again highly recommend you to visit a library or at least read this stuff [2] from 1 to 200 page.Jo0doe (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On some articles I add info, on others I remove messes. On this article my activity has consisted mostly of the latter activity, which is also an important thing to do. Your "correct name" makes little sense in the English language. But note that there are several editors who have removed your messes on multiple articles. You refer to this as a collaborative effort, blanking, OR but those are just the words of a well-known disruptive editor who gets involved in edit warring on almost every article he touches. Nothing new.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Brittainica in the Lead

Hello,

The EB article is about the Holodomor, which, by definition, is in Ukraine. Therefore, the numbers quoted there are from Ukraine. Please don't try to play semantic games. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome,

Thanks, for your believe. But please do not engage in OR here. Actually – can’t find what EB article is about the Holodomor – as far as I can comprehend it’s EB article about Ukraine See Irpen detailed explanation [3]Jo0doe (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, and thank you for the welcome. However, even the most cusrory glance at this discussion will show you that this is not my first entry here, so no welcome is necessary.

Unfortunately, as much as I have tried to understand you, and nomatter how many times I have asked you to try to keep your sentences easy to understand, you don't. I will try to answer you, but if I don't please mark it down to the fact that I can't understand what you are trying to say.

By the way, if you are having trouble using the EB, just ask, Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Wellcome, Actually - can't detect any releted to article topic entries - while detect difficulties with book reading. So I hope, when you try books instead of online EB, it helps you be more familiar with topicJo0doe (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, Britannica number is addressed here. I won't tolerate any more of your falsification of sources as I explained here. --Irpen 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, I read your interpretation of the Britannica number, but I don't agree with it. I also won't tolerate any of your arbitrary removal of sourced material. Also, please don't keep inserting the article "the" before "modern history", where it doesn't belong. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, please cite the exact quote in Britannica where it gives the number of victims of the famine in Ukraine. Thanks for catching "the". I will correct it. --Irpen 18:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[[4]]. Now please stop removing numbers. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was already discussed. Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians (1926 Census considered Kuban Cossaks to be Ukrainians, they did not lived in Ukraine and died in hundred thousands. If the number is included the difference should be explained Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Horlo (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to numbers in the lead

Hello,

It seems that we need to go through this one more time. First, the sentence which introduces "demographers' estimate" is grammatically incorrect, as only one "demographer" is quoted. However, what is sad about that sentence is that there is no mention in any source of the number 2.2 million. In the first reference, which is by no means devoted to the Holodomor, the number of deaths is quoted as "2.6 million, as opposed to the 433,000 which would have been expected". The second source simply provides Excel charts with life expectancies, percentages, etc. No mention at all about 2.2 million.

Either better sources need to be found, or they need to be qualified. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, So read this once again [5] [6] [7] [8] – or made a printed copy and place it near you PC (MAC, OS400…, Xbox360 or PlayStation2) and look at it before you ‘ll return to figures in the lead. As your grammatical excellence – I hope you able to see names of authors of the book [9] – so the 4 names is given at 30s Chapter. So by the way it’s interesting the way how you decide what number of death in Ukraine in 1933 no means devoted to the Holodomor – rather interesting.

• The second source simply provides Excel charts with life expectancies, percentages, etc

- I think your browser definitely need to be replaced – as far as it does not show you content which you don like to see.

etc. – really interesting word used for Excel chart with number of death in Ukraine from 1924 till 2000. So look at 1933 row – you can find figure 2.5… mln. If you read pages 28-31 of the book you can find number of expected death. So death exceed related to holodomor appeared in the book as 2.172 – or for publication proposes 2.2 million – per arithmetic rule.

I hope we’ll return to you proposals when “excessive death” and “death exceed” will not be the same thing for your. Jo0doe (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, once again, I have really tried to understand what you mean. However, because of statements like this: "look at it before you ‘ll return to figures in the lead" and "So by the way it’s interesting the way how you decide what number of death in Ukraine in 1933 no means devoted to the Holodomor – rather interesting" and "really interesting word used for Excel chart with number of death in Ukraine from 1924 till 2000" and "when “excessive death” and “death exceed” will not be the same thing for your", I can't. I will have to work on the assumption that you just don't get it - use short sentences. I cannot answer your comments if I cannot understand them. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wellcome,

probably you need to spend a little bit more time in library - highly recommended reading you can find at provided by me link. Jo0doe (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors who are very weak in English

Question: Is there a Wikipedia policy regarding literacy levels of English. It is extremely difficult to collaborate with editors who do not have a good grasp of English. This leads to misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and methodology. This is very disruptive and impacts the development of articles.

If there is no guidance on this subject - maybe a new policy is required in this area.

Bobanni (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We've asked Jo0doe in the past, for example, to break his editorial positions down into smaller more manageable pieces. Another option is for an editor to state their position in their native language and have someone more fluent translate. Then there's "machine" translation which works for straightforward vocabulary and grammar. —PētersV (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He is very head-strong and quite insistent. Some of his contributions are well founded but others are a regurgitation of biased opinions, primarily those of the Russian state opinion. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't make such a big noise about Hoaxs, and sneaky whatever and constantly looking for administrators to come in and support his comments.

He also reverts back without including any of the spelling or grammar corrections done to his work. I'm tired of constantly correcting his spelling and grammar. He is not the most co-operative editor.

What is interesting is that he is only focussing on a small number of english language articles dealing with Ukrainian nationalism. It is also interesting to note that the changes that JoOdoe proposes do not exist in the Russian or Ukrainian counterparts of the article. I would have expected him to make his changes and additions there first (in languages he would know better) before making disruptions here.Bandurist (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Motion to remove "Neutrality" and "Cleanup" tags

Hello,

The tag to check the article for neutrality has been atop the article for almost two months, and there have been no major changes made.

The tag to clean up the article has been there since March, and no major changes have been made.

I think that the two tags can safely be removed. Does anybody have any oposing views?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No comments forthcoming on neutrality - the cause section goes to a level of detail that it overpowers the article - too many statistics. Bobanni (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The readability of this article has many problems for your average English speaking audience. It appears to be written for an audience that has an in-depth knowledge of SOVIET history. Bobanni (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Would be nice to heard your conclusion about DNA and Bozon articles - which clear has many problems for your average English speaking audienceJo0doe (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, no - those articles explain everything clearly to an average English speaker. Perhaps your difficulty with average English would encourage you to adopt a less agressive posture in this discussion. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, you were warned several times about making fun of other people's English. It is a very bad form in internet discussions and is usually considered a form of trolling.

Now, I am sorry that I have to say this to you, but serious sources of history are based on hard facts and this is what makes them different from political polemic writings that more rely on rhetoric, just like many Op-Ed pieces or speeches of the politicians. In history facts are in large parts numbers and dates, you know, the "dull stuff", that are not as easy to read and comprehend as eloquent political rhetoric. But we write the encyclopedia for people interested in facts. Those who want to read rhetoric have a lot of opportunities to read it in Op-Ed sections and speeches given by politicians. --Irpen 19:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, let's talk these points through. First, you mention that "I have been warned several times" - well, actually, no, what really happened was that I started pointing out your grammar mistakes, and you got very defensive about your English. However, as you stopped making them, it stopped being an issue.

Now, perhaps if you read some of the things that JoOdoe has been writing here, (for example the two sections in which she/he points out all of the mistakes of the Encyclopedia Britannica) you will understand why I brought up - again - his English skill. You will even see an entire section about editors who are weak at English (no names, of course, that would be rude), to which I did not even contribute. This is not trolling, this is pointing out facts.

Which brings us to your second topic, the "hard facts" of history. I hate to have to point this out to you, but history is never about hard facts - science is about hard facts. That is why history is not considered a science. Let me explain: you cannot disagree that two plus two equals four. It's objective, and nomatter which rational person you ask, two plus two will always equal four. That is a "hard fact". However, two, three, four, or twenty people can each have their own version of what happened at O'toole's pub last night after last call. Everybody has their own opinion. That is history - "his" + "story". History has never been, nor will it ever be about "hard facts". It is about what happened, and everybody who was there may remember it differently. Numbers are useful in the study of history, but they must always be considered with a grain of salt - for example, if a government allows the slaughter of millions of its citizens, then the census numbers provided by said government must be considered suspect. The act of allowing millions of people to starve cannot be considered rational, and therefore the numbers given by that government cannot be considered rational. That's a bigger example of why history is never only a study of numbers and dates.

Now, if you want to limit your contributions to dates, that's fine. However, there is a lot more to history than that, and that is exactly why semantics is important in the study of history. And that's why language skill is important when we write encyclopedia. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

History - history is not considered a science. History has never been, nor will it ever be about "hard facts". Can't see effort to update WP on such matter. WP is wrong - Categories: History | Social sciences | Greek loanwords

• all of the mistakes of the Encyclopedia Britannica

It's requred several hundreds GbyteJo0doe (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, you just proved my point about your language ability. Social science IS NOT SCIENCE. Please start being more cooperative. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Great – Social science IS NOT SCIENCE – social scientists are not SCIENTISTS thus non academic thus non RS per WP. While – as far as Statistics and Demography is a science as also an Economics – we can clean up this article from hoaxes about Ukrainian nationalism, elite and rest Nazi- collaborators whitewasher myths. Than you for your logical advice.Jo0doe (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality tag is very appropriate in this article. A direct translation from the Ukrainian page is an extremely limited POV. Please join the discussion further down the page abut Definition of Holodomor. USchick (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, again, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place to practice your English, so please, try to listen, also. Let me make this very clear:

Social science is not science. If you go to University and get a degree in History, you will get a degree called a "Bachelor of Arts". That doesn't mean that you don't have a degree, nor does it mean that you are not an academic. It means that you are not a scientist.

On the other hand, if you go to University and get a degree in statistics or economics, you will get a degree called "Bachelor of Science". That means that you are both a scientist and an academic.

This is your last free English lesson: academic=/=scientist.

Please, adopt a less beligerent attitude.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Konchalovsky and Lipkov, The Inner Circle

Indeed very RS for historical article http://www.newmarketpress.com/title.asp?id=364 – but Peters – did you have any success in finding how many bulldozers were shipped to USSR under lend-lease program? If not – please spend little more time on doing so rather then inserting the hoax into WP. I hope you can also scroll-down article talk-page archive with detailed explanation about such claims – together with NKVD in 1933, Frozen meat of kulak, and sunken barges. Thank you for your understanding. Jo0doe (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As a reminder

Additionally, the age limit for the death penalty was reduced to 12 years old: children were shot for gathering ears of corn left in the field after harvest." should be removed as lowering of the age of legal responsibility appeared after April 7 1935 [69][70] And special instruction № 1/001537 — 30/002517 April 20 from 1935 were explanations were provided and mentioned what death penalty is an most exeptional measure and should be in close control. Jo0doe (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No known facts what such measures ever appliedJo0doe (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What is a CP(b)?

What is a CP(b)? Is it an appropriate term to use in ENGLISH Wikipedia? Bobanni (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Communist Party (Bolshevik). See CP(b)U. Should be used like any abbreviation. —Michael Z. 2008-09-19 17:46 z

Sourcing

Does anyone else have an issue with using Steven Wheatcroft as the source for citation 11? He is one of the more unabashed Stalinists left in academia. CENSEI (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about Wheatcroft is irrelevant. --Irpen 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion aside, is an unabashed Stalinists, a reputation he has among many of his peers, a high quality source for an article about one of Stalin’s most heinous crimes against humanity? After further reivew, Wheatcroft is used over a dozen times in this article as a source ... this is atrocious. CENSEI (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as you are not citing any serious sources that dispute the quality of his academic research, these statements remain nothing but your personal opinion, that we both agree to put aside. --Irpen 21:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Davies and Wheatcroft in their text go out of their way to not discuss motivations on the part of the state or individuals in any of what they report, even with reference to documents restricting personal movement to areas stricken by seer famine, etc. That they have chosen to do so makes them neither Stalinist or anti-Stalinist. That said, the absence of motivations from their text does not mean the absence of motivations in reality. Motivations simply require other sources. —PētersV (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor: A Genocide?

Irpen and associated editors insist on removing the category:genocide link in this article. At some point an editor changed the genocide category link to a democide category link. Since no democide category template exists at the moment the same editor used this as an excuse to take out this classification all together. Look you guys, if you think that the Holdomor did not constitute either a genocide (personal opinion: maybe) or a democide (personal opinion: definieltly) please argue it first on the talk page. The phenomenon under discussion has definietly been recognized as a genocide by a number of governments and bodies. Therefore there should be some inclusion in a general category, whether genocide or democide.radek (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It should not, and if one looks at the history at least two users got permabanned for repeatedly spamming this article with the category. The question is why? Well first of all there is still no universal agreement on the death toll, let alone whether it was deliberate or not, nor whether it targeted only Ukrainians or only peasants. In any case, there is a whole article Holodomor genocide question which examines the historical arguments. So it really is irrespective if a some or many politicians make statements and recognitons, often contradicting each other. Please see the archived discussions and don't add the category anymore. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The Genocide Category is topic category not a list category. Many scholary books on genocide include the events of 1932-1933 in Ukraine. No historical event gets universal agreement - if Wikipedia required universal agreement for is articles it would be a tiny encyclopedia. Replacing category. Bobanni (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Holodomor/Archive 5, and Talk:Holodomor/Archive_4, standing consensus can only be changed by arriving at new consensus. "Scholarly books" is laughable for example I type it into google, get this and not even a mention of Holodomor. Anyhow restoring status quo.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Talk:Holodomor/Archive 5 consists mostly of trolling by a banned user with obvious mental problems (Jacob Peters) The rest in both of those archives is a discussion over whether or not Holodomor was or was not a genocide. That's beside the point as Bobanni notes above. The point is that there's enough people - governments, academics, etc. - who do consider it a genocide (or at least a democide if you're going to pull out the "it didn't only target the Ukrainians" card) and thus it should be included in the topic category.radek (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Radek, actually it is pretty straightforward. Two POV's that Holodomor was a Genocide and that it was not co-exist within the mainstream scholarly (as well as political) debate. Thus, the article should neutrally describe the situation providing each of these POV's in an attributed form as it does in the "Was the Holodomor genocide?" section. The the Holodomor is a Genocide is a POV shared by some politicians and a small group of acadmics. That it is not is the POV of other academics and many politicians too. By slamming the category that reflects one of the opposing POV's over the whole article we prejudge this debate instead of fairly representing both sides, thus violating the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Just for the cases like this, the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline requires care in adding controversial categories to articles where such addition would violate the article's neutrality. --Irpen 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

List of researcher considering that the HOLODOMOR WAS a GENOCIDE

• Nicolas Werth (France)
• Yves Ternon (France)
• James Mace (US)
• Robert Conquest (US)
• Andrew Gregorovich (Canada)
• Yaroslav Bilinsky (US)
• Roman Serbyn (Canada)
• Gerhard Simon (Allemagne)
• Andrea Graziosi (Italie)
• Ferdinando Adornato (Italie)
• Leo Kuper (US)
• Federigo Argentieri (Italie)
• Ettore Cinnella (Italie)
• Michael Marrus (Canada)
• Massimo De Angelis (Italie)
• Gabriele De Rosa (Italie)
• Renzo Foa (Italie)
• Mauro Martini (Italie)
• Vittorio Strada (Italie)
• Victor Zaslavski (Russie)
• Stephane Courtois (France)
• Alain Besançon (France)
• Etienne Thévenin (France)
• Egbert Jahn (Allemagne)
• Sante Graciotti (Italie)
• Francesco Perfetti (Italie)
• Lucio Villari (Italie)
• Johan Ōman (Suede)
• Orest Subtelny (Canada)
• Hubert Laszkiewicz (Pologne)
• Jan Jacek Bruski (Pologne)
• Ewa Rybalt (Pologne)
• Simona Merlo(Italie)
• Maria Pia Pagani(Italie)
• Giorgio Petracchi(Italie)
• Francesco Guida(Italie)
• Fulvio Salimbeni(Italie)

List of researcher considering that HOLODOMOR was a criminal act but not a genocide

• Wheatcrotf
• Tauger
• Kondrashyn

List of researcher considering that nothing happened

• Lacroix Riz

Can someone tell me why the opinion of the majority (90% of them ) is not considered as a consensus among researchers! What is then a consensus among researchers .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.81.130 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Check Case Study: The Great Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33 By Nicolas Werth / CNRS - France

"Can someone tell me why the opinion of the majority (90% of them ) is not considered as a consensus among researchers!"

One obvious reason is that the majority of people listed have not done any significant research from the Soviet archives, whereas Tauger and Wheatcroft have. Someone like James Mace was exposed for manipulating photos taken from the 1921-2 famine and recycling them in publications attributing them to the 1932-3 famine. Robert Conquest even altered the date of a Hearst piece by two years from 1935 to 1933 because he realized that the Hearst story was false but wished to use it anyway. None of that can take the place next to historical research based upon an in-depth study of the archives, of which Tauger has done the most work in relation to the specific famine of 1932-3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.8 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That is quite simple: I guess, 81.249.81.130 searched Internet using keywords "Holodomor" and "Genocide". However, most researchers who do not consider Holodomor to be a genocide never use these definitions for Soviet famine in 1932-33.
Why do dolphins use to push a sinking man towards shore? Because those who were being pushed to high sea cannot tell about that... --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to complete the list and express justified critics : most researchers are a little vague .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.27.3 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories

We have already Category:Holodomor. All other categories are probably related to that category. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary style

This needs to be brought into accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. Creating a Holodomor in modern politics article (or some such title), and hiving a large chunk of the content in the "Politicization of Holodomor" off to there would be a good start. Moreschi (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, probably a Causes of Holodomor sub-article would help as well. Moreschi (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting off sections and leaving a brief summary is generally a good idea for large articles. However, there is an important caveat. The material being split off needs to be stable enough thus being satisfactory to most editors who are active in the article. Otherwise, what would happen is that there would be two independent content wars at two pages and the same material may get reflected at different pages in drastically different ways as one party may prevail in pushing its POV into one of the pages while the other party would succeed at the other page. As a result, two different articles on Wikipedia would contradict each other on a particular topic.

This happened for example when "Controversies of Polish-Soviet War" were split off the Polish-Soviet war. Same often happens when History section of the country's article with time evolves to contradict the "History of Country" article and so on. So, before splitting off sections, we need to insure that they are stable enough. "Causes of Holodomor" sections of this article is certainly not stable. Same can be said about politicization. So, I am afraid the split off would bring the exact same result in this case. But generally, this is the right approach. --Irpen 03:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I completely agree with Moreschi that this article should be sub-divided into sections. I will begin with Causes of the Holodomor. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I urgue to avoid vandalism - type blanking action in this article - please respect arguments of othersJo0doe (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Holodomor Resolution

Some recent info:

H.Res. 1314

passed by U.S. House of Representatives

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Attached: statement by Rep. Sander Levin (sponsor of the resolution):

19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whereas in 1932 and 1933, an estimated seven to 10 million Ukrainian people perished at the will of the totalitarian Stalinist government of the former Soviet Union, which perpetrated... (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HRES 1314 EH

H. Res. 1314 In the House of Representatives, U. S., September 23, 2008.

Whereas in 1932 and 1933, an estimated seven to 10 million Ukrainian people perished at the will of the totalitarian Stalinist government of the former Soviet Union, which perpetrated a premeditated famine in Ukraine in an effort to break the nation's resistance to collectivization and communist occupation;

Whereas the Soviet Government deliberately confiscated grain harvests and starved millions of Ukrainian men, women, and children by a policy of forced collectivization that sought to destroy the nationally conscious movement for independence;

Whereas Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin ordered the borders of Ukraine sealed to prevent anyone from escaping the man-made starvation and preventing any international food aid that would provide relief to the starving;

Whereas numerous scholars worldwide have worked to uncover the scale of the famine, including Canadian wheat expert Andrew Cairns who visited Ukraine in 1932 and was told that there was no grain `because the government had collected so much grain and exported it to England and Italy,' while simultaneously denying food aid to the people of Ukraine;

Whereas nearly a quarter of the rural population of Ukraine was eliminated due to forced starvation, while the entire nation suffered from the consequences of the prolonged lack of food;

Whereas the Soviet Government manipulated and censored foreign journalists, including New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, who knowingly denied not only the scope and magnitude, but also the existence, of a deadly man-made famine in his reports from Ukraine;

Whereas noted correspondents of the time were castigated by the Soviet Union for their accuracy and courage in depicting and reporting the famine in Ukraine, including Gareth Jones, William Henry Chamberlin, and Malcolm Muggeridge, who wrote, `[The farmers] will tell you that many have already died of famine and that many are dying every day; that thousands have been shot by the government and hundreds of thousands exiled';

Whereas in May 1934, former Congressman Hamilton Fish introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives (House Resolution 399 of the 73d Congress) which called for the condemnation of the Soviet Government for its acts of destruction against the Ukrainian people;

Whereas the United States Commission on the Ukraine Famine, formed on December 13, 1985, conducted a study with the goal of expanding the world's knowledge and understanding of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933, and concluded that the victims were `starved to death in a man-made famine' and that `Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933';

Whereas on May 15, 2003, in a special session, the Ukrainian Parliament acknowledged that the Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor) was engineered by Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Government deliberately against the Ukrainian nation and called upon international recognition of the Holodomor;

Whereas with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, archival documents became available that confirmed the deliberate and pre-meditated deadly nature of the famine, and that exposed the atrocities committed by the Soviet Government against the Ukrainian people; and

Whereas on October 13, 2006, the President of the United States signed into law Public Law 109-340 that authorized the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the Ukrainian famine-genocide of 1932-1933,' in recognition of the upcoming 75th anniversary of the tragedy in 2008:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) solemnly remembers the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor) of 1932-1933 and extends its deepest sympathies to the victims, survivors, and families of this tragedy;

(2) condemns the systematic violations of human rights, including the freedom of self-determination and freedom of speech, of the Ukrainian people by the Soviet Government;

(3) encourages dissemination of information regarding the Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor) in order to expand the world's knowledge of this man-made tragedy; and

(4) supports the continuing efforts of Ukraine to work toward ensuring democratic principles, a free-market economy, and full respect for human rights, in order to enable Ukraine to achieve its potential as an important strategic partner of the United States in that region of the world.

Attest:

Clerk.<http://obama.senate.gov/press/080303-obama_statement_128/> <http://obama.senate.gov/press/080303-obama_statement_128/>

Bandurist (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives Whereas indeed is not new –agreed what Holodomor is a kind for revenue bill (trips, constructions, PR-companies, land-plot and governmental posts) for few persons in Ukraine. But it’s sad to see how many hoaxes appeared in a few bytes of text.

So a List

• estimated seven to 10 million Ukrainian people perished at the will of the totalitarian Stalinist government
  • no 7-10, no will
• Whereas the Soviet Government deliberately confiscated grain harvests and starved millions of Ukrainian men, women, and children by a policy of forced collectivization that sought to destroy the nationally conscious movement for independence;
  • Collectivization ended in Fall 1931. Which movement? Summoned by Balitskyy???
• Whereas Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin ordered the borders of Ukraine sealed to prevent anyone from escaping the man-made starvation and preventing any international food aid that would provide relief to the starving;
  • borders of Ukraine sealed – hoax – as far as border and railway tickets not a same things. Indeed – as regards to “international food aid” – no known records about aid proposals before Nazi cleric calls at end of August – while starvation ended in June – thanks to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin ordered 0.5 million tons grain but not only. Interesting – but United States Commission on the Ukraine Famine in 1989 listed a Soviet food aid to Ukraine and North Caucasus.[10] - "On February 25, 1933, this led to a seed loan from Union stockpiles of 20,300,000 poods 63 of grain to Ukraine and another 15,300,000 poods to the North Caucasus Territory, specifically to the Kuban. According to the resolution, the reason for the loan was unfavorable weather, which had led to harvest losses in the steppe regions. Part of

the grain loaned was consumed as food, given out in the fields as an incentive for working on the Spring sowing."

• Whereas numerous scholars worldwide have worked to uncover the scale of the famine, including Canadian wheat expert Andrew Cairns who visited Ukraine in 1932 and was told that there was no grain `because the government had collected so much grain and exported it to England and Italy,' while simultaneously denying food aid to the people of Ukraine;
  • Look like someone does not known about Soviet-British “friendly relation” from end of 1930. Indeed someone forgot United States Commission data about “so much grain” and exported.
• Whereas nearly a quarter of the rural population of Ukraine was eliminated due to forced starvation, while the entire nation suffered from the consequences of the prolonged lack of food;
  • Nearly quarter – 5-6 millions? So were is the right figure - “seven to 10 million” or “5-6 millions”. Indeed interesting why for whole time they avoid www.census.gov expertise?
• Whereas the Soviet Government manipulated and censored foreign journalists, including New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, who knowingly denied not only the scope and magnitude, but also the existence, of a deadly man-made famine in his reports from Ukraine;
  • Known manipulation of facts from person which personally seen Famine 1921/22. Actually he report about severe malnutrition in USSR and worst situation in Ukraine North Caucasus and Kazakhstan. His end of August 1933 “there no famine in USSR” deliberately attributed to Spring 1933 – expected issue in terms of recent events at Caucasus depicturing.
• Whereas the United States Commission on the Ukraine Famine, formed on December 13, 1985, conducted a study with the goal
  • So what about “provide the American public with a better understanding of the Soviet system by revealing the Soviet role”? Expected conclusion based on “reliable” data such as "The resolution passed by the Conference adopted the grain procurements quota Moscow insisted on-356 million metric tons—" [11]
• Whereas with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, archival documents became available that confirmed the deliberate and pre-meditated deadly nature of the famine, and that exposed the atrocities committed by the Soviet Government against the Ukrainian people; and
  • What “deliberate and pre-meditated archival documents” and “atrocities committed by the Soviet Government against the Ukrainian people” they spoken about. Why no one of mentioned does not published over last decades? Interesting why not so popular info about how Ukrainian peasants does not provide centrally provided aid to starved? "Христиновском (Kievska region Feb 28 1933) районе колхозники относятся отрицательно к помощи голодающим семьям, потому что большинство из них почти не работало и имеет очень небольшое количество трудодней."

Jo0doe (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Holodomor

Coming in late, let me know if this discussion has already taken place. According to the page Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union: "The second Soviet famine happened during the collectivisation in the USSR. In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain and other food by the Soviet authorities[2] caused a famine which affected more than 40 million people, especially in the south on the Don and Kuban areas and in Ukraine, where by various estimates from 5 to 10 million may have starved to death (the event known as Holodomor).[4]" If you look at the map, the areas affected were only parts of Ukraine along with Western and Southern Russia. This was a wide-spread famine in the USSR. Ukraine claiming Holodomor as a Ukrainian phenomenon seems to be a political move and part of the Orange Revolution, and belongs in the political section, not in the definition of the article. Is there any interest in redefining Holodomor as a USSR famine under the leadership of Joseph Stalin? (and not specifically Ukrainian? There is evidence to show that the photos used to prove the existence of Holodomor use Russian people in the photos.) I'm just asking. USchick (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the table "Comparisons of populations of the most numerous ethnic groups within the USSR according to the Soviet census of 1926-1937" (I tried to fix the placing before) - the famine affected primarily Ukrainians and Khazaks. While there were other famines going on at the time, also somewhat associated with forced collectivization, generally Holodomor refers to the Ukrainian one. Yes, partially because of the supposed "purposeful" aspect of it. In any case, discussion of the Holodomor as a specifically Ukrainian famine predates the Orange Revolution. Hell, it predates the fall of communism and break up of Soviet Union. radek (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What Census 1937 data you are talking about? Does such thing exist? Jo0doe (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

With Holodomor being in the news lately, the Russians in the affected rural areas feel left out and alienated, claiming that this was a USSR famine that Ukrainians are using to advance a political agenda. The separation between Russia and Ukraine was less pronounced during the times of USSR, with many Russians living in Ukraine, and very likely being counted as Ukrainian in the charts that you mention. I'm simply opening this up for discussion. Having a direct translation from the Ukrainian article is a POV that may not apply in the English version. Not everyone in Ukraine was affected, only the peasants (not the people in power, not residents of big cities), so the fact that many more Ukrainians died has to do with where they lived (in rural areas) and that they were expendable and standing in the way of a Communist agenda and not simply because they were Ukrainian. The Russian peasants in the highly productive areas suffered the same fate and claim that any attempt to separate brother against brother is a political ploy to separate the unity of the people in the affected region. The Russians seem to feel very strongly about this and I think it merits a discussion. I'm open to whatever outcome or consensus we can agree on. USchick (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I have understand, the term Holodomor is used for the Famine of 1923-33 which affected the Ukrainian population in the USSR. The Ukrainians in Poland were not affected. The Russians in Ukraine were not affected. The Ukrainians in Russia were affected. remember the political boundaries of the Ukr SSR did not correspond with the ethnographical boundaries of the Ukrainian population. There was a Ukrainian majority in the lower sections of Belgorod, Kursk and Voronezh, and a Ukrainian majority in the Kuban and Kazakhstan.

Russian villages particularly in the Kharkiv area were not affected. This can also be seem om the Russian ethnic folklore of the region. In the area around Zaporizhia the villages decimated by the Holodomor were repopulated with ethnic Russians. This I know from the numerous concert tours of these regions I had of the areas in the 1980-90's.

The revisionism that is beginning to appear which is trying to include a Russian component to the tragedy is a recent aberration and it is one that is not well documented and has no historiology. Bandurist (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Russians in Ukraine were not affected.Ukrainian majority in Kazakhstan.- so a perfect semantic Jo0doe (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, Ukrainians in the diaspora found the Famine an important means of questioning the stereotype of “Ukrainians” as victimizers (Nazi collaborators, pogromists) rather than victimized. Attention to the Famine also made more explicable why some Ukrainians would have little loyalty to the Soviet Union in 1941 or might at first have viewed German rule as even a possible improvement. The debate on the Famine also influenced discussions of the Holocaust for these issues, as well as for the significance of the tragedy in explaining the brutalization and demoralization of Ukraine’s population prior to the war. By the 1980s the Famine had become a central focus of identity and rallying point for diaspora Ukrainians (Frank E. Sysyn isthe Director of the PeterJacyk Center for Ukrainian Historical Research, University of Alberta.) - It's not a historiology - it's called propaganda Jo0doe (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wonder why are ukrainophobian theory kept on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.81.130 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean the Russians in Ukraine were not affected? All peasants in rural areas of Ukraine were affected and in Russia too!!! This I know from family members who (barely) lived through it. The people who were not affected were the people in positions of power, who were very much Ukrainian. This was a power play that was not very well executed and not explained, because people who asked questions did not live very long. The Communists in charge were local people, Russian and Ukrainian, but they were in positions of power. The people in the photos shown with their bones sticking out are Russian people photographed in Russia, used as examples to show proof that this was an actual problem. This can be documented and referenced if anyone is interested, I can provide sources. Photography was not very well developed at the time, and why risk your life by going with a camera deep into a Ukrainian village, when you can find plenty of starving people on the outskirts of a Russian town, starving and dying under every fence! This was not a phenomenon caused by outsiders. Poor leadership and bad management decisions at the local level collided with a natural drought, and people starved. Communists who knew nothing about farming, distribution, or logistics were in charge and running things (not very well.) USchick (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by USchick (talk • contribs)

The bad management decisions at the local level were centrally imposed, eg. by exterminating of intelligent people.

Where exactly peasants in Ukraine were Russian? How many of them? Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bandurist, your saying that "the Russians in Ukraine were not affected" reflects a profound lack of knowledge of the subject. Same applies to Xx236's assertion about lack of Russians among the Ukrainian agricultural population or their being unaffected.

Here is a quote from this reference already used in the article. The author of this ref, Stanislav Kulchitsky, is the leading Holodomor scholar in Ukraine now and he, personally, subscribes to the POV that the famine was an act genocide, while he redefines the term Genocide itself to make the term fit the famine better:

Here is a quote from a ref (Den, February 17, 2007):

Своїми противниками Кремль вважав не українців як представників етносу, а українців як носіїв національної державності... Суть політики українізації залишається загадкою для Л.Швеця. Перед тим, як визначити її, слід згадати, хто був найбільш активним українізатором: не М.Скрипник, який мав тільки наркомівські повноваження, а генеральний секретар ЦК КП(б)У в 1925—1928 рр. Л.Каганович. Українізація була різновидом коренізації, тобто укорінення радянської влади в неросійському середовищі. Політика українізації сприяла національному відродженню, це правда. Але наслідком укорінення влади потрібно вважати й участь українських незаможників у конфіскації продовольства у сільській місцевості в січні 1933 року. Сталін був ким завгодно, але тільки не параноїком.

Обговорення в листопаді 2006 року законопроекту про Голодомор як геноцид вимагало від народних депутатів специфічних знань, яких вони не мали. В сесійній залі відчувалася незрима присутність російських представників, точка зору яких на Голодомор також була далекою від реальності. Член фракції Партії регіонів В.Забарський виступив з доповіддю про альтернативний проект, який відрізнявся від президентського відсутністю кваліфікації Голодомору як геноциду. Він закликав засудити масові злочини, «не допускаючи при цьому гри на цій темі політичних сил, зацікавлених в конфлікті нашої країни з її сусідами». Його підтримав представник партії комуністів В.Голуб, який вже відверто визнав, що прийняття президентського законопроекту «призведе до напруження міждержавних стосунків між Росією та Україною». Отже, Партія регіонів і Компартія відкинули президентський проект, оглядаючись на позицію іншої держави у цьому питанні.

Позиція соціалістів була відмінною від позиції їхніх союзників по коаліції: вони наполягали на заміні виразу «геноцид української нації» визначенням «геноцид українського народу». Соціаліст В. Цушко заявив, що сам він молдаванин, обидва його діди померли в Голодомор, і фракція підтримає законопроект лише за наявності цієї поправки. Справді, молдавани (мова йде про Молдавську автономну республіку у складі УСРР, Бессарабія тоді була захоплена Румунією) постраждали навіть більше, ніж українці: за переписом 1937 року їх чисельність в СРСР знизилася до 80,3% у порівнянні з переписом 1926 року, тоді як чисельність українців — до 84,7%. Після згоди В. Ющенка на цю істотну поправку законопроект був поставлений на голосування і затверджений як Закон України.

Поправка соціалістів має суто фактологічний характер, і тому її слід вітати. У 1933 році органи ЗАГС зареєстрували у сільській місцевості України 1678 тис. смертних випадків. У національному розрізі вони розподілилися таким чином: 1552 тис. українців, 85 тис. росіян, 27 тис. євреїв, 21 тис. поляків, 16 тис. молдаван, 13 тис. німців, 8 тис. болгар, 3 тис. греків тощо. Звичайно, ця статистика не дає уявлення про масштаби Голодомору, тому що є неповною і включає природну смертність. Але національний зріз смертності приблизно співпадає з національною структурою сільського населення. Це свідчить про однакову долю людей, які мали нещастя жити у сільській місцевості в кордонах УСРР."

Apologies for the lengthy quote in a foreign language. I have no objection if anyone translates most of it and removes the original. For now, just the last sentences:

In 1933 the Soviet statistical authorities registered 1678 thousand deaths in the rural parts of Ukraine. In ethnic terms, the deaths were divided as follows: 1552 thousand Ukrainians, 85 thousand Russians, 27 thousand Jews, 21 thousand Poles, 16 thousand Moldavians, 13 thousand Germans, 8 thousand Bulgarians, 3 thousand Greeks, etc. True that this statistic does not give a full representation of the Holodomor because it is incomplete and includes the natural mortality. But the ethnic distribution of the mortality aproximately coinsided with the ethnic structure of the rural population. This shows that all the people who had the bad luck to reside in the rural parts within the Ukrainian SRR endured the similar fate.

It would help if everyone refrained from making uninformed speculations and presenting their views as facts. --Irpen 04:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, it would also help if you didn't rely on on-line newspapers or soviet archives as carriers of veritas or accuse other of being uninformed. That's just not nice. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Horlo. You are welcome. While I agree that the newspapers are not necessarily reliable when it goes to history, the leading Ukrainian scholars in the field of the 20th century history are reliable when they write on the subject of their expertise wherever they choose to publish. Kulchitsky is the vice-director of the Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine, a member of the said academy and the foremost modern Ukrainian expert on Holodomor as witnessed by multiple publications in peer-reviewed academic publications. So, if he writes in Day, which is one of the most respected Ukrainian mainstream newspapers FYI, it is certainly a reliable source. I would have the same misgivings as you say if the article in a newspaper is published by a journalist with no established credentials in history or a politician who quotes different numbers in different speeches and OpEd submissions depending on the time of the year or the political expediency.

As for the Soviet archives being reliable or not, it is not me who is saying that they are. Historians cited in the articles do that and I only recite their assertions. When you contribute to the article, I expect you to study the references already in there. Happy edits, --Irpen 16:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, thank you very much for providing a link for the National Academy of Science of Ukraine. It would have been very difficult to find out about it without that.

What you seem to not understand in this discussion is that nomatter whom you are quoting, if the best source you can provide is an OpEd piece in an online newspaper, you have to expect to be challenged.

As for soviet archives, it is not you who are saying that they are reliable, but it is you who is saying that sources which do not include soviet archives are not important. That is the root of the problem - by saying that Conquest et al are old school because they did not include any of the information from soviet archives and therefore not as correct as some french demographer or Kulchitsky, you are saying that they are wrong.

It saddens me that you have taken a "I expect you to..." attitude. It seems that you are not willing to discuss. Sad.

Live long and prosper Irpen, Horlo (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, that you simply stray the discussion off topic in the absense of anything to say is obvious. Once you provide any contemporary scholarly work that gives the figures different from Kulchitsky and/or Vallin for the number of Holodomor victims in Ukraine I will be happy to see them in the article. The rest of your post does not warrant any response. You can certainly google Vallin and Kulchytski as well as their affiliations and works published in peer-reviewed academic journals. You do not even need to google as such works are already included in the article. Unfortunately, you don't seem to read either the references already in the article nor replies by other editors to your talk posts. --Irpen 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Kulchitsky confuses "genocide" with "struggle over resources." The fact that a major crop failure caused by plant rust was the cause of the famine is established in detail by Tauger. Historically it had always been the case that famines trigger a fight over food resources with one group achieving favored treatment over the other. Traditionally, this was a difference which favored rich over poor. In Soviet society it tended to favor urban dwellers and industrial workers over peasants and farmers. The Soviet priority was to provide for the industrial proletariat first, and only afterwards for the agrarian peasant. That, however, does not justify a term like "genocide." One can only base a critique upon evidence that the Soviet government should have actually possessed more food than it did. Now it is true that in the famine of 1921-2, an appeal for foreign aid was made and that the same could have been attempted again but was not. The Soviet government felt convinced that the source of the missing crops was counter-revolutionary subversion and so failed to realize the implications of a small crop. There's room for criticism there. But it's meaningless to simply cite the fact that cities were favored over the countryside as proof of "genocide." That would only be valid if one could show that an adequate supply of food existed for feeding everyone and that still the peasants were deliberately deprived. This was not the case however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.8 (talk • contribs)

Hello, welcome to the discussion, but please note that every point that you mention is clearly explained in the article.

Please also remember - contrary to what some editors seem to think, this talk page is not the place to talk about whether the Holodomor was genocide or try to justify communism. This is a place to talk about how to improve this specific article - otherwise, this page will get really long and really convoluted really quickly.

In a nutshell, there was enough food produced in Ukraine to feed everybody not only in Ukraine, but also in the entire soviet union - hence the major soviet grain exports of 1933. The grain was forcibly removed by the red army from private farmers in Ukraine and given to collective farms in Ukraine - sometimes in plain sight of the starving private farmers. Not, as you say, to urban dwellers.

Finally, please avoid explaining what the soviet government felt in 1933. Again, that's not why we're here. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, statements like "there was enough food produced in Ukraine to feed everybody not only in Ukraine, but also in the entire soviet union - hence the major soviet grain exports of 1933" are completely absurd. Fortunately, I don't have to spend time disproving them since they are not supported by anything than a talk page entry signed by a pseudonymous Wikipedia user. When you bring any respectable references that support such claims, we will continue this discussion. --Irpen 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, you don't have to disprove anything - just read this Encyclopedia Britannica article which you seem to be ignoring. Here's a snippit that you may find interesting: it was an attack on the Ukrainian village, which traditionally had been a key element of Ukrainian national culture. Its deliberate nature is underscored by the fact that no physical basis for famine existed in Ukraine. The Ukrainian grain harvest of 1932 had resulted in below-average yields (in part because of the chaos wreaked by the collectivization campaign), but it was more than sufficient to sustain the population. Nevertheless, Soviet authorities set requisition quotas for Ukraine at an impossibly high level. Brigades of special agents were dispatched to Ukraine to assist in procurement, and homes were routinely searched and foodstuffs confiscated. At the same time, a law was passed in August 1932 making the theft of socialist property a capital crime, leading to scenes in which peasants faced the firing squad for stealing as little as a sack of wheat from state storehouses. The rural population was left with insufficient food to feed itself. The ensuing starvation grew to a massive scale by the spring of 1933, but Moscow refused to provide relief. In fact, the Soviet Union exported more than a million tons of grain to the West during this period..

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a short thank of example why WP is more reliable and neutral – and thus much more time used by many peoples. – You can also visit talk page archive to point out were is hoax at EB. Actually it’s reflect a “success” of this EB online project so-far Jo0doe (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"there was enough food produced in Ukraine to feed everybody not only in Ukraine, but also in the entire soviet union - hence the major soviet grain exports of 1933"

This statement is exactly one of the common illusions which Tauger has debunked based upon archival research. Of the quantity of grain exported in 1933, about five-sixths were exported in the second half of 1933 after the famine was already over. There were some exports in the first half of 1933, and they reflect the fact that Soviet leadership did not appreciate the actual scale of real crop failure but instead assumed kulak sabotage. But those exports which did occur during the famine are not nearly enough to explain why the famine occurred. The higher numbers assigned to 1933 are the result obfuscating this difference between the first and second halves of 1933, and Tauger makes this clear with citations from the archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.42 (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, please avoid explaining what the soviet government felt in 1933."

It has direct relevance in that it was this failure to realize the scale of natural disaster, and the consequent attribution of the shortages to kulak sabotage, which led the Soviet government to avoid imports as were requested in 1921-2 and to even carry out a limited number degree of exports while the 1933 famine was occurring. Tauger's research does not pretend to defend this decision but makes much clearer precisely what the Soviet government did that was wrong. The insistence on looking for kulak sabotage aggravated what was already a disaster caused principally by plant rust (moreso than by drought, which is sometimes cited as the cause). But, no, it is not true that the crops of 1932 were adequate to avoid famine. That is a hoax was launched by James Mace back in the 1980s using citations of officially published Soviet statistics. Unfortunately, every impartial historian had always agreed that the Soviet statistics at that time were badly inflated, as were many of the publicly available production statistics of the Soviet Union in the 1930s. But it wasn't until the 1990s that specialists such as Tauger were able to investigate the archives and better determine the scale of actual grain production in the relevant time. Now that that's been done, the EB is just repeating an antiquated thesis based on faulty evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.42 (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"by the spring of 1933, but Moscow refused to provide relief. In fact, the Soviet Union exported more than a million tons of grain"

This statement is a good illustration of how the EB falls behind the curve. In fact, Mark Tauger clarified quite awhile ago, based upon records from the archives, that about 300,000 tons of grain were exported in the first half of 1933 (while the famine was still occurring) and another 1.5 million in the second half (after the famine was over). The statement as it is given in the EB just repeats an old urban myth which combines the two halves of 1933 as "this period" and leads the reader to assume that the full 1.8 million tons was exported in 1933 while the famine was an issue. It wasn't and this is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor-booklet

http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/Publicat/Holodomor-Booklet.pdf A collection of mistakes and hoaxes A list

Front page

• Ukrainian genocide in early 1930s

No genocide, no early 30s – but first half of 1933

P1 I address you on behalf of nation

Ukrainian law does not provide for President permission to conduct a speech “on behalf of nation”

P2

• ancient nation of agriculturist

builders of Egypt’s Pyramid so far

P3

• 7-10 million lives

2.2,

• 65 countries UN adopted November 7 2003

can’t count 65 countries at wikisource while at link mentioned

“Ukraine issued a joint declaration on Monday, November 10, 2003”

• exorbitant grain quotas

see article dtat

• predominantly Ukrainian-populated Kuban

see talk page and 1897 Census data

• were isolated by armed units

no documents exist to prove how 400 kolkozes and 6 villages (as of December 6 1932) were isolated by armed units note – all Red Army at this time 560K.

• neighboring Soviet regions where is food was more readily available

see Gareth Jones report about hunger in whole Soviet Union

• map with incorrect borders
• Area 452000 km

area of Ukrainian SRR with 7 oblasts and AM SRR - 443 080 – Data from Soviet Encyclopedia

• population 31.1 mln

soviet estimated data 31.9 mln as of 1/1/33

• gross grain harvest 23.2 mln tons

1932 harvest – 14.6 mln tons (estimated)

P4

• took famine advantage of drought to create famine condition in Ukraine

weather weapon at Trotskyy hands – A.Tolstoy and Aelita relaxed

• in 1932 Stalin decided to vanquish the Ukrainian farmers by means of starvation

and thus provide them a 0.3 million tons of seed and food aid by June 1932.

P5

• 25000 persons died everyday in winter-spring 1933 20 to 25 % of the Population of Soviet Ukraine was exterminated

25K persons * 150 days (winter-spring) = 3.75 million 31.9 * 20% = 6.38 mln if 25% = 7.98 mln – were is 7 -10??? See demographical figure in article

• NKVD troops

they forgot a frozen meat of Kulaks

• urban areas Less affected by starvation

see talk page archive

• In late spring over 300000 homeless children in Kyiv region alone

by end of May at Kharkov region (bigger then Kiev region and received less food aid) collected 27.754 children

* in September 1933 approximately two-third of Ukrainian pupils recorded as missing from the school

Actual data 1931-32 school year – 4307290; 1932-33 – 4473859; 1933-34 -4376735; 1934-35 – 4679060 pupils

P6

• The communist regime targeted the Ukrainians

and thus provide them a 0.534 million tons of aid by July 1933

P7

• Collectivization process was nearly completed by the summer of 1932

for 1-st 5 years plan – by august 1931

• Ukrainian peasantry was the carrier of the age-old tradition of independent farming

look like authors does not familiar with history of Ukrainian territory in the past and does not know the Taras Shevchenko story.

• Decree 14 1932 – put an end to the possibility of a national oriented

may be end of “decossakisation” and switch from artificial Ukrainian to Kotlyarevskyy like??? What about after early 30s ukrainization?

P8

• slaves of the communist state

4-6% of household affected by requisition – in 1934-35 most of such action claimed as trotskist actions against soviet state

• Confiscation of grain and all other foodstuff in rural district inside a homes

no claim for “other food staff” – such action registered by GPU breaching the Soviet low and punished as “leftists” actions

• 7 August 1932 Stalin promulgated a law on protection of socialist property

law on protection of state and cooperative property – would be correct

Indeed they forgot to cite an instruction were cited what it was class-oriented law and majority of peasants (poor and moderate means) should not be convinced under strict sanction – excluding exceptional cases.

• even Children were convicted

no known instances when Children officially were convicted under 7 August 1932 Low

• fines in kind on individual farming and whole villages that had not fulfilled inflated grain procurement quota in the fall of 1932.

not villages but kolkozes, not inflated but twice and later triple lowered not fall but December 32 untill end of January 1933.

• impossible for peasants to purchase bread

Kolkoz trade were allowed for oblast which fulfilled the plan (by mid of January – Kyivska, Vinnytska and AMSSR) – but no bread were available or prices was to high.

P9

• enforced isolation of the border of Soviet Ukraine and Ukrainian Kuban, as well as blockade of individual areas

no such blockade exist nor “Ukrainian Kuban”

• In fall of 1932 the authorities introduced a system of blacklists which banned the sale

introduced In mid of 1920s, not only sell but a supply until lowered grain procurement plan were fulfilled

• After all food and cattle would be confiscated territories would be sealed by NKVD detachments.

No NKVD in 1933, No confiscated all food and cattle, no sealed.

• Photocopy of a letter…

photocopy of CP(b)U protocol dated January 23

• Borders of Soviet Ukraine and the Kuban were closed by NKVD and militia detachment

no NKVD exist no claim at Stalin resolution for sealing boarders/

• Banning Ukrainians from crossing borders nearly 220000 persons

no any wording about specially Banning Ukrainians. For first week GPU (2 February 1933) reported about ~1.9K arrested (including criminals) and 18K returned at territory Ukraine and 8 k from outside of Ukraine. At same time from 8 February there issue an order about mandatory providing aid for starved.

• Peasants were prevented from entering urban districts and were expelled when they did.

no such orders known, nor any success of it, but an same time reported about such entering.

P10

• Holodomor was not caused by bad harvest or drought

1930 harvest – 22.7 mln tons 1931 harvest – 18.3 million tons 1932 – 14.65 million tons

1931 all Soviet drought and 1932 drought in Right bank of Ukraine and Kuban.

• The harvest was sufficient Soviet exported a large amount of grain and other agricultural products 1932 – 1.6 and 1933 – 2.1 million tons

In 1932 only by seas were imported 0.2 million tons of grain Export 1932- 1,819,114 (1HY – 0.75mln tons; 1933 - 1,771,364 (1HY 0.22 mln tons)

• almost all the starving Ukrainians could have been saved with the USSR strategic grain reserve, which contained at least 1.5 million tons.

So soviets redistribute 1.1 million tons of aid to peasants all over USSR (0.54 mln to Ukraine).

• State distillers … processing valuable grain into alcohol bound for export.

alcohol for export – in 1933 – no trace found.

• 110% fulfillment of the grain export projection

as of 7 December – as high as approx 98 thousands tons of cereals for all Ukraine.

P11

• turned down the assistance offered by various countries and international relief organizations.

Despite the knowledge of situation in USSR no assistance offered at spring 1933. First propagandistic claims (without any visible results) appeared from late August 1933 while Famine ended in June 1933.

P12

• Ukraine – with it’s 1000 plus years of history.

fringe theory from historical illiteral authors.

P13

• millions died … tens thousands resettled

indeed interesting who supply to State 6 million tons of grain be November 1, 1933. While data appeared at p.14 related to end of 1934.

P14

• Number of arrests and large scale repression against Ukrainians

indeed how they can prove what arrested exclusively Ukrainians. Arrest and imprisonment it’s not the same stuff. At same time they forgot about May 8 1933 Order about “releasing” 400K of prisoners all over USSR.

• Pictures with women

Which relation to arrests has a picture of voting at kolkhoz???

P15

• Main perpetrators of the Ukrainian Genocide

All listed persons (excluding on some extent Balitskyy) responsible for situation in Ukraine in 1931-32 and for aid providing /coordination measures.

P16

• image listed as 1933

1921/22 Image

• System of blacklist was introduced in the fall 1932 … encircled by armed detachments … all food confiscated

All words in this chapter is hoax.

• Grain procurements still continued in blacklisted villages until all food stuff were confiscated.

Grain procurement still continued in blacklisted villages until they reached a notable progress in planned grain supply 80-90%.

P17

• Replica of the minutes

Indeed interesting to see Times New Roman Cyr in November 19 1932 document. May be authors does not read carefully November 18, 1932 Decree were ban on kerosene and other mostly non eatable stuff were implemented– but rayons not intended to be placed on “black boards” – see Dec 8 1932 Kosior Report at link at the article.

P18

• A goal…

Indeed they forgot to mention present situation in Ukraine – for most of rural population (which now a majority of Ukrainina population) quality food is not available and not affordable – thanks to sponsors of Ukrainian Government. For many Holodomor became a fund rising bill – constructions, State funding on advertising, PR-companies, Governmental posts and specially created institution for selected persons. Indeed interesting – no effort to help more then 100K orphaned and homeless children in present Ukraine.

Indeed here is something a part of Ukrainian Institute of National Memory Ihor Yukhnovsy (Director) Oleksandr Ivankiv (First Deputy Director) Roman Krutsyk (Deputy Director)

Крім жартів, поява таких горе-висновків змушує звернути увагу на проблему існування вище згадуваної інституції, фаховий рівень та відповідність посадам її працівників. Як стверджують деякі експерти, Інститут пам’яті давно став конторою для працевлаштування у Києві певного галицького угруповання. Точніше, цю інституцію можна навіть назвати філією Інституту фізики конденсованих систем. Не хотілося б говорити про шановного Ігоря Юхновського, який, як відомо, є серйозним фізиком-теоретиком та, безумовно, людиною авторитетною в країні. Біля нього мають працювати фахівці з гуманітарної галузі. Але його перший заступник Олександр Іванків чомусь також фізик – вчений секретар Інституту фізики конденсованих систем НАН України. Зрозуміло, що кожному фізику національна пам’ять потрібна, але чому нею мають займатися на державному рівні саме фізики, а не фахівці-історики? За таких умов, видається, що висновки на теми історії академічних установ і закладів – Інституту історії, Інституту держави і права, Інституту філософії – будуть більш фаховими та обґрунтованими. Чи, можливо, Український інститут національної пам’яті дає блискучі висновки з питань фізики конденсованих систем?

Roman M. Krutsyk 1945 of birth, member of Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists [12] Jo0doe (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

JoOdoe, I'm sorry, but I don't know how many times I can ask you to not type for typing sake. If you have something to say, please, start a blog. If you want to express an opinion, please start a website. If you have something to say which would make this article better, please add it here. However, please don't add hundreds of lines of commentary just because you want somebody to listen to you. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Chrnovitsy Kingdom of Romania press about 1932-33

At link http://oda.cv.ua/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1445&Itemid=78 Inresting Walter Duranty report [13] And Ukrainian Nationalistic organizations call for aid as of end of August - ineresting to note but all end of summer reports listed Famine as currently taken event. But no intent at winter-spring and early summer - what thay all are waiting for? May be an order from a masters?Jo0doe (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jo

1) There is a wonderful thing on most computers called spelling check which will underline most of the words you type incorrectly. Read through your post before saving especially after you edit an article. Much of the confusion will disappear. 2) The comment waiting for masters is unwarranted and really devalues your contributions. Bandurist (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Map "Issue"

Map existed in article but does not liked by unknown reasons by sole editor originated from mapping authorities of the USSR - which has a more possibilities to create maps of USSR territory rather then somebody elseJo0doe (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This photo of a map is a "cheap" looking illustration that would never be found in any encyclopedia or scholarly work. Even at a large resolution the legends are unreadable. The shadow adds a very amateuristic look. This style of photo does not belong here. DELETING Bobanni (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This photo of a map is a "reach" looking illustration. Even at low resolution the legends are readable While such hoax would never be found in any encyclopedia or scholarly works. Because noone of scholars such illiteral in Geography and Political Geography. As for instance here claims a Population decline in Caucasian Montains and Georgia – same issue with the Crimea. Especially awful is a claim about population shortage at territories which does not belonged to USSR at time mentioned on well readable legend. CLEAR HOAX. This style of photo does not belong here – per WP policy. DELETING As regards to image from a Soviet Agricultural Encyclopedia 1 edition published in 1934 – anyone can easily visit a library ask for 1933-35 publication were detailed Soviet Ukraine maps available - together with neighboring republics and countries. And update available image with a more professional like. While legends of any maps is not really important things – most important it’s an internal border and external borders – this allow for WP visitors to assess a quality of publications which depicted 1959 maps and claimed for borders sealing by NKVD, starved distribution etc. While it’s expected comment – if it’s hard to correctly allocate Volynia at present Ukrainian map – so 1933 borders it’s really “Mission impossible” to comprehend Jo0doe (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the main concerns for the images is their utility for the article. The agricultural image IMHO is supposed to support the theory that the human loss is strongly correlated with the type of agriculture: the regions with forestry and rye production got less losses than the regions with wheat production. Do we have this discussion in the article? Is it supported by the sources? The problems with the map is that it is in Russian and quite complex. People who do not read Cyrillic would have almost no user from it. Maybe if the map is needed we can redraw the economic region on a free Ukrainian map with English labeling?

You point an interesting thing. Actually Tauger Wheatcroft noted some sort of this info. As regards your IMHO – it’s not fully correct – because, as instance, most affected -at Kyivska region- as of mid March were 32 sugar beet plants rayons, while in Dnepropetrovska there were (amongst others) a cotton plants rayon (would be interesting to point what for cotton plant proposes from Mid Asia to Ukraine in 1930-31 were deported 4-6K of Asian “Kulaks” – many of them died in 1933).

While it’s was not a major target for me when I upload this image into article – I did it because most of authors of works (and especially North-American origin) does not know what Ukraine Famine 1933 they spoken about – most of them simply does not imagine which “borders were sealed by NKVD and armed detachment” as they swiftly claims. – So only borders and administrative breakdown – nothing more – and provided by me map it’s clear provided for visitors. See just one glaring example of such illiteracy here [[14]] – it’s sad.Jo0doe (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the human losses map we certainly need this data in the article, no questions about it. I like that the image shows losses outside the Ukraine itself giving some context. The main problem with the image is that the data is questionable. It is old (before opening the archives) and from unreliable sources. Additional problem is that it put on the map of 1954 that is very weird for the 1933 event. Wheatcroft and I guess other academic sources have per-oblast demographic losses. I think it is not difficult to put those data on a 1933 Map with English labels. We could also draw the line of the Ukrainian demographic settlement (if needed). I think the result is worth the effort. Any takers? Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s sad what you judge before carefully examine the case – in order to comprehend this hoax it’s definitely needed to read book from which it’s originated. Because “losses outside the Ukraine” in it related to fringe “Ukrainian ethnical boundary” but not to the losses at grain producing areas of the USSR. It’s really sad but authors does not know what even by 1926 Census results there was only 12% of Ukrainians at Crimea. While, may be you don’t know, US researchers got access to Soviet 30s archive data and especially for Ukraine – from captured by Nazi’s Soviet archives transferred t US, - it’s easily can be found at 1989 Congress Report – so there is not a case. I can provide all UKR SSR per rayon estimated population data as of January 1 1933 and it can be compared with 1939 Census data – while it will be incorrect due the differences in data sets. Wheatcroft got per oblasts data on 1933 mortality – but it’s not fully accurate – widely known that for some it was over accounted and for some under accounted – but it will be not a “demographic losses” – it will be simply gross mortality were we can’t distinct starved and those whom died as a results of disease (mostly provoked by malnutrition). Jo0doe (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that to be of any use, this map needs to be translated into English.

I disagree on two points: first, I don't see any territory outside Ukraine. Second, I think that data that doesn't include soviet archives is more reliable, as by definition soviet authorities would be able to justify any genocidal act as an act of "class struggle".

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Maps also - indeed intresting point of view, while if history it's not a science - it can be expectedJo0doe (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

JoOdoe, "Brilliant". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My, my, my, back to the lead

Hello,

It seems that whenever a consensus is reached about the lead, there is an editor or three who insist on reverting it, claiming that it is "neutral" or "there was a misinterpretation". In order to allow a discussion to continue on other points of this article, let's settle the lead. Here is what I propose:

Even though the demographer's estimate isn't a study of the Holodomor, nor is it a study of Ukrainian demographics, it is nevertheless a study by a demographer and it mentions Ukraine in 1932-33. Therefore it should be included. Even though there is no English translation of the historian's estimate, it is from an eminant historian. Therefore, it should be included. Even though the Encyclopedia Britanica doesn't specifically mention the borders of the Ukrainian SSR, it does mention ethnic Ukrainians, and therefore should be included. Not everybody agrees with every politician, but as the Holodomor is a major political issue in Ukraine now, the numbers put forth by the Government of Ukraine should be included.

Every number should, of course, be appropriately sourced.

Comments? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Before you return to this "issue: May I ask you a question - have you read INED work???Jo0doe (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • While, you erroneously mismatch President’s efforts with Government as also Presidential Secretariat and controlled by him governmental and semi-governmental Institutions with Ukraine (country) – may be it’s same issue as with Britannica claims misinterpretation. Jo0doe (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, before you answer, have you read this section: [[15]]? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, your posts demonstrate that you have not seen the sources on which you comment. You also do not read the replies of others since I answered these questions for you already.

The number by Britannica does not belong here at least as long as the subject Holodomor is defined as the famine in Ukraine. If your preferred definition of Holodomor means that it is a term that applies whenever an ethnic Ukrainian dies from starvation wherever he lives and does not apply when a non-Ukrainian dies in the same area, all you need to do is find a source for such a definition of Holodomor. Britannica does not define Holodomor as such. It says only about how many people died in the famine Soviet-wide and gives a number of Ukrainians among them (also Soviet-wide). There is a Soviet famine of 1932-1933 article on this subject and no one is removing the EB's number from there. However, the subject of this article is the famine in Ukraine. Britannica has no estimate for the number of victims of this famine in Ukraine, while multiple scholars, including the Ukrainian ones, see above, maintain that the famine affected the geographical areas uniformly and the death rates per ethnicity corresponded to the respective share of the ethnicities in the local agricultural population. So, the Britannica number which does not directly apply to the subject of this article (which is the famine in Soviet Ukraine) does not belong here and especially not in the lead section where all given numbers are calculated for the Ukrainain SRR by the respected scholars who assert they have sufficient data to make such estimate based on the archival documents opened to them. --Irpen 16:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, please do not try to assume what any answer demonstrates. If you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. Here's a explanation to what you may have missed: the Encyclopedia Brittanica article is about the famine in Ukraine in 1932-33. While it does not mention the Holodomor by name, it does give numbers of victims. Please note that no "demographers' study" mentions the Holodomor by name, either. (According to your logic, that study should also not be included!)

Also, please also note that I agreed with ABakharev that the Britannica numbers could be asterisked.

Also, your last statement shows that you do not read replies to your comments, as I have shown that there has been no agreement on the numbers of victims of the Holodomor among scholars following the long-awaited collapse of the soviet union (probably because they realize that - and here I will repeat my argument so that you will not have to scroll up and read it above - any communist government could have justified any genocidal act - or any other crime against humanity - as an act of class warfare against the oppressors).

Also, please don't try to confuse the Holodomor with a "soviet-wide famine of 1932". People were starved in the soviet union throughout its existence, and they were also shot and poisoned, and had their environment destroyed - however, that's not the topic here.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should expect a new article in WP (in addition to Holodomor Denial) for People were starved in the soviet union throughout its existence, and they were also shot and poisoned, and had their environment destroyed from “Bachelors of Arts” – so would be better to avoid “Artists” opinions in scientific (historical) article? While I prefer not to feed a trolls hereJo0doe (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, actually, there are many articles throughout Wikipedia about things like the Chornobyl disaster, the shrinking of Lake Baikal, and somebody even started an article about a soviet famine of 1932! Please do explain what scientific historical articles are. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, again, you stray this off-topic. What's important is not how Britannica calls the famine. The matter at hand is that if the competing estimates from different sources are presented together, those should be estimates of one and the same thing. Otherwise, it would be like disproving estimates calculated for the United States by referring to the estimates calculated for the North America.

All I requested is that if you add an estimate of the number of victims of Holodomor, which is defined as "the famine that took place in Soviet Ukraine during the 1932-1933 agricultural season", this number is referenced to a work that provides the estimate of number of victims in Soviet Ukraine, not some other number, like an ethnic distribution of people who died from starvation Soviet-wide. --Irpen 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, you seem to be having some difficulty with wording, again. Why is the Holodomor defined as "the famine that took place in Soviet Ukraine during the 1932-1933 agricultural season"? Did people stop starving to death after harvest time? Was nobody dieing during the winter?

Again, you are having issues with words like soviet-wide. There is no evidence of a soviet-wide famine, just that people were starving in various parts of the soviet union, not all over the soviet union. Big difference.agree to use the term 'soviet-wide' can be used interchangeably with 'various parts of the soviet union', but get very specific with other semantics?

If you look at the article, you will see, for example, that it states: "it was an attack on the Ukrainian village" and "Its deliberate nature is underscored by the fact that no physical basis for famine existed in Ukraine", and "Brigades of special agents were dispatched to Ukraine to assist in procurement, and homes were routinely searched and foodstuffs confiscated. At the same time, a law was passed in August 1932 making the theft of socialist property a capital crime, leading to scenes in which peasants faced the firing squad for stealing as little as a sack of wheat from state storehouses. The rural population was left with insufficient food to feed itself." That does not refer to Ukrainians living in Kamchatka, Kuban', or other parts of the ussr. Please, no more semantic games, especially if, in other sections of this discussion you invent terms like "professional specialists in politics". Please do not remove this number anymore, otherwise it may be considered vandalism. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

An Alexander_(film) issue. While indeed “1932-1933 agricultural season” term also to complex for visitors from countries were history is not a science – as far as many Artists not familiar what in Soviet agricultural year started a July, 1 19XX and ended June, 30 19XX+1. Moreover would be better to clarify an issue with duration – and state – while historians, declassified archives and by the time report conclude what Famine 1933 ended together with new harvest collection (end of June- beginning of July 1933) while in political debates and some researchers works it lasted for 1932-33 (24 instead of 6 month).

While mentioned by Horlo POV claim should be removed – per NPOV – moreover “peasants faced the firing squad for stealing as little as a sack of wheat from state storehouses” – clear hoax – per 7/8 Decree instruction adopted in September, moreover declassified GPU reports clear depict of 7/8 Decree usage – see RU article for detailsJo0doe (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I’m so sorry but I was cheated by Horlo – cited by him text – If you look at the article, you will see

• it was an attack on the Ukrainian village
• deliberate nature is underscored by the fact that no physical basis for famine existed in Ukraine
• Brigades of special agents were dispatched to Ukraine to assist in procurement, and homes were routinely searched and foodstuffs confiscated.
• At the same time, a law was passed in August 1932 making the theft of socialist property a capital crime, leading to scenes in which peasants faced the firing squad for stealing as little as a sack of wheat from state storehouses.
• The rural population was left with insufficient food to feed itself

does not exist in article

Actually it’s clear trollingJo0doe (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, your final free English lesson - in English, you need to read the entire sentence: the quotes were from the Encyclopdia Brittanica article, where the number 4.5-5 million is found. From now on, if you continue with your belligerence, you will be reported for trolling. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I simply misunderstood your last sentence which not mentioned EB at all. While thank you for citation –

You know the WP policy – called NPOV – so EB article about Holodomor 1933 (but not Britannica in general as you repeatedly suppose here above and after) cannot be used in WP. Thank you a lotJo0doe (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Recognized map

Please see Talk:Holodomor/Archive_9#Recognition re this self-made map. --Irpen 01:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer the data in a table? A map is just a another form of presenting data. As long as the data contained in the table/graph is reliable, there is no problem. Martintg (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that source X says that there are N countries that recognize it and those countries are A, B, C, etc. At the same time the no less reliable source source Y, says that there are N-8 countries, and those are A and B. At the same time Z says that there are N+3 countries them being A, B, C and D.

The core of this discrepancy lies in that there is no clear cut interpretation of what amounts to such recognition and the sources differ on interpreting various statements from different representatives of different branches of different governments as to whether they amount to the official recognition of the Famine as Genocide by the country. Does it take a parliamentary resolution whose subject is the famine and which says that it was a genocide to say that the country recognizes the famine a genocide? Or is the parliamentary resolution on an unrelated issue, say a parks or a budget bill, that mentions the famine as genocide passingly enough to say that the country recognizes the Genocide? Or is the statement by executive rather than the legislative branch needed (or sufficient)? Or a speech given by a country leader on some occasion when s/he calls famine a genocide amounts to such recognition by a country? This is why the sources are so confused. On the same day three sources, all reliable, publish amazingly different numbers on which countries recognize. So, while there is still a confusion among the professional specialists in politics, which we assume write articles in respectable press, we cannot make such claim here and state that it is an ultimate truth. --Irpen 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the dates of these three sources? Obviously some countries may change its recognition between the dates the sources published the information, so source A published in year X would state N countries, while another source B published in year Y could state N+3. Both sources are correct, but I would use the later source B because it is the most recent. Martintg (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you check with the article for existing refs first before asking question? [16] --Irpen 00:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, please allow me to help you with two basic ideas. First, math: if source "X" says "N" countries have recognized the Holodomor as Genocide (where N=19) and source "Y" says "N2" countries have recognized the Holodomor as Genocide (N2 >10), then those two sources are not contradictory, as 19 > 10. Therefore, the map is not inaccurate, and can be used.

Second, about legislature. A law is a law. If a law is passed by a legislature, it is a law. It doesn't matter who initiates it, who discusses it, who amends it, or who votes for it. If it passes, it stops being a bill and is a law. Now, different countries have different political systems - parliaments vs congresses, for example. Therefore, there are different criteria for different countries. In some countries, a presidential decree is enough, while in some countries a specific piece of legislation is necessary. Of the three sources listed here [[17]], I think that the BBC gives the best representation of what the English world would understand as recognition. The second source is in russian, so I don't understand it, and the third says more than 10. Last time I checked, 19 was more than 10. Please see point number 1.

By the way, what does "professional specialists in politics" mean?

The map looks good.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Professional specialists in politics" are people whose main specialty is politics (rather than. eg. history, music or math.) Among such people are politicians, political journalists (there are also journalists that specialize in science, investigations), political scientists, etc. If those people happen to also be respected authorities in, say, History or Demographics, which can be confirmed by degrees and/or publicatiions that passed the standard for any scholarly work peer-review scrutiny, this is a different matter. --Irpen 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, how do you choose what a person's speciality is? For example, cannot a investigative journalist investigate politics, history, human trafficking, and astronomy? Or, cannot not a historian talk about politics, culture, or the military?

Now, please, stop inventing terms and using sentences like this: If those people happen to also be respected authorities in, say, History or Demographics, which can be confirmed by degrees and/or publicatiions that passed the standard for any scholarly work peer-review scrutiny, this is a different matter to avoid the issue at hand: there is no reason to not include the map. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful Photograph

The picture given at the top right of the page is of doubtful origin and should be removed. It was introduced first in A. Laubenheimer, DIE SOWJETUNION AM ABGRUND! and subsequently reprinted elsewhere. However, several of the photos presented by Laubenheimer were identified as having come from the famine of 1921-2. The Hearst press in 1935 featured a series where they reran many photos which had appeared either in Laubenheimer or in the German press of 1933, and this time the story around the origins of the photos was changed altogether by Hearst. In the 1980s a lot of these photos were reproduced in Cold War publications, some of them attributing the origin of some of the photos to the Hearset press and others attributing the origin of photos from the same general set to the German press and Laubenheimer. At best one may say that the origin of some of the photos is obscure, but there are enough cases of photos from 1921-2 being used and of contradictory stories given around the other photos that these should not be featured uncritically as authenticated photos from 1932-3. It would be best to remove the picture from a page which isn't specifically discussing the usage of photos in political propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.8 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial grain export plan for 1932 harvest from USSR

[18]

From Kaganovich letter to Stalin June 23, 1932

4) Внешторг включил в экспортно-импортный план III кв[артала] вывоз 60 мил. пуд[ов] зерновых и кроме этого завоз в порты сверх этого 50 м(лн]. пуд[ов] для залога и продажи в октябре. Годовой план экспорта из урожая 32 г. он предлагает довести до 4 м[лн] тонн. Мы этот вопрос пока не решили. Конечно, вывозить обязательно необходимо немедленно и надо дать отпор настроениям, сложившимся на почве некоторых затруднений последних пару месяцев, что не надо-де вывозить, но вопрос сколько вывезти в III кв[ар-тале], думаю, что цифру Внешторга немного сократить придется. Прошу Вас сообщить Ваше мнение5 […]

So 4 million planned – while 1.2-1.4 exported from 1932 harvest . Interesting details from 2001 publication. Jo0doe (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, very interesting reading - do you, however, realize that this is the English Wikipedia? Now, what does "4 million planned" mean - 4 million killed, shot, starved? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Main issue of article

Main issue of article laid in the difference of approach by editors – one after visiting Alexander_(film) decided what the Alexander_the_great as almost wrong – and tried to implement the changes accordingly to that they seen from the screen. No actual effort to visit a library to be more familiar with the article topic. In my sought, it’s a general gap in North –American educational schema – were history assumed as a kind of “second grade science” – no profit. Thus it would be incorrect to nominate some editors of vandals or trolls – simply they a “product of a society” and for them too hardly to distinct facts from hoaxes. So a better solution would be split historical event – Famine of 1HY of the 1933 in Ukrainian SRR were editors which want to make WP as a reliable source for history matters and Holodomor in Ukraine - a North American myths were editors can represent “why they are here” and include all community knowledge – a frozen meat of Kulaks, a sunken barges full of Ukrainian children, 1921-22 pictures from Russia posed as 1929-34 pictures at “Ukrainian ethnic borders territory” , enough food produced in Ukraine to feed everybody not only in Ukraine, major soviet grain exports of 1933, grain was forcibly removed by the red army from private farmers in Ukraine and given to collective farms in Ukraine - sometimes in plain sight of the starving private farmers, NKVD sealed Ukrainian borders, seven to 10 million Ukrainian people perished.

• But it should be noted why this community mythology so popular – namely:

At the same time, Ukrainians in the diaspora found the Famine an important means of questioning the stereotype of “Ukrainians” as victimizers (Nazi collaborators, pogromists) rather than victimized. Attention to the Famine also made more explicable why some Ukrainians would have little loyalty to the Soviet Union in 1941 or might at first have viewed German rule as even a possible improvement.

So what actually hided out by modern “Art” -

The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf HITLER which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation.

And why actually in OUN (B) General Instruction, adopted in 1941, “ Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), Poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.”

-Jo0doe (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

On Comparison of populations of the most numerous ethnic groups within the USSR according to the Soviet census of 1926-1937

When I look at that table I see something strange. During 1926-37 the increase of Russian population amounted 20.7% and Ukrainian population decreased by 15.3%. One can interpret that fact as a genocide of the Ukrainians. It is a little bit strange, however. Why did the Russian population increased by more than 20% (the growth was even higher than that of Uzbeks, who has traditionally high population growth rate), and almost no growth was observed for Belorussians, who mentally, psichologically and ethnically are very close to Russians? I have a feeling that the table reflects changes in national identification rather than real change of population size.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• While replay -is simple - no Census 1937 results known as existed for demography. Jo0doe (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it mean that that table is based on the unreliable source, and, therefore, should be removed?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The complete results of the 1937 census that was officially proclaimed false, classified and, perhaps, destroyed, were never found but the raw data collected by census takers was found in the archives. This data was used by all major studies of the demographic consequences of the famine in Ukraine and Soviet wide cited in the article such as the calculations of Vallin et al, Kulchytsky et al and Wheatcroft. If you actually read their works (all cited in the article) they arrive to slightly different results but all do their calculations based on the same raw numbers. The "calculation" of some sort is necessary because one cannot obtain a number of famine victims by mere subtraction of 1937 census data from the 1926 census data as such would give the numbers integrated over the whole decade (we are looking for the specific year's data), would include natural population change and migration. Taking into account those various factors requires the application of the tools developed in the science called Demography. This is why the numbers somewhat differ but no calculation exists that would give a number higher than Kulchytsky's range (3-3.5 mln). As for the existence of the archival raw data, its availability and reliability, it is discussed in some of the article's references. These [19] [20] [21] are some of them but there is more in the article's ref list. HTH, --Irpen 20:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Understand. What about my first (major) comment?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

On your comment on this table, assuming that it is accurate, it indeed does not apply directly to the number of victims of the famine in Soviet Ukraine. The reasons you give are true. For example, much of the Kuban population was classified as Ukrainian in 1926 but they were considered Russian in 1937 census. However, it does not invalidate the table numbers. It merely requires their explanation. You are welcome to add it. I saw a source about the shift of the ethnic allegiance of Soviet population in the interwar period but I need time to locate it. --Irpen 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not question the numbers. My point is that the table is used to create an impression that the Urkainians were the nation most affected by the famine. Whether the latter statement is true or false, it is a separate story. My point is, that concrete table cannot be used to support/refute this statement. I am simply not sure if it is relevant at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In relative numbers Ukrainians were certainly not the nation most affected by the famine. That would have been Kazakhs. Next were Moldavians (see the reference above.) Ukrainians were probably the ethnicity whose losses were the highest in the absolute terms. Whether this table is of any use without information on the change of the Soviet classification with Kuban people having been reclassified from the Ukrainian to the Russian category between 1920s and 1930s is a very valid question. I agree that the table without an explanation gives a false impression. --Irpen 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Let me clarify an issue with 1937 Census :

Irpen slightly incorrect with info about it – so actually - 1937 Census never has complete results (Жиромская В. Б., Киселев И. Н., Поляков Ю. А. «Полвека под грифом „секретно“ : Всесоюзная перепись населения 1937 года». М.:Наука, 1996. −152 с ISBN 5-02-009756-X. и др.) [22] [23] in 1989 were found several dozens of self contradict tables (tables in statistics is not raw data). Well known (for familiar with topic) what at mid of March 1937 for Stalin and selected Politburo members were presented preliminary available results of Census 1937 – before accuracy checking and sampling correction. Known what found tables and presented to Stalin is not a same documents. In June farther processing of Census 1937 data were cancelled. As for instance - in present Ukraine complete final results of 2001 Census were presented in 2004 – a 3.5 year after Census.

While for 1926 Census here used a final results published in 1929-32. So here is a doubt with comparison of two DIFFERENT set of data – reliable final data of 1926 Census and known for self-contradictory set of figures assumedly related to Census 1937.

• As regards of Vallin et al at INED work – [24]

THEY NOT USED 1937 Census in any way. Moreover making an Kulchitskyy assessment - they conclude

Stanislav Kulchitskyj (1995) a pour sa part estimeé à 3,5 millions les pertes de la période 1933-36. Cependant, reposant sur une extrapolation aux anées 1930 du taux de croissance des années 1920, ces estimations sont sujettes à caution.

(Chapitre 1 La crise des anées 1930 prepared by J.Vallin, F. Mesle, S.Adamets and S. Pyrozhkov. p 16Jo0doe (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, User:Paul Siebert, you are now seeing why soviet statistics are at best questionable, at worst simple propaganda. Within the two answers above, you see how numbers were manipulated by the communist party to basically tell Stalin exactly what he wanted to hear. Studies that are based exclusively on soviet numbers (Valin, Kulchitsky, et al) should definitely be taken with a grain of salt, and not relied upon as the truth. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Horlo. If you look at the Gulag talk page, you will see a number of evidences that demonstrate validity of some Soviet data. Most de-classified data, that were intended for internal use during Soviet time, are valid according to reputable western scholars, whereas estimations done by journalists and anti-Communist political writers are not. The other question is how these data are being used, because not all conclusions directly drawn from them seem reasonable.
As regards to this concrete case, the questionable data have been interpreted in a doubtful way. Although the former comes from old Soviet times, only the WP authors can be credited for the latter. Therefore, I conclude, this glorious Soviet tradition is still alive. --Paul Siebert (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can conclude from a perfect semantic of Horlo – he also agreed what the questionable table should be removed? Jo0doe (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Phoney consensus on talk page

A number of editors keep deleting properly sourced material with the justification "per consensus on talk page". All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

If individuals or groups claim that the death toll for the Holodomor was a certain figure and these statements are reported by reliable sources then these statements can be reported in this article. If other individuals or groups make different estimates then this too needs to be reported. To suggest either directly or overtly that one estimate is better that another is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Bobanni (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While if one RS claims about other non RS what it's non reliable source - please see comments on estimation at [25] work - you can find what repeatedly inserted by Horlo figure is hoax.Jo0doe (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

JoOdoe, if you are not sure what hoax is, please stop using that word. The discussion above clearly shows that the Encyclopedia Brittanica gives a higher number - and the EB is a reliable source - then it should be included. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

EB is a reliable source but only of the information it includes and when such information is relevant for the issues at hand. EB only has info on the number of Ukrainians that died across the entire USSR. It has no info on the number of people who died in Soviet Ukraine. So, as you were told repeatedly, the numbers that relate to different things cannot be used to contradict or correct one another. --Irpen 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, did you actually read the article? The article is about the famine in Ukraine. Please take a moment to read it, and you will see that it talks only about what was happening in Ukraine. While it gives respect to other people who were starved by communists, it focusses on Ukraine. Not Ukrainians across the ussr. In Ukraine. At the time the ussr. Therefore, the number is about people who died in Ukraine. So, as you were told repeatedly, the number is valid, and there is no consensus on the talk page.

Also, please avoid preaching in the comment line when you make a change to the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to thank user:Horlo for his example of EB article POV [26] - propagandistic statements which many time dismissed in many scholars works. So non neitral source can not be used here. Thank you Horlo for your valueble inputJo0doe (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, let me get this straight - JoOdoe, you are dismissing the Encyclopdia Britannica as a POV "propagandistic statement" which "cannot be used here"? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal believe – I just noted propagandistic statement from EB article – which well known as hoax. I hope such hard thing as to distinct EB with an EB article will be available for you in recent timesJo0doe (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, OK, just so I understand this - you don't think the Encyclopedia Britannica is a POV propagandistic hoax. You just think that some of the articles in it are propagandistic hoaxes. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve a seen a progress but very tiny, let me get this straight – per widely accepted historical data specific text in specific article is propagandistic POV hoax which originated from author(s)(???) of this specific article. I suppose it’s a gap in EB article authors selections schema – may be EB save some budget on it – but in result got a minority opinion instead of scientifically-factual based article . As far as I remember Irpen has an info about EB Ukraine article origin – so we can add author(s) name(s) and given “EB article prepared by XYZ … Jo0doe (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, please see the section: Editors who are very weak in English, and Proposal to split the article.

If you want people to take you seriously, please actually try to speak in English.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"To suggest either directly or overtly that one estimate is better that another"

It's not really original research to point that estimates made based on archival research since 1991 are more dependable than Cold War publications which had a highly politicized tone. With someone like James Mace, for example, we know that he endorsed the manipulation of photographs from the 1921-2 famine that were reproduced and attributed to a later date. The fact that Mace popularized the seven million number which Ukrainian groups had started circulating after World War II doesn't give this number equal validity with the estimates made since 1991 based upon archives. That's pretty straight-forward, nothing original about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.42 (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian newspaper claims Holodomor is just a fake

This site: [[27]] that is in portuguse claims that Holodomor is just a fake.I'll show you all this brazilian article: Em conchavo com os nazistas, Álvaro Dias mata 10 milhões de ucranianos

O O senador Álvaro Dias não falsifica apenas dossiês para atribuí-los ao governo. Ao que parece, tem um atração infalível para a falsificação. Agora falsifica mortes para atribuí-las a Stalin. Em discurso no Senado, reivindicou do governo brasileiro o reconhecimento de um suposto “holocausto ucraniano”, no qual Stalin teria matado de fome “10 milhões de ucranianos entre 1932 e 1933”. Segundo ele, diante desse “holocausto”, o genocídio promovido por Hitler na Ucrânia foi um crime menor.

Dias não é prendado em dotes intelectuais. Suas prendas são outras. Assim, nem se pergunta onde foram parar tantos cadáveres – e nem qual era, em 1932, a população da Ucrânia soviética. Pois eram 25 milhões de pessoas. Portanto, Dias está dizendo que 40% da população morreu em um único ano. Resta saber qual o milagre que fez com que, apesar do desaparecimento de 40% da população, a Ucrânia, como registram os censos, aumentasse seus habitantes em 3.339.000 pessoas entre 1926 e 1939...

Se charlatães como Robert Conquest escondem esses dados por má-fé, no caso do senador Dias nos parece que a burrice tem papel mais preponderante – o que não é uma atenuante.

Porém, a infâmia tem pedigree, o que deve agradar muito ao senador: na década de 30, o Dr. Goebbels, aquele para o qual uma mentira muito repetida virava verdade, inventou um mote para a propaganda anticomunista dos nazistas - uma grande fome na Ucrânia, supostamente causada pela coletivização da agricultura. O caminho para evitar tais tragédias era seguir o que seu chefe, Hitler, pregara explicitamente no “Mein Kampf”: tornar a Ucrânia um anexo alemão, após uma limpeza étnica.

Fora da Alemanha, somente um barão da imprensa americana publicou a invenção do Dr. Goebbels: W. R. Hearst, que Orson Wells retratou em “Cidadão Kane”. Em 1934, Hearst foi à Alemanha, encontrando-se com Hitler e fechando um “intercâmbio de notícias” com os nazistas. Em fevereiro do ano seguinte, apareceu em seus jornais uma série de artigos sobre a “fome na Ucrânia”, assinados por um certo Thomas Walker. Naquela época, as “vítimas” eram seis milhões.

Walker jamais havia pisado na Ucrânia, como o correspondente de “The Nation” em Moscou, Louis Fischer, que não pode ser acusado de pró-soviético, comprovou na época. Além disso, comprovou-se que uma foto de uma criança gélida e esfomeada, creditada a Walker e datada de 1934, era cópia de uma de 1922, quando a URSS estava destruída pela invasão estrangeira. Em seguida, descobriu-se que Walker não era Walker: seu nome verdadeiro era Robert Green, condenado a oito anos de cadeia e foragido de uma prisão do Colorado. Recapturado, Green confessou a fraude.

Na mesma época, um certo Ewald Ammende publicou um livro sobre a “fome na Ucrânia”. Suas fontes eram explícitas: a imprensa alemã e a italiana, isto é, fascista. O livro de Ammende desapareceu, até que foi republicado em 1984, sob os auspícios do governo Reagan, pela Universidade de Harvard. As fotos desse livro eram retiradas do jornal de Hitler, o “Volkischer Beobachter”.

Em 1953, durante o macartismo, foi publicado outro livro sobre a “fome na Ucrânia”, pela “Associação Ucraniana de Vítimas do Terror Comunista Russo” e pela “Organização Democrática de Ucranianos Ex-perseguidos pelo Regime Soviético”, dois antros montados pela CIA. Não foi difícil perceber que as fotos eram falsas (numa delas os supostos algozes soviéticos vestiam fardas do exército czarista...). Um dos autores do livro era Alexander Hay-Holowko, ex-oficial das SS e “ministro” da propaganda da “Organização Nacionalista Ucraniana”, um grupo nazista, responsável pelo assassinato de milhares de judeus, poloneses e russos. Um dos “patrocinadores” era Anatole Bilotserkiwsky, ex-membro da Gestapo durante a ocupação da Ucrânia.

Esse último livro é uma das fontes citadas por Robert Conquest, agente do MI-5, denunciado em 1978 pelo “The Guardian” como funcionário do Information Research Department (a repartição de propaganda anticomunista do serviço secreto inglês) e autor de “The Harvest of Sorrow”, um prolixo espichamento da fraude nazista. Conquest, por sinal, já variou amplamente o número de vítimas que matou na “grande fome da Ucrânia”. Durante o governo Reagan, chegou a 14 milhões – matou nada menos do que 56% da população ucraniana em um ano. Depois, diminuiu outra vez os números...

Mas Conquest não foi um pioneiro. Depois que Walker contou, por telepatia, 6 milhões de mortos e Ammende, mais científico, achou 7 milhões e 500 mil, outro funcionário de Hearst, Richard Stallet, sem sair dos EUA, liquidou com 10 milhões de ucranianos - e houve quem chegasse a 15 milhões...

Mas um certo professor Dana Dalrymple resolveu o problema: em 1964, na “Soviet Studies”, chegou à conclusão de que 5.500.000 pessoas morreram de fome na Ucrânia. Como ele chegou a esse número? Simples: fez a média entre as várias contagens de mortos, incluindo as dos nazistas...

CARLOS LOPES

Cicloys2 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)cicloys2

What about the rights of the author? Is it legal to quote such long text here?Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Stalinist Revolutionary Movement 8th October is involved in this action. Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Soviet famine of 1932-1933

Why the editors unhappy with this article don't write the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 one better than this one? I believe that if not the Ukrainian activity our knowledge would be like in the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 - several numbers.Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There few data for Soviet Famine 1931-1933 (1931 famine at Kazakh ASSR and Ural&Siberia missed) – as far that territories does not have (or very few) nor Nazi collaborators nor ethnical cleaning history of UPA nor any notable anti-communists formations – thus they not get a funding for this matter from Institutions in charge- thus that topic not popular amongst Artists. While causes of 1931-33 Soviet well known from 1934 – directly responsible persons in most are punished, many executed. So “issue resolved”. Also, may be, they (Territory Government) no need to have a reason for redistributing amongst themselves a millions from State budget “for holy proposes of memories of communists victims” in international Holodomor-cruises, PR-Companies and constructions activities – as it happened in present Ukraine from 2005. Nothing personal – only business – on bonesJo0doe (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal – only business – on bones - a perfect description of the Soviet state. Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and apples vs oranges

I removed 20 million victims from the lead. Only one person in the world, a politicians who has no scholarly credentials whatsoever, gives this number and not in a scholarly work but in a political speech. This is WP:FRINGE and cannot be used in the lead. It belongs in the politicization section where it can be properly described.

As for the Britannica number, it is a valid source but the way Horlo uses it is simply a misquotation as explained in detail at Talk:Holodomor/Archive_11#Britannica.27s_number_was_simply_misquoted. If one has to scholarly works where one gives a mass of Sun and the other gives a total mass of the Solar system the second number cannot be used in Wikipedia along with the first one to estimate the mass of sun.

Britannica says: "Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians." The number of Ukrainians who died in the Soviet Union is not the same thing as the number of people who died in Soviet Ukraine which all the other numbers describe. Ukrainians lived in other regions of the USSR outside Ukraine and people of many ethnicities died in Ukraine, which was a multiethnic republic then which it remains now. In fact, ethnic distribution of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine is given in the article already. Comparing apples to oranges, especially in the lead section, is nothing but blatant POV pushing. --Irpen 19:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 23.225 Ukrainians by nationality in UKR SSR accordingly to Dec 17 1926 final results
• 7.873 Ukrainians by nationality in RSFSR accordingly to Dec 17 1926 final results
• 31.195 Ukrainians by nationality in USSR accordingly to Dec 17 1926 final results
• 23.667 Ukrainians by nationality in UKR SSR accordingly to Jan 17 1939 preliminary results
• 3.359 Ukrainians by nationality in RSFSR accordingly to Jan 17 1939 preliminary results
• 35.611 Ukrainians by nationality in USSR accordingly to Jan 17 1939 final results Jo0doe (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, from your statement, it is clear that you do not read the replies by other editors. So I will repeat it once again for you here. The article in the Encyclopedia Britannica is about the famine in Ukraine. If you read the entire article, you will see that it is talking about the famine in Ukraine (hence the title of the article). The article describes Ukrainian nationalism (which I don't think appeared outside of Ukraine at the time), the direct assault on Ukrainian peasantry, the "deliberate nature" of the famine, and "brigades of special agents ... dispatched to Ukraine to assist in the procurement [of foods]". That describes only what happened in Ukraine. Therefore, although the article pays respect to the other millions who were starved to death by the communists across the Soviet Union, this article is clearly discussing what happened IN UKRAINE.

Now, please stop trying to cloud the issue by introducing apples, oranges, or the mass of the sun.

Also, please avoid name-calling, like POV pushing. Actually, by excluding numbers from the lead, you are the one who is POV pushing.

If you have any other questions, please ask. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, Britannica does not give a number of people who died in Ukraine. It gives:

Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians..

That is a number of people who died in the USSR and also, how many of them were Ukrainians. There were Ukrainians who died outside of Soviet Ukraine (mostly in Kuban). There were non-Ukrainians who died from Holodomor within Soviet Ukraine. Luckily, we have calculations for the number of people died in Ukraine and they are given in an article. You cannot substitute the estimate that seems to low to you by a number that is "high enough" when the number in fact is of something else. My English is good enough to understand Britannica. Please have some respect to other editors' intelligence. --Irpen 01:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, if your English is good enough to understan Britannica, it should be good enough to know that you shouldn't say "it gives" but rather "it states" or even "it says".

Also, you should be aware of the idea of context. Without context, words can be misconstrued and misunderstood. For example, without context, your own words "I, from my side, fully retract my remarks", could mean that you apologize for ever disagreeing with me about anything. However, that is not what you meant when you said those words, nor was I the editor to whom they were said.

When you read the Britannica article, the context will tell you that it is about Ukraine. Not about ethnic Ukrainians living outside Ukraine, but, you guessed it, about Ukraine. Therefore, the although EB shows respect to all those starved to death by communists, it talks about - wait for it - Ukraine.

Please do not remove the number, just because you think it is too high. That would just be blatant POV pushing. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, reading EB artifice arguments, it’s really sad to note the usage early 30s event for sole proposes [[28]]

While also I’ve noted about notable difficulties of the specific editor with well known historical facts (Ukrainian nationalism (which I don't think appeared outside of Ukraine at the time) . While ,as we return to “Ukrainian nationalism” I again would like to point out what the usage of well known since 1937/38 and after 1955/56 soviet propagandistic hoax about “coupe d’etat » at Soviet Ukraine by the “Ukrainian nationalists supported by Pilsudsky” as historical fact – it’s clear bad faith. Moreover I would like to point out what at all times in 30s (as for 33/34 as later in 37/38) “Ukrainian nationalists” mentioned ALWAYS at the end of the list of the “wreckers” and “peoples enemies”- thus given a wrong emphasis of this clear WP:Fringe theory is wrong way here. (If someone interested in – somewhere in talk archive it’s easy to find a “list of responsible enemies” for agriculture fault at the Ukr SSR published in 1938 (link to page snapshot of 1938 book ) Jo0doe (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, this is something that you should be used to hearing by now: I can't understand what you're trying to say. This is the English Wikipedia.

Irpen, there is only one source which claims that 2.2 million people were starved to death. Is that also fringe? Simply because somebody has studied, does not mean that their position is held by the academic community. Just because one Brazillian politician says that the Holodomor was a nazi invention, does that mean that all Brazilian politicians think so? No! Just because one physicist thinks that Cern will cause the creation of a black hole and the ultimate demise of the world, does that mean every physicist thinks so? No! Just because one astronomer thinks that the Mayan calendar predicts the end of civilization as we know it, does that mean that every astronomer thinks so? No! Just because one demographer thinks that only (!) 2.2 million people were starved to death in Ukraine in 1932-33 - does that mean that every demographer thinks so? No! However, exclusion helps nobody. Common sense helps everybody. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, your interpretation of EB is just that, the inference of a pseudonymous Wikipedia user and thus, has no value. I read what Britannica says and add to the exact same thing that it says. In this edit, I added that:

1. 6 to 8 mln died in the USSR (just exactly as EB says) and;
2. further in the same section, that 4.5 to 5 million of them were Ukrainians.

Thus, my edit literally conforms to the Britannica's text (but without copyvio), while yours twists it according to your own interpretation of the context.

As to 20 mln being WP:FRINGE while 2.2 mln not, it is really simple, Horlo. It's not that how many sources say so. It is the quality of the sources (a work of an academic who gives references, shows calculations an publishes it in peer-reviewed journal) vs the statement of the politician who has not published a single academic work on the subject and gives a political speech full of rhetoric addressed to a foreign parliament. Further, this number stands way off from any number given by anyone else. Even you conceded that you don't find it credible. This cannot be used as an estimate and be cited next to scholarly numbers. This number is a part of a political, rather than scholarly debate and is given in the politicization section where it belongs. --Irpen 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can discuss how to "conform to EB" without copyvio regarding "Its [the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine] deliberate nature is underscored by the fact that no physical basis for famine existed in Ukraine." —PētersV (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This is a valid issue to discuss. But the basis of the famine and the number of its victims are different points of discussion and should be discussed separately. --Irpen 19:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, please don't try any more wikilawyering, or cherry picking. The article is about Ukraine. It discusses things that happened in Ukraine, NOT throughout the ussr. If you can't understand that, please read the article again. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand why such a big emphasis has been done on EB. According to WP rules, it is a tertiary source. WP doesn't recommend to use these sources extensively: ""Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.. In addition to that, the phrase from EB may have two different meanings: the term Ukraininas could be used for all population of Ukrainian SSR, regardless of ethnicity (that reflects the contemporary European point of view: "nationality"=="citizenship"), or it reflected the ethnicity of the famine victims throughout the USSR (similar to what Irpen means). Therefore, before modification of the article it makes sense to clarify that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost all sources prefer to use Ukrainian by nationality data for whole USSR (which according to PRELIMINARY data of 1939 Census decline dramatically – from 31 to 28 millions while number of Ukrainians by nationality at Ukrainian SRR as compared to 1926 Census slightly increased). And always forgot to note about such. So the readers simply cheated by put in misconception about which “Ukrainians” they read about. Jo0doe (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals in Splitting in the article

• Causes of Holodomor sub-article –will be lead in result to two different articles on Wikipedia which would contradict each other on a particular topic.
• Holodomor in modern politics sub-article – incorrect terms as far as in it proposed to omit a “Holodomor in past politics” – that’s we in fact omit 1933-1980s extensive usage of this historical event for political proposes. Before proceeding it’s definitely need to step further from propagandistic cliché and emphases only historical facts. As for instance too many emphasis given to only 7/8 Decree – per September instruction it’s applied to ordinary peasants in the exceptional case (which actually confirmed by recently published GPU and NKJ statistics) while exist a plenty of other Ukr SRR Decrees and Law articles (like 59 of Ukrainian SRR Criminal Law) which predominantly applied to ordinary peasants. In regards to informational blockade would be good to find any info about aid assistance proposals from Foreign Countries in February – May 1933 period – I personally failed to do so. Jo0doe (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't actually understand most of this. Could you please write in comprehensible English? And what, exactly, is your reason for thinking that applying Wikipedia:Summary style, which is badly needed, will lead to contradiction? And a Holodomor in modern politics article is perfectly valid without a Holodomor in past politics article. It's just logically fallacious to insist otherwise. As to the rest of your post, it makes no sense. Moreschi (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Because, before splitting, article topics should be correctly redistributed between what actually related to Causes of Holodomor and Holodomor in modern politics . Some of arguments were presented above – to comprehend it you should be more familiar with topic . So the main concern – before splitting would be better to clear distinct in present article historical facts over it political usage – it require a NPOV approach. Simply splitting one article more or less solid in to several separate articles can be lead to misconception in main article – as “rectified history” easily can be mislead. Unfortunately “summarizing” the history can work against other WP rules - as far as details and predicted events is crusial Jo0doe (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, for me to understand what you're writing, you need to write in coherent English. I can't state this clearly enough. I can't understand what you're trying to say. This is the English Wikipedia. Contributors need to be able to write with a basic level of comprehensible English. You fall short of that level, it seems. Could you please rectify this? Then we can actually have a fruitful discussion. Moreschi (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with proposals with splitting after correct (historical and facts based) article sub-chapters attributingJo0doe (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) Regarding "In regards to informational blockade would be good to find any info about aid assistance proposals from Foreign Countries in February – May 1933 period – I personally failed to do so" there would be no aid proposals as in the earlier famine as news of the famine was suppressed, unlike the earlier famine, when aid was sought and provided. —PētersV (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You did a common mistake – comparing 1921-23 Famine and 1933 Holdomor. I can provide a long explanation why but I simply shorten the idea. – You assess the 1933 media influence from the present time positions – which in generally wrong.

Have you find any info about similar intend (call for aid) which appeared at the end of August 1933??? If not – please note that there plenty of foreigners inside Ukr SSR including several diplomatic institutions at least in Kharkov and Odessa. Does they not aware about what happened in Ukr SRR from early winter 1933?? As far as I can see – they knew and inform respective Governments – but does any actions traced in winter-spring 1933? NO. That is an issue. Actually it’s very similar to land-lease bulldozers claims – simply conduct a good research to find out – does it can be possible historical facts or again – as usual - a propagandistic hoax.Jo0doe (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• While Peters, if you carefully read what actually mentioned under “Kharkov-1933” picture – [29] you again will find a new interesting fact – Soviet please for assistance in summer-autumn 1921 were rejected by “Western Democracies” – see Nansen commentsJo0doe (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think it's possible to split the causes (that is, the dynamics) of the famine from the main article. Who did what and when (or didn't do what and when) is central to the topic. So, disagree to split. —PētersV (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Language problems

In ENGLISH using the term UKRAINIAN refers to a native or inhabitant of Ukraine - or alternatively the language Ukrainian. I included a link to the dictionary definition. In other languages this may refer to ethnicity however in English it refers to nationality. Bobanni (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In actuality, that reflects not a linguistic nuances, but a difference in mentality. In contemporary Europe (besides so-called "New Europe"), any attempt to subdivide citizens onto real and conditional citizens based on their ethnicity looks ridiculous, therefore the term "Ukrainian" refers (correctly) to every person born in Ukraine. This poses no problem until Ukrainian nationalists try to rise ethnic issues where they are, in actuality, absent.
The second problem is that even in English sources the term "Ukrainian" sometimes refers predominantly to Ukrainian nationalists. This is incorrect, because not all Ukrainians are nationalists. However, in the ref [11][30] you may find the following statement: "After the Russian Revolution of February 1917, Ukrainian and Bolshevik forces struggled for control of Ukraine until 1921, when the Bolsheviks prevailed." Even if we forget that there is a factual error there (during 1920-21 the struggle for control of Ukraine was conducted mainly between Bolshevik Russia and Polish Republic), this phrases implies that there were no Ukrainians among Bolsheviks and vise versa, and all Ukrainians were separatists. This was absolutely incorrect, taking into account that about a half of Bolshevik leaders were Ukrainians (in contemporary sense), i.e. they were Ukrainian born ethnic Ukrainians (Dybenko, Antonov-Ovseenko, Podvoisky, Tsiuryupa, Timoshenko), Jews (Trotsky, Litvinov, Zinoviev, Radek, Sokolnikov) and Russians (Voroshilov). Therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to present Bolsheviks as an external force towards the Ukrainians, because Bolshevism was equally popular in Ukraine and Russia on the eve of the USSR. The situation didn't changed in the late USSR. Stalislav Kulchytsky ref [81] states that after Stalin's death about a half of Politbureau were Ukrainian born, including Brezhnev himself.
Therefore, my conclusions are:

• It is necessary to define what the terms "Ukrainian", "Bolshevik" and "Communist" refer to.
• The EB article contains factual errors (I can point to one more error, namely the date of Ukrainian S.S.R. formation. The USSR was formed in 1922, not in 1924, and Ukraine is a member of the latter since that time). Therefore, other data in the EB article, including the number of Holodomor victims, can also be questionable. Therefore, I would propose to remove that piece of text.
  --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Several of the "errors" you mention are not indeed errors. "After the Russian Revolution of February 1917, Ukrainian and Bolshevik forces struggled for control of Ukraine until 1921, when the Bolsheviks prevailed." is factually correct. Of course Ukrainians were not the only ones involved. But the statement is factually correct (you forgot that the Ukrainian anarchist Makhno was not defeated until 1921).Faustian (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't correct. Makhno's nationality was irrelevant. He was anarchist, and his proponents were Russians, Ukrainians, Jews etc, whereas Bolsheviks opposing him were Jews, Ukrainians, Russians etc. In addition, during some periods of Civil war Makhno was a Communist's ally. More important, the major war for Ukraine was a Polish–Soviet War, whereas real Ukrainian nationalist Symon Petliura was defeated soon and became a Polish puppet. I don't think exaggeration of minor facts and complete omission of major ones to be acceptable in a reputable article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Paul, please avoid statements like "became a Polish puppet", they do not add strength to your argument. Tactical alliances happen all the time. Unless, of course, you consider Molotov a Nazi puppet for the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1939. Nobody is talking about Makhno's nationality - just about when the war ended in Ukraine.

Please, let's stick to the issue at hand - we're talking about the Encyclopedia Britannica here.Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because some people misuse English does not add to your arguements. Bobanni (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not seriously considering to declare Online Britanica a unrealiabe source. I can just see a headline: WIKIPEDIA ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA DECLARES BRITANICA ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA TO BE UNRELIABLE Bobanni (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim on behalf of the whole WP that EB is unreliable. I am not Wikipedia, I am Paul Siebert. And I claim, on behalf of myself, that this concrete EB article contains at least three factual errors (too much for such a small piece of text, isn't it)? Based on that I claim that other data in that concrete article are questionable. More important, EB is a tertiary source, and, according to WP rules, the priority should be given to secondary source, if possible. Since the number form reputable secondary sources (Wheatcroft and Kulchytsky are reputable) have been already provided, and, taking into account that this concrete EB article is highly dubious, I delete this fragment as redundant and unreliable.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Paul, the point that you raise about sources is very interesting. To counter, I would suggest two things. First, let's re-examine exactly what "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" mean. Second, I suggest that when dealing with this type of situation - literally the death by starvation of millions of people - the further removed from the situation, the better.

A primary source is a source which actually took part in the event. In this case, it would be either a survivor of the Holodomor - somebody who actually had to walk by rotting corpses on the street - or a member of the cheka/communist party - somebody who forcibly removed food from people who didn't want to join collective farms, or removed the rotting corpses.

A secondary source would be a journalist who saw what was going on at the time, or spoke to people who witnessed it or helped carry it out. Also, a government report would be considered a secondary source. (Personally, I consider anything published by soviet authorities highly suspicious.)

A tertiary source is one which relies on secondary, rather than primary, sources. All modern scholars are just as tertiary as all pre soviet collapse scholars in that they are studying what somebody said about what they were told was happenning. They were not part of the event (therefore they are not primary sources), and they did not interview people who were (therefore they are not secondary sources). By definition, scholars of the Holodomor - be they the Encyclopedia Britannica or Kulchitsky - are all tertiary sources.

Now having said that, I think that tertiary sources are of utmost importance in this type of situation, simply because we are dealing with something that a sane, rational human mind cannot comprehend: the death by starvation of millions of human beings. I mean, just try to picture it. Ignoring "why" for now, just imagine walking around your home and seeing neighbours lying dead on the street - or walking around your city, and seeing dead villagers lying in the gutter. I submit that there is no way that a primary or secondary source can be impartial (they are too close to the event - again, try to picture it), and therefore in this case tertiary sources should definitely be included. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources states:
"Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.
Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources." In other words, WP clearly states that any encyclopaediae are tertiary sources whereas scholarly articles are secondary. When I read the Conquest's works I see a list of references (primary or secondary sources he took his data from), so I can go there and check a validity of his claims by myself (although everybody knows Conquest). When I open "EB-online" I see neither sources used by the article's author nor even the name of the author himself, so I am proposed to believe the author's claims because this encyclopedia is reputable. However, several errors I found in the article discredit it, therefore I conclude the other data in this article are dubious too. In contrast to secondary sources, I cannot check a validity of the numbers from that concrete EB article by any means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In addition, WP:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources states: "Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others." Therefore, the EB-online brend doesn't automatically warrant validity of every article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles, whereas the EB article has not been signed (as I already pointed out).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello, Paul, what does one step removed from the event mean? It means that they weren't there. Like the soviet government in 1933 Moscow. That makes it a secondary source. Somebody who studies government archives is a "tertiary" source, because they use what somebody says about what somebody said. If, for example, Wheatfield went to Ukraine and asked Holodomor survivors or cheka agents, that would be a secondary source. However, because that did not happen, it is not a secondary source, but tertiary.

Now, you say that signed articles are more valuable than unsigned articles, and that you see no author. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page, look under "history" and you will see that it was written by Andriy Makuch, from the University of Toronto.

Horlo (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. Yes, the Encyclopedia Britannica brand does guarantee the quality of an article - you have opinions about it, for example "More important, the major war for Ukraine was a Polish–Soviet War, whereas real Ukrainian nationalist Symon Petliura was defeated soon and became a Polish puppet", but that doesn't make the EB any less important, renown, trusted, or reliable.

P.P.S. The reason the statement "Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others" is included is to make sure that just because somebody publishes an encyclopedia in their basement, it is not used to counter something like the Encyclopedia Britannica, or a soviet government archive is not used as justification to remove a well thought out and researched article.

You tend to wrong extrapolation. As far as specific article and whole Online Britanica even for not familiar with English people is not the same thing. While if some editors will visit an ordinary library and ask for Britannica published in 1973 on paper – they easily can found what it mentioned a different range for victims – from 2 millions. So article at Online Britanica which claimed to be a source for history of Ukraine consist a lot of factual errors. You can also report it to Online Britanica. May be they reviewed the terms of contract with article author --Jo0doe (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, unfortunately, until you can A) actually form correct English sentences, and B) access a library which has a paper Encyclopedia Britannica published after 1973, I will have to ignore your arguments and consider any deletions you make trolling. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Language problems (section break)

IRPEN - dictionary defines UKRAINIAN == INHABITANT OF UKRAINE. Reference from Britanica is valid. Bobanni (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobanni, entry for Ukrainian at Merriam-Webster : a native or inhabitant of Ukraine

Same definition in Oxford English Dictionary just using "the Ukraine".

So, which is that Britannica is using in "Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians"? Of 6-8 million Soviet-wide 4.5 to 5 were natives or inhabitants? Neither you, Horlo or myself are entitled to interpret this statement to our taste. The way you insert it into the article is clearly one of the two interpretations. And, note, that this definition is in modern context. In 1930s context, "ethnic" definition was even more common. Anyway, you are not entitled to give the referenced text your own spin by phrasing it to fit your views. --Irpen 06:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, neither are you. Now, for the fourth time, please familiarize yourself with the idea of context. It will make everything much more clear. Please also keep in mind that the Encyclopedia Britannica, though it existed in the 1930s, is not written for people from the 1930s. Now, please do not try to interpret what people may have been possibly thinking of ethnicity then. That's not what's important - please don't try to make this any more complicated by introducing 80 year old ideas into this discussion, like you tried to introduce astrophysics earlier. The EB article talks about the Holodomor in Ukraine, not the Ukraine, not the Ukrainian ssr. It talks about the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine - the Holodomor. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, I am not trying to interpret EB numbers in any way. I simply added them in the original form to the article. You, however, push one interpretation and not just into the article but straight into the lead section. This is a clear WP:UNDUE weight to a single interpretation of a single source. I am familiar with the concept of context. This is the context:

"Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians"

The context of "four to five million were Ukrainians" is that "six to eight million who died in the Soviet Union". As, according to that time classification much of the population of Kuban, that was also decimated by the famine, was considered "Ukrainians", the context seems to be the number of Ukrainians out of the total number of people who died Soviet-wide. You may disagree with such interpretation. But in this case it is best to just give an exact quote in the article and do it in the text, just like I did it, rather than push a single interpretation into the lede.

Finally, 20 million victims Yushchenko said in a single speech to the US congress is a unique estimate not found anywhere else. It is several times off compared to any scholarly source and is clearly a fringe theory covered by WP:FRINGE-guideline. There can be no justification to insert it into the lead section next to the numbers from scholarly sources. --Irpen 20:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

English

Thank you Horlo, you’ve point one more “missing point” at online EB – Well known what there no Ukraine exist at 1933 – only Ukrainian SRR. It’s really sad to see how downgraded Online EB as compared the well known from the past paper Encyclopedia Britannica Jo0doe (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

English, JoOdoe, English. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

History, Horlo, History - not Arts - you know -

it was written by Andriy Makuch, from the University of Toronto

Here an expected quality of article --Jo0doe (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, do you know that every sentence in English needs both a subject and a verb to be comprehensible? Please try to adhere to such simple grammar rules, and then everybody will be able to understand you. Otherwise, you will just not make sense, and nobody will understand you. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Recommend to read before try to deal with history as a science =

Online history of Ukraine – despite some gaps and ideological “bends” much more detailed and reliable as compared with “Canadian woodcutters” version at on-line EB. [31]

Bolshevik Ukrainization facts and figures

[32]

Or about how робітничий кляс became робітничий клас and п`ятерічний плян appeared as п`ятерічний план.Jo0doe (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Because corrupt Kuchma-era politican Lytvn's website is a RS unlike Encyclopedia Britannica. Thanks for the laugh.Faustian (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A short thank you and one more prove what you’ve experienced not only a difficulties with history of Ukraine but also in attributing book prepared by Vice-President of Ukrainian Academy of Science vs article by person which got an Arts degree - a “notable” manuscript editor of Volumes 3–5 of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. It’s really sad to see EB Online article authors selection policy gaps – as far as EB online promised what

The Britannica's .. articles … are long and thorough, supported by impressive bibliographies, and written by the best scholars in their respective fields. The company's Editorial Board of Advisors reads like the who's who of the global intellectual and scientific community

.--Jo0doe (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's great and funny that you believe that corrupt politician Lytvyn is a better judge of article source than the editorial board of the Encyclopedia Britannica. I also likehow you've finally discovered that one's degree matters. So which utterly unknown university with unknown reputation did the "Vice-President of Ukrainian Academy of Science" get his degree from?Faustian (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything else for WP:BLP? Volodymyr Lytvyn--Jo0doe (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. From the wikipedia article about Lytvyn:

In 1994-1999 Lytvyn was the aide to the President Leonid Kuchma and, later, the head of his office. Lytvyn was implicated in the murder case of Georgiy Gongadze and the subsequent Cassette Scandal...

Lytvyn started his career as a political analyst within the Central Committee of Ukrainian SSR's Communist Party (a division of the CPSU)....

Lytvyn is a correspondent member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Honored Worker of Sciences and Technology of Ukraine. However, in 2002 he was publicly and reasonably accused of violating copyrights of a Western scholar when writing his article to Zerkalo Nedeli newspaper....

Thanks for demonstrating the quality of your sources and an example of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences member. You're really funny.Faustian (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for "Austrian officer" habit. Could you actually provide any ref were I've used Lytvyn work for WP proposes?.

While you can forward to "Artists" in Toronto university some primary sorces [33] about when USSR was formed. I really don't mind how can be created scentifical works without basic facts - as far as I can see only wild imagination involved - while it called a "historical fictions" but not an academic work--Jo0doe (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool - for you Encyclopedia Britannica writes "historical fictions." Thanks for the confession.Faustian (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

European Parliament vote

The press release is available here (official site):

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/030-40409-294-10-43-903-20081022IPR40408-20-10-2008-2008-false/default_en.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.27.3 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the whole text

P6_TA-PROV(2008)0523

Commemoration of the Holodomor, the artificial famine in Ukraine (1932-1933)

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2008 on the commemoration of the Holodomor, the Ukraine artificial famine (1932-1933)

The European Parliament,

• having regard to the Treaty on European Union,
• having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
• having regard to the UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
• having regard to the Joint Statement issued at the 58th Plenary Session of the UN General Assembly on the 70th Anniversary of the Holodomor in Ukraine, which was supported by 63 States, including all the (then) 25 EU Member States,
• having regard to the Ukrainian Law on the 'Holodomor in Ukraine of 1932-1933', adopted on 28 November 2006,
• having regard to the statement of the President of the European Parliament on 21 November 2007 marking the start of the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor famine in Ukraine,
• having regard to the Final Statement and Recommendations of the Tenth Meeting of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, adopted on 27 February 2008,
• having regard to Rule 103(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are basic principles on which the EU is founded,

B. whereas the UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide criminalises a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group,

C. whereas the Holodomor famine of 1932-1933, which caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, was cynically and cruelly planned by Stalin's regime in order to force through the Soviet Union's policy of collectivisation of agriculture against the will of the rural population in Ukraine,

D. whereas the commemoration of crimes against humanity in European history should help to prevent the occurrence of similar crimes in the future,

E. whereas European integration has been based on a readiness to come to terms with the tragic history of the 20th century and a recognition that reconciliation with a difficult history does not denote any sense of collective guilt, but forms a stable basis for the construction of a common European future founded on common values and a shared and interdependent future,

1. Makes the following declaration to the people of Ukraine and in particular to the remaining survivors of the Holodomor and the families and relatives of the victims:

(a) recognises the Holodomor (the artificial famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine) as an appalling crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity;

(b) strongly condemns these acts, directed against the Ukrainian peasantry, and marked by mass annihilation and violations of human rights and freedoms;

(c) expresses its sympathy with the Ukrainian people, who suffered in this tragedy, and pays its respects to those who died as a consequence of the artificial famine of 1932-1933;

(d) calls on the countries which emerged following the break-up of the Soviet Union to open up their archives on the Holodomor in Ukraine of 1932-1933 to comprehensive scrutiny so that all the causes and consequences can be revealed and fully investigated;

2. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Government and Parliament of Ukraine, the Secretary-General of the UN, the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.27.3 (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one more political statement based on gaps in history and UN procedures (or More JDism)

One more from a long list

”whereas” documents [34]

which erroneously posed to the lead instead Politicization of Holodomor So here is the explanation why: If we carefully read UN documents [35] – we can’t find any

• Joint Statement issued at the 58th Plenary Session of the UN General Assembly on the 70th Anniversary of the Holodomor in Ukraine, which was supported by 63 States, including all the (then) 25 EU Member States

Such even not included in the agenda [36]

But only a SOCIAL, HUMANITARIAN AND CULTURAL Third Committee Letter under Agenda item 117 (b) dated 7 November 2003 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General http://www.un.org/ga/58/third/doc3.html - Joint statement by the delegations of Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Egypt, Georgia, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Nauru, Pakistan, Qatar, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America on the seventieth anniversary of the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor) [37]

Again Not appeared at Final list of draft proposals of the Third Committee as at 2 December 2003 [38]

If we carefully read WP – we can find what European Parliament is not empowered body which can be responsible for be legally consider Holodomor -1933 as Crime against humanity. So – it’s one of theTEXTS ADOPTED at the sitting of Thursday 23 October 2008 – together with European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2008 on piracy at sea, Equivalence of accounting standards, Aviation security measures and body scanners

• Moreover It was not legislative resolution – as compared with Airport charges ***II (P6_TA-PROV(2008)0517) adopted at same date.

An awfull legl and factual gap in text

• B UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – can not be applied to Holodomor -1933 – see International_Commission_of_Inquiry_Into_the_1932–33_Famine_in_Ukraine –

commission majority (5 of 6) deems it plausible that the constituent elements of genocide were in existence at the time of the famine.

• C Holodomor famine of 1932-1933, which caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, was cynically and cruelly planned by Stalin's regime

: Commission is unable to affirm the existence of a preconceived plan to organize a famine in the Ukraine, in order to ensure the success of Moscow policies.

• • in order to force through the Soviet Union's policy of collectivisation of agriculture against the will of the rural population in Ukraine,

It’s really sad what EP avoid to use WP in his work - and avoid such historically IDIOTIC “whereas» - BECOUSE collectivization at Ukrainian SRR reached it target by October 1 1931.

As far as I can see text oriented to Russia

• calls on the countries which emerged following the break-up of the Soviet Union to open up their archives on the Holodomor in Ukraine of 1932-1933

It’s really sad what they not familiar with the Fact what Russia did so at September [39]. But in general such documents represent nothing new from published in 1990 in Ukraine and available online at [40] While actually Politization section missed [41] and[42] Jo0doe (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please try to make your comments easier to read? Maybe use the "preview" button? Ostap 06:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

European parliament resolution

The resolution of the EP that calls the famine a "crime against humanity" is certainly noteworthy to be covered in the article. But being called such by this particular body hardly makes it the most important piece of info about the famine to warrant its place in the lead section. Please do not use the lead as a grab bag for your favorite quotes and news. Lead should summarize the article which it does. I moved the information to the article's section with similar info. --Irpen 06:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, please do not consider this article your own personal grab bag of items which you can move around as you wish. I have restored the resolution of the European Parliament into the lead. If you have an issue with that, please talk about it here, then alter the article. Horlo (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the most important piece of info about the famine, a crime against humanity is a serious thing, removing it from a prominent position does nothing more ore less than questions the fact. --Termer (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, "crime against humanity" is not a statement of fact but a statement of interpretation of fact, just as genocide. That a famine took place is indeed a statement of fact. What legal term it falls under is a statement of judgment. Such strong terms cannot be used passingly based on a single resolution of a political body. You need a strong evidence that the opinion meats a wide consensus within a mainstream to do it the way you did and for that, you would need a ref not to a primary source, the resolution that says so, but a statement from a scholarly book that asserts this being a prevailing mainstream view. --Irpen 06:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, no, actually, it is a statement of fact. Perhaps you are not familiar withthe idea of an independend judiciary. Please let me explain: laws are not made by scholars, or people in any way connected to any particular situation. As a matter of fact, people who know about a particular case are inappropriate to judge it, because of human bias. Scholars are vital in the judicial process, in that they add information and facts, but because they are somehow involved in researching those facts, they cannot be unbiased.

Therefore, a separate body which is completely removed from said case can judge it - in this case, a group of people, known as the European Parliament, who are 75 years removed from the worst crime against humanity in history - the systematic starvation of a segment of the population by a government.

Please do not try to wikilawyer this out of the lead. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• If we use power of WP - European Parliament we can find

The Parliament also has a great deal of indirect influence, through non-binding resolutions and committee hearings, as a "pan-European soapbox" with the ear of thousands of Brussels-based journalists.

--Jo0doe (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

While - see resolution text above

The European Parliament, … 1. Makes the following declaration to the people of Ukraine and in particular to the remaining survivors of the Holodomor and the families and relatives of the victims:

So it's a declaration specifically to the people of Ukraine not EU were it got some power :(

Political statement as such--Jo0doe (talk) 08

05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And of course everyone knows that the European Parliament is run by the CIA. Ostap 17:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Says who? --Irpen 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

JoOdoe, please, really try to use English. Horlo (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there any equally notable sources saying it was not a crime against humanity? I am glad that there is a statement condemning the Soviet response to the event that we all can agree upon. I am personally for keeping the sentence in the lead Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No objection. This was a proper edit, but the way Termer tried to put it in as the first sentence of an article was clearly uncalled for. He was doing it repeatedly [43] [44] [45], and using clearly abusive edit summaries [46]. --Irpen 04:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In essence, the European parliament resolution states that Holodomor was a crime, and this crime was commited by the Stalin's Soviet government (that is quite obvious). What is really important, by the way, European Parliament refused to recognize Holodomor as an act of genocide. Since overwhelming majority notable sources say Holodomor was a crime against humanity and the EP's decision simply echoes what has been sayed before on that account, I don't see any reason for paying too much attention to it, although, of course, it deserves a brief mentioning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It can't be simple than that: The European parliament that represents about 500 million people, by recognizing the Holodomor as a crime against humanity; OSCE condemning the Ukrainian famine and acknowledging the direct responsibility of the Soviet government, The International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine placing responsibility of the Famine on the Central government of the USSR etc. All it makes it very clear what is the majority viewpoint on the question for WP:NPOV purposes. Most importantly the facts above places the idea that "Holodomor was a natural disaster" among fringe theories or WP:UNDUE at best. Therefore, the article is out of balance and claims like The causes of the famine are the subject of intense scholarly and political debate are simply misleading and not facts, but only so according to the minority of sources. The article needs to be fixed according to the majority view on the subject and listed at WP:FTN and WP:ECCN if necessary. Spamming the article with fringe theories that contradict the clear majority views on the subject has been going on for too long and needs to be put to an end.--Termer (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what I mean. A number of international organisations recognized Holodomor as a crime, none of them recognized it as genocide. Therefore, the EP decision should be mentioned among other similar documents. The fact that it is the most recent such a document does't make it something outstanding.
However the claim "The causes of the famine are the subject of intense scholarly and political debate" is not misleading. That is really the case, although the major disputable question is not a role of natural factor, but the motifs of the Stalin's government. Many (probably a majority) authors consider the motifs to be of social-economic origin, whereas some nationalists try to present the famine as a deliberate attempt to exterminate the Ukrainians. Therefore, the causes are really a subject of intense debates.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why did you bring up Genocide since I never mentioned the term. Perhaps there is intense scholarly and political debate either the famine was a genocide or not. What my previous post was all about, there is no such a serious debate either the famine was artificial or "all natural", even though someone clearly likes to make up the case like there is going on a intense debate about it. The debate regarding this, if it ever existed, is over. the clear consensus is that the famine was all that's listed above in my previous post or the way you put it A number of international organisations recognized Holodomor as a crime. Anything else is a minority view, including if it was a genocide or opposite in an other end -a natural disaster. Both of these latter claims are extremist views that should not dominate the article, but what's going on is exactly opposite. In case I wasn't clear enough, please let me know--Termer (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I brought up Genocide because, although I share your vision of causes of Holodomor (like majority editors do, I hope), there are intense scholarly and, especially, political debate on this subject, however. And the word genocide appears during these debate very frequently. Therefore the phrase "the causes of the famine are the subject of intense scholarly and political debate" is correct, although it should be understood in a somewhat different context.
I fully agree that both natural and genocide concepts of Holodomor should not dominate and I'll support any editing that modifies article according to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool! It seems we do understand each other and agree in basic principles. Regarding Genocide than it can't be simple than that: Since USSR vetoed the inclusion of social groups into the international law when Genocide was defined and it remains to be so, the Genocide question is out of the picture in the international level and a local phenomena only. Because according to status quo the famine can't be defined as a genocide internationally, which doesn't mean that it can't be happening domestically in countries like in Ukraine etc. And that's all there is to it regarding if the famine was a Genocide.

The article needs to be cleaned up proportionally to majority-minority views according to wp:npov and some very wp:bold actions have to be taken to make it happen.--Termer (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. However, one more comment is needed on the genocide issue. You probably argee that Communism (in contrast to Nazism) was ab initio the international concept. All nations of former Russian Empire were represented in Communist movement roughly proportionally to the urban population size, and, I would say Ukrainian born Communists constituded a large portion of the USSR leadership. I recall, even the last (anti-Gorvachev) general secretary of CPSU was Urkainian (Ivashko). Therefore it is hard to understand for me how could genocide of Urkainians be possible in the country where

• The ideology consistently refused to recognze any national differences (nationalistic component become considerable only after Stalin completely had taken a power in the USSR, i.e. after 1939);
• About 1/3 of the Communist establishment were Ukraine born?
  --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's a long story, and not All nations of former Russian Empire were represented in Communist movement roughly proportionally to the urban population size. regarding Ukraine, the political and cultural division of this country goes all the way back to the collapse of the Kievan Rus and the era of Golden Horde and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth that has divided the country into western and eastern parts ever since. The current edit warring is the conflict between those parties, one that supports their identity as Russians minor in the Eastern Ukraine and other, the western Ukrainians who took power during Orange Revolution and advocate the idea that Holodomor was the Soviet genocide against them as an attempt to make the "New Grand Soviet Nation" a reality. The problems arise mostly from the fact that some eastern Ukrainians as some Russian nationalists identify themselves with the Soviet era, the government etc. as this has become the official policy of the Putin's Russia. On the other end you have the guys of the Orange Revolution that see the Soviet era as the time of oppressions against them and there you have it...--Termer (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to think than, yes, almost all. Even Baltic nations were represented among Soviet establishment (e.g. Martin Latsis, Yakov Peters, Arvīds Pelše, Jānis Bērziņš, Yan Rudzutak, Pēteris Stučka, Robert Eikhe). As regard to a collision between Western and Eastern Ukrainian visions, you are generally right. However, the question is that, whereas some historical event can be interpreted in different ways by different peoples, the event itself is unique. In other words, there were no to distinct variants of real events that took place in Ukraine: one for eastern and another for western populations. Therefore we have to separate these two things: what really happened in Ukraine and how different peoples interpreted that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You know it's not really related but I need to comment on Even Baltic nations were represented among Soviet establishment is what you say yet you only list Latvian names.--Termer (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. your comments on the subject are right on target and is exactly the same what I've been talikng about that the article is dominated by how different peoples interpreted that instead of what really happened in Ukraine according to the European parliament and other international organizations. I'll list the article at relevant notice boards as soon as I can.--Termer (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

the article is dominated by how different peoples interpreted that instead of what really happened in Ukraine according to the European parliament and other international organizations

may be you missed a point – it’s article topic is not political but a historical – so assessment of history from soapbox statements gives a distorted view. Thank you. Jo0doe (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Termer – you’ve point out an interesting phenomena in present Ukraine. While sad to see your historically illiteral attributing present Ukraine with Kievan Rus. While you’ve erroneously gave a wrong break down of conflict origin – no evidence of “Russians minor in the Eastern Ukraine” vs “western Ukrainians”– but the pre September 17 1939 USSR territory vs Galicia. But the background of such “edit warring” already described [[47]] here. May be you don’t know but this year (2008) was a 65 “anniversary” of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia – while Ukrainian establishment keep silence about this “Glories pages of Ukrainian liberation movement” – instead as it was in 2003. So “western Ukrainians who took power during Orange Revolution and advocate the idea that Holodomor was the Soviet genocide against them” – but actually “western Ukrainians” not suffered even on a bite from 1933 Famine – but to be a “victims” are much more profitable position – while – if we trace an edit habit of “editors cooperative” at other WP articles which described the FACTS of Nazi’s and Ukrainian Nazi collaboration – we’ve found a similar intent – to distort, omit and misuse – strictly in line with

• Ukrainians in the diaspora found the Famine an important means of questioning the stereotype of “Ukrainians” as victimizers (Nazi collaborators, pogromists) rather than victimized Jo0doe (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear editors. I actually would like to remind you a Stalin speech as of January 11 1933 were he placed the responsibility for the situation in agriculture in 1931-32 to whole USSR Communists (including themselves) [48].

I again would like remind you majority opinion of the

The International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine

• Commission is unable to affirm the existence of a preconceived plan to organize a famine in the Ukraine, in order to ensure the success of Moscow policies.

So misrepresented by media resolution of European Parliament remains a political statement rather then legal qualification of the historical event. Even more it based on historically wrong “whereas”
“whereas the Holodomor famine of 1932-1933, which caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, was cynically and cruelly planned by Stalin's regime in order to force through the Soviet Union's policy of collectivisation of agriculture against the will of the rural population in Ukraine.”.
I kindly ask you to not soapbox the WP history article based on own believe or community intend to use it for own proposes. Thank you. Jo0doe (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind The International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine took place in the early 1980's when Soviet archives were not accessable.

The European Parliament has made its decision based these amterials and also with additional materials which have become available in recent times. Your conclussions ammount to a misrepresentation of facts. Bandurist (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly to attribute 1989 as Early 80s, Isn’t? Hardly to advocate “Soviet archives were not accessable” if US Commission has in possession captured by Nazi and transferred to US archives of Dnipropetrovska oblast and plenty of 32-33 Soviet Ukraine newspapers and rest materials. Even more – they examined a Kulchitskyy and other data provided to them . As far as I can see EP originated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Holodomor-booklet Jo0doe (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

'there is no such a serious debate either the famine was artificial or "all natural",'

In the academic area, away from European parliaments, it is well-established by Mark Tauger, the researcher in the English-speaking world who has done the most work based upon archival date having to do with the famine, that natural disaster was the principal cause. That disaster was aggravated by the failure of Soviet officials to understand the scale of plant rust and how this had destroyed the grains within grain stalks which appeared to have grown normally. But it was the natural disaster which was the principal cause. European parliamentary statements are not a rebuttal to research based upon the archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica

I propose to go back to the fragment: "Estimates for the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range between 2.2 million (demographers' estimate)[5] [6] and 3-3.5 million (historians' estimate),[7][8][9] though much higher figures are often quoted by the media and cited in political debates.[10] On the other hand, the Encyclopedia Britannica reports that Ukraine suffered a severe famine in 1932–33 where more than five million[11] inhabitants of Ukraine[12] died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe."
As a rule, encyclopaediae, like EB or WP, do not publish original research, but summarize results of studies of others. It is natural to expect that to obtain the number of Holodomor victims, EB's author had to utilize some demographical or historical sources (otherwise we have to assume that EB had mastered a third way to obtain truth, e.g. via afflatus). Therefore, some historical sources has to exist that gives 5 million of Holodomor victims, and the fact that EB utilized that source doesn't make the former more reliable than others. Therefore, by naming EB explicitly we give excessive attention to that number. If someone think EB number to be trustworthy, it should be used along with others, without giving any specific emphasis.

• "Estimates for the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range between 2.2 million (demographers' estimate) , 3-3.5 million (historians' estimate), and even 5 million inhabitants of Ukraine."--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you plan to do so you should also update

• USSR article

The Soviet Union was officially established in December 1922 as the union of the Russian (colloquially known as Bolshevist Russia), Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Transcaucasian Soviet republics ruled by Bolshevik parties. On the other hand, the Encyclopedia Britannica reports that Ukraine joined the USSR in 1924.

Isn’t look idiotic? Here is why secondary sources more RS in WP. And again – if we accept more than five million inhabitants of Ukraine from the manuscript editor of Volumes 3–5 of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine from the University of Toronto published in Online EB (if trust to Horlo’s info about author). So why not to include other University of Toronto graduates claims – 7-10?. May I express my vision why demographical matters must be described though demographical (an INED as example. Because level of historians proficiency in this matters are not relevant to demographists one. Moreover – at p.16 ce Meslé, Jacques Vallin Mortalité et causes de décès en Ukraine au XXè siècle + CDRom ISBN 2-7332-0152-2 CD online data (partially - http://www.ined.fr/fichier/t_publication/cdrom_mortukraine/cdrom.htm appeared info what 5 millions of Conquest, 4 Million from Andreev as also 3,5 million from Kulchitskyy received by unknown or by wrong estimation. Wile –as far as I can see 5 million of Conquest and 5 Million by Toronto - Britannica is not same 5. Really strange – is’ntJo0doe (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WP Articles which should be updated per EP history version

If we accept EP resolution as a RS for article about historical event and legal assessment of such we should updated articles

• Collectivisation_in_the_USSR

With words at the lead –

According to resolution of European Parliament Collectivization was cynically and cruelly planned by Stalin's regime against the will of the rural population in Ukraine to starve millions of Ukrainians in the artificial Holodomor famine of 1932-1933

• Five_Year_Plan_(USSR) and [First five-year plan]]

According to resolution of European Parliament in this Plan Stalin's regime cynically and cruelly planned to starve millions of Ukrainians in the artificial Holodomor famine of 1932-1933 in order to force through the Soviet Union's policy of collectivisation of agriculture against the will of the rural population in Ukraine.

Crime_against_humanity New section European Parliament declared to the people of Ukraine and in particular to the remaining survivors of the Holodomor and the families and relatives of the victims (AND TO NOONE ELSE) what MEP recognizes the Holodomor (the artificial famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine) as an appalling crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity And update

• International Criminal Court
• Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

Accordingly to recent European Parliament resolution

• But is EP resolution with declaration to people of Ukraine is a RS for WP article on topics of sciences (history, jurisprudence, international Law)?

Actually see how should look a recognition of Holodomor as Crime_against_humanity – (if use a legal wording by EU)

whereas ….

• 1. Considers the Holodomor (the artificial famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine) as an appalling crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity;

• 2. Emphasises that EU strongly condemns these acts, directed against the Ukrainian peasantry, and marked by mass annihilation and violations of human rights and freedoms;

• 3 Calls on the countries which emerged following the break-up of the Soviet Union to open up their archives on the Holodomor in Ukraine of 1932-1933 to comprehensive scrutiny so that all the causes and consequences can be revealed and fully investigated;

• 4. expresses its sympathy with the Ukrainian people, who suffered in this tragedy, and pays its respects to those who died as a consequence of the artificial famine of 1932-1933.

Does it look a same? I hope it’s clear example for not familiar with legislative policies of the EP.--Jo0doe (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A more stupid comment :

read just the first sentence of International Criminal Court  : he Court came into being on 1 July 2002 — the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force[4] — and it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.[5]

And this is the rule that work in all democratic right state. : not retroactive! That's why Holodomor do not need to pass all this test, as the Armenian Genocide... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.106.186 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• A notible difference [49]

On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, Britain, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing "a crime against humanity". An excerpt from this joint statement reads:

So compartion "as" with list a factually existed intent to destroy Ethinical group with allegedly claims for same from Nazi collabotators - ...--Jo0doe (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JoOdoe, this is not the first time that you are having difficulty with the English language. Let me explain: first, you cannot use the indeifinite article "a" before the adjective "same", like when you said "a same"; second, the European Parliament declaration does state that the Holodomor was a crime against humanity, and it is correct to use a comma before a coordinate conjunction when comparing complex structures, such as preposition phrases - therefore, the statement "crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity" means that the European Parliament recognizes the Holodomor as a crime against humanity; third, don't use Wikipedia as a source. Next, you're going to try and say that the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source! Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Horlo, this is not the first time that you are having difficulty with article topics and place of editing. Please remember WP is not e-Poshta or other fun staff of Ukrainian Diaspora. Please do not be so hurry with conclusion about European legislation practice – if you’ve seen some first time in you live. Thank you for your titanic effort on removing appropriate tags from WP:artilce without arguments. Happy editing Jo0doe (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Online EB Ukrainians – who they are? Or Galician view on Ukrainian history

If we scroll down XX century history (at least I’ve do only this) of Ukraine section – we can see how many attention given to Galicia – and only Galicia – no other parts of Ukraine. Indeed intresting WWI history section – all devoted to Galicia – but not to WWI battles at Ukrainian lands. While really interesting WWII section: EB online describe Operation Barbarossa at Ukraine as:

• The Soviets, during their hasty retreat, - so no Ukrainians – but Soviet
• All military operation at Ukraine (per EB) limited to shot their political prisoners and, whenever possible, evacuated personnel, dismantled and removed industrial plants, and conducted a scorched-earth policy
• Indeed interesting point of history:

The Germans moved swiftly, however, and by the end of November virtually all of Ukraine was under their control.

Winter 1941 offence – never exist per EB Online

• In Galicia … widespread belief that Germany… was the Ukrainians’ natural ally for the attainment of their independence

All Ukraine limited to Galicia and All Galician’s Ukrainians (citizen of Ukraine) including Jews, Poles, Hungarians etc dreamed about independence.

Most cherished point

The Germans were accompanied on their entry into Lviv on June 30 by members of OUN-B, who that same day proclaimed the restoration of Ukrainian statehood and the formation of a provisional state administration; within days the organizers of this action were arrested and interned in concentration camps (as were both Bandera and, later, Melnyk).

So – if we see original of document about June 30 “Act” – no restoration but proclamation – and again our North-American Ukrainians forgot to add

allied with Nazi Germany Ukraine.

withing days … interned in concentration camps – a quite specific time accounting if count a days between June 30 and September 18.

at Baby Yar in Kiev, nearly 34,000 were killed in just the first two days of massacre in the city. The Nazis were aided at times by auxiliary forces recruited from the local population.

Indeed interesting – all sources indicate that “auxiliary forces” for comes to Baby Yar in Kiev (actually why not Kyiv – we need to update WP per EB online) comes with Nazi’s and all of them was from Galicia. Own bastard appeared much later

• And as a final
• Under such conditions of brutality, Ukrainian political activity, predicated originally on cooperation with the Germans, increasingly turned to underground organizational work and resistance. The OUN groups

So for EB propose Ukrainian political activity limited to OUN

Here we can conclude what Ukrainians at EB – it’s ethnicity but not citizenship – EB online prefer for citizens of Ukr SSR adopt Soviet terms

A history as seen from “Galician hole”. Parody on history.

Or it’s may be a “Student version of EB” – it’s really shame for that “students”. Jo0doe (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that in your quest to debunk Encyclopedia Brittanica you now post a lengthy diatribe on World War II and Galicians, on a talk page devoted to an event that occurred a decade earlier and not in Galicia.Faustian (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as may be you can’t seen. Editors have a doubt what Ukrainians died at Soviet Union in Famine – citizens of Ukr SSR (as article about) or ethnical Ukrainians (as claimed North-American Diaspora to reflect themselves as “victims”). So I’ve provide a detailed examples what article appeared at EB online as “history of Ukraine” present citizens of Ukr SSR as Soviets but not Ukrainians. Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the EuroParliament decision a Primary, Secondary or Tertiary source?

After some meditation, I came to the conclusion that decisions of various international and national organs are primary sources. They can be issued for various political reason by peoples that may be highly biased. They are the historical facts and, therefore, they cannot be questioned. However, it doesn't mean that all they say are true.
In other words, the fact that on October 2008 EuroParliament issued a declaration that states that Holodomor was a crime, means that Europarliament think so, not that Holodomor was a crime in actuality. In contrast, the articles of Conquest or Weathcroft are secondary sources, both these authors may be right of wrong, however they are (or are trying to be) unbiased. Therefore those who are inerested to establish what really happened in Urkaine in 1932-33 should rely primarily on scholarly articles.
For me, EP is a large polytical organ and I am inclined to believe scholars, not politicians. If constitutional majority of the American congress decided that pi number is equal to 24/4, I would prefer to believe a single matematician not to them.
As regards to the EP decision, I would propose to create a separate section dealing with the international reaction on Holodomor. However, decisions of various states and international organs are hardly relevant for understanding of what really happened in Ukraine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? It tells now: "The European Parliament has recognized it as a crime against humanity in 2008". This is well sourced.Biophys (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry but very strange results to that meditation since according to WP:PRIMARY Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident written or narrated by the eyewitness is an example of a primary source. So how were you able to come to a conclusion that the decisions of various international and national organs are lets say close to eyewitness accounts of the actual famine?--Termer (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. If constitutional majority of the American congress decided that pi number is equal to 24/4 would just tell us something about the American voter who elected such people to the congress, that's all. Exactly like the EU Parliament has expressed the majority view on the Ukrainian Fmine. And that's all what we need to know on WP , what exactly is the majority view on any given subject once it's about WP:NPOV.--Termer (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! That is exactly what I mean. The EP decision reflects what people think about the famine. However, since we both argeed that there is a huge difference between what people think about some event and the event itself, then the EP decision has a relation to the former, not to the latter. If we discuss the former, the EP is a primary source, i.e. one of documents directly relating to the people's atttude towards the famine. However, when we talk about the latter, the EP decision is irrelevant at all because it contains no additional information as compared to the scholarly articles.
In other words, the hypothetical Congress decision on the pi number value is what majority (sometimes, ignogant majority) peoples think on that subject. It is important and relevant for the section of hypothetical WP article that deals with people's opinion on that subject. However, the mathematician's opinion is relevant when we want to know the real value of this number, and no Copngress or even UNO assembly decision can add anything to that. Agree?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, what we agreed on was that the article is dominated by 2 extremist minority views (including the scholars, politics and the people), one that says the famine was a natural catastrophy and the other one that it was a genocide against Ukrainian nation. Instead it should concentrate on the majority views (including the scholars, politics and the people), that clearly say that the famine was an artificially created famine, a crime against the people by their government. United Nations : In the former Soviet Union millions of men, women and children fell victims to the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime...and became a national tragedy for the Ukrainian people. The European Parliament crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity. Those statements represent the majority views for WP purposes and there is nothing more to it. WP is not a place for searching the truth or "what really happened" but it's about verifiability and making sure that the majority views dominate the articles instead of minority opinions , not to mention the fringe theories in order to maintain the WP:NPOV, it can't be simpler than that.--Termer (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand correct that, according to you the WP purpose is to present views of majority people, not majority sources? If yes, then WP should write that the Universe was a result of divine creation:)
I guess, the parliamentarians' decision was based on following sources of information:

• A kind of survey prepared by professional analysts based on the articles of reputable scholars, most probably, Wheathcroft, Conquest, Vallin, Maksudov et al, and/or
• Journalist articles that were based on the data above plus several photographs, plus some memoirs plus some non-professionally treated archive data, and/or
• Well known facts that contemporary Ukrainian state is democratic (therefore it is good), that it opposes Russian neo-imperialism, and that Urkainian parliament states Holodomor to be a crime.
  The decision itself is generally correct. Does it contain any new information for us, however? I would say, not much. The only new information is that at present time majority of European politicians agree that Holodomor was a crime. In other words, this document relates to attitude of the present days European society on that account, not to Holodomor itself.
  For me, the detailed article of one unbiased scholar, who presents the data he used for his work and describes the way he came to his conclusion, would be much more convinsing that ten declaration of the most democratically elected parliament in the world.
  P.S. In addition, the EP decision is not verifiable. When I read Conquest's article, I theoretically can obtain the sources he used, and analyze all his conclusions for logical consistency. In the case of EP I cannot do this even theoretically, I even don't know what information they utilized.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry but it's clear by now that you have some catching up to do: there is nothing according to me here, please read the WP:NPOV to get the answers to the first questions you had including if the Universe was a result of divine creation, it would need to get verified according to WP:V, WP:PROVEIT and WP:RS not to mention WP:FRINGE etc. And who'd mind it if someone could come up with the one unbiased scholar, all the problems would be gone forever. Meanwhile the only thing we have is NPOV and WP:DUE that says the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views--Termer (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I also red WP rules carefully. However, to my understanding, the majority views and the views of the majority are not the same. As regards to scholars, I think every scholarly article is much less biased than any journalist's article or political document. Therefore, I prefer to rely upon the formers. And, if there is some discrepancy between the former and the latter, I will trust to the former. As regards to reliable sources, I think, I demonstrated why a scholarly article can be considered a reliable secondary source whereas EP resolution can't.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is one thing you're still missing, the "resolutions by the majority" on the subject, other than recognizing the famine as a crime have called for opening up the related archives for scholars so that all the causes and consequences can be revealed and fully investigated So if this fact doesn't speak for itself I don't know what does...Considering the fact that the archives remain to be closed for scholars, what kind of a scholarly article can be considered a reliable secondary source compared to for example the international resolutions that have defined the essence of the subject?--Termer (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I missed that. Once again, I think the resolution is generally correct, and the call for opening up archives is very important, taking into account the present days tendency to gradually close even those Russian archives that were available for researchers few years ago. The only my point is that the EP resolution is based, in the best case, on already available scholarly articles (most of them, I hope, have been cited here), and, therefore, adds nothing to our understanding of Holodomor.
P.S. I would say, the fact that some archives are closed, make schientific articles even more important, because the major task of every real scientist is to understand some phenomenon when only minimal information is available about it. And the second scientists' task is to do that in the least biased way. That is additional reason to trust scholars (in contrast to journalists and politicians)--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I'm getting a feeling that we're running in circles here. the resolution is generally correct and adds nothing to our understanding of Holodomor- agree completely! yet the issues under discussion have been that the article doesn't reflect the common understanding of the subject proportionally but is dominated by the minority views ranging from a natural disaster in one end versus a genocide in another.--Termer (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That is good that we agreed about the first (the resolution is generally correct and adds nothing to our understanding of Holodomor). What I cannot understand, why do you think that the issue "that the article doesn't reflect the common understanding of the subject" is still under discussion? I thought we both came to the conclusion that our vision coincides (on that account, at least). Therefore the problem is to convince other editors in that...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It must be me who misundrestood you since you came up with this meditation thing that left an impression somehow like you had become to different conclusions. So all good, the article needs a major overhaul in that respect.But first the article needs to be listed at the notice boards since so far applying common sense has not helped with getting the article back on track. There is no hurry, WP has no deadline so like I said, I'm going to list the article at the related notice boards as soon as I can so that the broader WP community could help out with cleaning up the article.--Termer (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• So the major concern is – does EP non-binding resolution were for Ukrainian peoples declared what EP “recognises the Holodomor (the artificial famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine) as an appalling crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity” is a RS for WP article about history?

Does it can be a RS for Law – a non-binding resolution? Does WP History articles should be based on majority of EP and not on majority scholars opinion? So members of EP can solely conclude fact that the archives remain to be closed for scholars??? While that’s mean what MEP decided what Head of Ukrainian Archive service Dr.Boriak is liar – when he declare in 2003 what almost all collected and studied? Does EP is RS in archival science?Jo0doe (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Header.

Hello Irpen, do you really think having all those intext citation notes up there like a forest in the lead section are really necessary? Seems like an overkill to me. And there is nothing new up there anyway and all those facts can be sourced later in the article content where things have been discussed more in detail. Sorry but I really think it just looks messy and the amount of notes is unreasonable. If there would be one note in every place instead of ...up to 5, that would do the job just fine I think--Termer (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Termer, ideally in stable articles there should be no refs in the lead at all. Refs would be in the text body and the lead would simply summarize the article. However, this article raises too many passions and this topic generates dedicated SPA's. So, every word may get challenged and references serve as some form of protection. Additionally, users whose primary goal is to maximize the POV effect of their edits, instinctively start from attacking the lead section not caring a least bit of whether the lead represents the article. In most cases, looking at whether the user is only interested in the altering the lead section or in spending time on the main body is a good rule of thumb to understand the motivation of the user (of course exceptions exist). Many users do nothing with the article except trying to continuously alter its top 20 lines, so we better have them referenced. --Irpen 07:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account the recent edit war around Ecnyclopaedia Britannica, I fully agree with Irpen.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, EB should be apropriately mentioned as the last time I looked, we include figures from newspaper articles rather than mention (also) what EB says. That's not proper. —PētersV (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, once again, in order to avoid maximizing the POV effects and taking it towards a stable article, I'd suggest making the main stream views more dominant in the lead instead of concentrating too much on the extremist views. Even though I don't have major problems with your last edits Irpen, I still think after you went over it, the disputes between the extremists started to dominate the text too much again. I don't think there would be a need to repeat it 2 times that there is a dispute. I think once the lead fairly represents the actual situation and the main stream POV in the form of international organizations is going to clearly dominate it, and the extremist POVs suggesting the subject may have been a genocide versus a result of simply pure management skills of the government less attention, it would reduce a possibility to "raise too many passions" and take it towards a stable article.

In general I think the header has become more clear. Regarding the notes once again, it's not difficult to merge the notes for the lead purposes and give the reader just one note to click on instead of 5 in order to make the text clearer and more readable (that would also take it towards a stable article). And braking the notes up again for the use in the content later as separate notes/refs in the text as needed bases.--Termer (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• So we need to decide first which sources are RS for topic History, Economics, Demography, International Law – created by known specialists or 4 lines of text at EP resolution or at least Galician version of Ukrainian history drafted by Toronto University manuscript editor of Volumes 3–5 of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine BUT appeared as high as EB article posed as history of UkraineJo0doe (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The causes of the famine

Hi, the lead contains The causes of the famine are the subject of current scholarly and political debate. . While politicians do debate this, please bring quotes from scholarly sources who debate that the cause of the famine were orders and actions issued and carried by Soviet authorities. --windyhead (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In case no sources support the debate, I would see the sentence to be something like The causes of the famine were food requisition actions carried by Soviet authorities[50]. Some historians claim the famine was purposely engineered by the Soviet authorities as an attack on Ukrainian nationalism, while others view it as an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization. [4][9][11] [12] [13]. The "economic problems" sentence is disputable however as no quotes provided so far. Please suggest. --windyhead (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been talking about, the quote is misleading since there is no mainstream debate among scholars or politicians what caused the famine. The debate is all about either the actions of the soviet government were purposely engineered against the Ukrainain nationalism and therefore if it may have been a genocide, that's whatthe debate is about.

Nobody in the mainstream has disputed the causes of the famine other than most edgy and fringe theorists perhaps who have suggested it was a natural catastrophe. Even "unintended consequence of the economic problems" basically meaning -poor management skills of the Soviet government actually no way contradict the resolutions of the United nations or the European Parliament that have defined the famine and the causes for it that represent the mainstream views on the subject. So therefore - the way "scholarly and political debate" has been redefined once again after I cleaned up the section [51], the result is it keeps misleading the reader.--Termer (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. to spell it out, if anything the debate is all about:

There is no international consensus among scholars or politicians either the famine was purposely engineered by the Soviet authorities as an attack on Ukrainian nationalism that may fall under the legal definition of genocide. As of March 2008, the parliament of Ukraine and several governments of other countries have recognized the actions of the Soviet Government as an act of genocide. Some scholars and politicians view the famine as an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization.
--Termer (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK what about - The Holodomor was the artifical man-made famine caused primarily by food requisition actions carried by Soviet authorities. The reasons for these actions are subject of current scholarly and political debate. Some historians claim the famine was an attack on Ukrainian nationalism, while others view it as an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization. --windyhead (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, colleagues you try to deal with history from soapbox – it’s wrong intend. Actually could you please provide me a link to “theorists” which claimed about exclusivity of natural factors? A tiny 3 lines chapter at the bottom of the causes? If even early 80s Soviets does not say so – they always include a human factors – see by the time Financial Times article with economics analysis (link at article). Let me cite Himka

In an internet debate in the spring of 2002 the historian Mark Tauger denied that the Ukrainian famine was artificially contrived. Ukrainian diaspora scholars countered that this reflected “widespread double standards,” “a strong refusal among academics and journalists to place Soviet and Nazi crimes against humanity on the same level.” The comparison was made to Holocaust denial.19 More recently a contributor to E-Poshta stated that for denying that the Ukrainian famine was genocide, Tauger as well as Lynne Viola and Moshe Lewin should be “relegated to hell’s dung heap of history reserved for the most morally bankrupt liars and propagandists.” To him, their views were of one cloth with those who claimed that “no one really died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.”20 Tauger’s substantive argument, that the famine was in part generated by a change in the way Soviet authorities estimated harvest size,21 has not been confronted by diaspora scholars or publicists.

ad hominem but not ad rem – means no possibility to object with a facts.

Jo0doe (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you know that proponents of “food requisition actions” always forgot to cite how many “food” were “requisitioned” – as high as aprox 250 million of poods – from them 3, 876 thousand tons from peasants – as compared to ~7 from harvests 1931 and 1932 and ~6 from harvest 1933. I hope you also does not object that such “scholars” does not mention at all any food seed and forage aid to Ukr SSR in first half of 1933 (starting as earlier as February 7 1933). So please to do not try to given undue weights to politicians opinions about historical event – please stick with facts not with soapbox speeches. Thank you for your valuable new input into article (if any). P.S. I hope you comprehend differences between

cynically and cruelly planned by Stalin's regime in order to force through the Soviet Union's policy of collectivisation of agriculture against the will of the rural population in Ukraine

and

poor management skills of the Soviet government Jo0doe (talk) 17

00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm clad to see that Jo0doe has also narrowed down the debate of the wing views and sees it the same way as I do. So how about cleaning up at least the article header according to these debated views one in each end and in the middle there is the mainstream consensus (Something that WP should consentrate on) that is reflected by the statements of the international organizations? It should be pretty straight forward instead of this confusing debate within a debate currently described in the lead section that is just misleading.--Termer (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for copy-paste - but

So we need to decide first which sources are RS for topic History, Economics, Demography, International Law – created by known specialists or 4 lines of text at EP resolution or at least Galician version of Ukrainian history drafted by Toronto University manuscript editor of Volumes 3–5 of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine BUT appeared as high as EB article posed as history of UkraineJo0doe (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Does any of WP:history article manifactured from a soapbox visions??--Jo0doe (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Some scholars and politicians view the famine as an unintended consequence of the economic problems"

That's not all. The plant rust which destroyed the crop of 1932 can not be attributed principally to economic problems. It was an actual natural disaster. That disaster was then aggravated by the failure of Soviet officials to recognize the natural disaster as such and the tendency to attribute it to kulak sabotage. But the starting point is the plant rust itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine increased bet for UN

[52] -

• Upwards of 10 million people, one third of Ukraine’s population, had died there, he added.

Does UN will trust to person claims or INED an affilated institution factual data--Jo0doe (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Зокрема В.Юшенко у короткому виступі тричі назвав цифру, якій надає перевагу: 10 мільйонів невинно убієнних. Кожного разу він знаходив інший контекст для названої цифри, але було видно, що він вважає її аксіомою

–

from Stanislav Kulchytsky, Hennadiy Yefimenko. Демографічні наслідки голодомору 1933 р. в Україні. Всесоюзний перепис 1937 р. в Україні: документи та матеріали (Demographic consequence of Holodomor of 1933 in Ukraine. The all-Union census of 1937 in Ukraine), Kiev, Institute of History, 2003. pp 3.--Jo0doe (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Ukr SRR Deaths registered

year	Rural	Urban
1926	446440	72216
1927	449203	73434
1933*Kulchitskyy data	1582017	267168

Death rate increase at 1933 as compared to average 1926-27

• Rural ~ 350%
• Urban~ 360%

So correct wording should be population -- Jo0doe (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe - the information above does not make sense Bobanni (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Does any source conclude that either the rural or the urban population suffered more, less or the same? The above just seems like original research. We don't know if, for example, deaths were more likely to be recorded in urban areas than in rural ones, etc. It's up to historians or demographers to sort this out. What, if anything, do they conclude?Faustian (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sources in the article show that the rural population suffered much more while in the cities only unregistered migrants were affected since the rest had ration cards. Rural population of the affected areas suffered tremendously, Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian alike. See discussion above at #Definition of Holodomor--Irpen 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a good illustration of why original research is to be avoided.Faustian (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• OK, does it make sense to anybody why Jo0doe again keeps reverting my attempts to clean-up, tighten-up the lead section?, [53]. I think the way the dispute gets mentioned 2 times is completely unnecessary and can be explained with 2 sentences instead of 4. and there are other things that can be said with one sentence but for some reason Jo0doe doesn't seem to think so? is it only me who thinks that mentioning the dispute 2X doesn't make it any better , instead it feels like whoever wrote this forgot what he/she was talking about 2 sentences ago and then returns to to the subject like trying to make sure the reader didn't miss the importants of previous section?--Termer (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Another example of Jo0doe (talk) long history of disuptive editing.Faustian (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s really sad to note that group of editors experienced a difficulties with basic mathematics (it’s Charming novelty to see that Math is OR per editors conclusions). As regards to Irpen claim – I highly recommend to read carefully statements about Famine – mentioned what Ukrainian population suffered and especially rural – but not exclusively rural as appeared at Conquest. (I hope you able to find numerous scholars works which stated the same). I spoke not about absolute figures but about ratio – which used in demography instead of absolute figures.

• In regards to Irpen assumption about ration cards – it’s really sad but you omit info at article about early December 1932 Decree Ukr Sovnarkom about withdrawal from rationing supply a notable percentage of population and lowering to 100 gram per day supply (Less then in Leningrad in 1941/42) for huge population category . Moreover you forgot to read 1990 work by Kulchitskyy at all were urban population were dramatically undersupplied by rationing system – see deaths in Uman, Bila Tserkva Vinnitsa, Kyiv etc. etc.

So given undue weight about exclusively rural nature of Famine =1933 it’s clear UNDUE – see facts in article. Jo0doe (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me cite Kulcitskyy work – Stanislav Kulchytsky, Hennadiy Yefimenko. Демографічні наслідки голодомору 1933 р. в Україні. Всесоюзний перепис 1937 р. в Україні: документи та матеріали (Demographic consequence of Holodomor of 1933 in Ukraine. The all-Union census of 1937 in Ukraine), Kiev, Institute of History, 2003. pp.5-6

Мені особливо імпонує заклик Б.Олійника припинити схоже на аукціон жонглювання цифрами: хто назве більшу, той виглядатиме патріотичніше. Ми зашкодимо національним інтересам, якщо у цій справі відкидаємо наукові дані і будемо навязувати світові взяті зі стелі цифри. По-перше, світ не без розумних людей, обман тільки представить Україну в невигідному світлі. По-другк, за всіх умов рахунок йде на мільйони людських життів. «Хіба цього не досить,- говорив Б.Олійник, аби світ і ми самі вжахнулися масштабами цього вселеньского лиха?! Ні, комусь треба перекидатись мільйонами як міченими картами, свідомо знижуючи поріг болю, перетворюючи стахолісся у гру цифр, даючи підстави цинікам шкирітися з хохлів, які, мовляв, звикли до приписок» Краще не скажеш...

I hope someone would be grateful to assist in translation.

While thanks to Himka, Frank E.Sysyn (Director of the PeterJacyk Center for Ukrainian Historical Research, University of Alberta) and many other European and non European scholars we’ve knew about QUI PRODES [54] – and indeed interesting to note how correct that scholars are in their definition – if carefully trace the group of editors routine actions about perpetrating a propagandistic hoax in WP – like O14-USSR IMT document and “Makivka and Black Forest” and numerous others. Interesting to note but all footsteps are led as same pigeonhole – to a formation which adopt a Hitler Salute in April 1941Jo0doe (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Old text in new frame by Yuschenko wife Charitable Foundation

http://kiev.usembassy.gov/files/famine.pdf

Holodomor-Famine in Soviet Ukraine 1932-33

A brief review:

• p.3 Orthodox Christian Crosses at created by Communist’s mass graves – look strange – is’nt.
• Loan by Chumachenko’s Ukraine 3000 International Charitable Foundation
• Text based on:

Famine in the Soviet Ukraine, 1932-1933: A Memorial Exhibition, Widener Library, Harvard University. Prepared by Oksana Procyk, Leonid Heretz, James E. Mace. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard College Library: Distributed by Harvard University Press, 1986.

Fresh text is’nt ?

Guys – cold war ended in 1991. Or may be not?

As far as I remember US sovietologists society comments on Mace work – “he twist and misuse everything”

• Historical background – correct name

historical Gap and misuse

• War Communism - claimed 1917-1921 – see WP data
• Forced collectivization and the expropriation of grain … helped to cause the famine of

1921-1922.

Collectivization in Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic as a cause of Famine 1921-22? A agree with US sovietologists – he twist and misuse everything

• They had exceptional difficulty in installing a stable Communist regime in

Ukraine. Each of their three attempts was marked by successively greater concessions to national sentiment.

What that’s words mean?

• and until the formation of the Soviet Union in late 1922, was considered to be an independent state.

Even in 1933 GPU files appeared – citizen of Ukrainian SRR

• Mykola Skrypnyk (1872-1933), Ukrainian People’s Commissar of

Education and de facto head of the Party and Soviet Ukraine government,

They forgot about Shumskyy, Kaganovitch, Kosior, Postyshev etc .etc.etc.

• in 1932-1933 resulted in the death by famine of one fifth of the

Ukrainian nation.

Ukrainian nation is not Ukrainian citizens – thus 6-7 million of Ukrainians by nationality.

• Many prominent

scholars were imprisoned and whole institutes of the Academy were shut down.

- story ends in 1933 – so no farther live at Ukraine exist 

• The period of agricultural collectivization (1929-1933)

Intresting but soviet state about 1917 - 1939

• New Economic Policy (1921-1928) had allowed the peasantry to make significant

economic progress

Look like author does not familiar with 1927/28 situation in agriculture

• These shortages led to mass starvation in Ukraine, the North Caucasus, Kazakhstan

and the Lower Volga region.

author forgot about Siberia, Ural, Moscow region etc. etc.

• Urban outsiders were sent into the villages to force the peasants onto

collective farms and to seize grain for the state.

see article data about such claim

• Villages that resisted collectivization…were put on blacklists.

interesting new finding

• Blacklisting lead to purges of the local leadership and a total blockade of the

areas in question. Often, the result was complete extermination of the blacklisted village.

See article facts about Kamyani Potoky and rest example of “extermination”.

• Impossible grain quotas were imposed on Ukraine.

356 million metric tons - ? see article data.about ”impossible” grain quota and about how harvest was collected in 1932.

• It raised the grain requisition quotas even higher and, uniquely to Ukraine, sent in special brigades to find and remove any remaining foodstuffs and livestock.

Indeed interesting translation for lowering quotas – see data at article and intresting – if look at livestock data – also in article.

• Ukrainian Communist officials led by Mykola Skrypnyk protested to Stalin that the people were dying of hunger.

interesting new finding

• He took direct control of the country sending Viacheslav Molotov (1890-1986) and Lazar Kaganovich (1893-1991) to dictate policy to the Ukrainian Communist Party and

government. He then sent his close ally Pavel Postyshev (1887-1937) to Ukraine as virtual dictator.

A agree with US sovietologists – he twist and misuse everything

• Postyshev ordered that even more grain be collected, although nothing

was left.

A agree with US sovietologists – he twist and misuse everything. See article facts

• Postyshev allowed the peasants to keep part of what they harvested in the fall of 1933

??? If beginning in January 1933, - Ukrainian countryside became a vast death camp.

* The Famine gradually subsided, having claimed an estimated 3 to 6 million lives,

according to ongoing demographic and archival research. Official Ukrainian government estimates are still higher at about 7 to 8 million lives lost during the Famine (Holodomor).

See above UN claim – a reflection of total chaos at present Ukraine

• a women picture

from “Harvest of despair” film footage – in fact 1921 Lower Volga Famine from Nansen.

But interesting to see – no same as EP claim that “Staline organize famine to conduct collectivization”. And indeed interesting

• The disruption caused by collectivization created severe food shortages throughout the Soviet Union.

How about sealed borders? Wealth cities? Etc???Jo0doe (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum

Please Jo0doe stop it! This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please remove everything posted by you that is not directly related to discussing improvements to the Holodomor article from this talk page. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's just an info about one of the article ref-source in case if any would like to use it as improvements to the Holodomor article . Thanks--Jo0doe (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NoT a SOAPBOX

I also kindly ask you to avoid excessive usage of political statements in history article. Moreover please do not rewrite it inline with tiny minority of scholars illiteral opinions and from poor quality article from tertiary source. It’s article about historical event – please note – not about collective blank spot at memory of Ukrainian Diaspora regarding history of UKR SSR. So in order to made article better and reliable you need to be more familiar about sources which you are used and quality of data in it. Otherwise pictures from 1921-22 Famine in Russia “empowered” the quality of WP – as far as them widely used many times and see again recent example above. Or at least you will be acknowledged what EB claim about excessive grain procurements claim based on 356 million metric tons from here [http://genocidecurriculum.org/curriculum-resources/general-archive/united-states-congressional-commission-on-the-ukrainian-famine/1report-to-congress/page-xii/ ] – so please do not hesitate good research (see WP:NPOV) of others if you experienced a difficulties with which article is about. Thank you for your patienceJo0doe (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry , can't do: according to WP:NPOV all relevant viewpoints have to be represented in an article. Currently the article has reached a stage as the result of efforts given by many WP editors that can make it among most stable articles on WP because all relevant viewpoints on the subject are clearly spelled out according to a number of WP:RS. Therefore, pleas stop posting your personal commentaries on the subject to this talk page.--Termer (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Politician’s assessments of historical event are irrelevant (moreover it’s based on historically wrong assumption). Historical event deserved a historian’s assessments. Moreover misrepresenting and given a wrong emphasis to a soapbox speeches is generally incorrect. See below. I also hope that you sometimes can be able to distinct personal opinion and historical facts. While adding a propagandistic brochures as a link on historical topic in generally wrong Thank you. Jo0doe (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You have it all wrong. Today's politicians are making tomorrows’ history. Today’s politicians comments on past political mistakes is one of the hallmark of democracy.Bobanni (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

Mislead in lead

• …parallel to devastating famines in other regions of the USSR.The famines were caused by the food requisition actions carried by Soviet authorities. –cited through EB

Can’t find at similar wording or conclusions at link provided that famines in other regions of the USSR were caused by food requisition actions carried by Soviet authorities.

• The joint declaration at the United Nations in 2003 has defined the famine as the result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians

may be would be better to avoid lie by omission and state correct info in the lead –

In joint statement (UN General Assembly doc # A/C.3/58/9)

by the delegations of  37 countries at UN  58 General Assembly in 2003 deplored  the acts and

policies that brought about mass starvation and death of millions of people as also honored the seventieth anniversary of the Ukrainian tragedy, commemorated the memory of millions of Russians, Kazakhs and representatives of other nationalities who died of starvation in the Volga River region, Northern Caucasus, Kazakhstan and in other parts of the former Soviet Union, as a result of civil war and forced collectivization.

As far as declaration itself not stated what actually appeared at the lead see below a text:

In the former Soviet Union millions of men, women and children fell victims to the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime. The Great Famine of1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor), which took from 7 million to 10 million innocent lives and became a national tragedy for the Ukrainian people. In this regard we note activities in observance of the seventieth anniversary of this Famine, in particular organized by the Government of Ukraine. Honouring the seventieth anniversary of the Ukrainian tragedy, we also commemorate the memory of millions of Russians, Kazakhs and representatives of other nationalities who died of starvation in the Volga River region, Northern Caucasus, Kazakhstan and in other parts of the former Soviet Union, as a result of civil war and forced collectivization, leaving deep scars in the consciousness of future generations.

Expressing sympathy to the victims of the Great Famine, we call upon all Member States, the United Nations and its special agencies, international and regional organizations, as well as non-governmental organizations, foundations and associations to pay tribute to the memory of those who perished during that tragic period of history.

Recognizing the importance of raising public awareness on the tragic events in the history of mankind for their prevention in future, we deplore the acts and policies that brought about mass starvation and death of millions of people. We do not want to settle scores with the past, it could not be changed, but we are convinced that exposing violations of human rights, preserving historical records and restoring the dignity of victims through acknowledgement of their suffering, will guide future societies and help to avoid similar catastrophes in the future. We need that as many people as possible learn about this tragedy and consider that this knowledge will strengthen effectiveness of the rule of law and enhance respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

I hope editors comprehend differences in text resolution and in leads

• European Parliament has recognized the Holodomor as a crime against humanity.

if anybody look at real document of EP: [55]

And easily can find that in order to reflect reality text should be as follow:

European Parliament adopted a non binding resolution in which it make a declaration for Ukrainian peoples were recognizes the Holodomor as an appalling crime against the Ukrainian people, and against humanity.

Otherwise anyone familiar with legal matters decide that a WP is another sort of Internet blog – a partially reliable thing. Jo0doe (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop rocking the boat here since after a long and difficult process things at last in the lead section have become to hang almost in the perfect balance that everybody can appreciate except you thus far!--Termer (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean balance of information which does not exist in the source - like claim about what in EB exist

• The famine was caused by the food requisition actions carried by Soviet authorities

- no such info found at link provided - See above about correct wording about Joint Statement (not declaration) not Whole UN but 37 countries delegations. They not stated what Ukraine Famine-1933 was a result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime. See text - see origin 7 million to 10 million . See what actually was supported by 37 delegations (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Egypt, Georgia, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Nauru, Pakistan, Qatar, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America - as of November 7 2003 plus Argentina, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Peru, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan as of November 28 2003.)

Non-binding resolution of EB declaration not for whole EU but specially to Ukraine - please do not put others in misconseption -

• • WP should have a clear and reliable information not a text game around soapbox speaches. Thank you. Please stick with facts not with imaginationJo0doe (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I provided broad quote from Britannica to support "The famine was caused by the food requisition actions carried by Soviet authorities" --windyhead (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello you conduct OR on tertiary source which has a lot of factual mistake - see referenced data in article - see figures and try to comprehend difference between 22 million tons of grain for 1930 harvest with 14 million tons in 1932 as also same differences in livestock.

I hope you will not has a plan to include hoax from EB about how Stalin refuse to provide aid to starved – look like Toronto university does not possess a US commission report. Please avoid OR – especially in terms of representing hoax in the lead – you know lead – should be brief summary of article text – an should not contradict with it. Thank you.--Jo0doe (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid OR indeed Jo0doe, in case you're going to tamper around with the good version of the article by inserting personal opinions like nonbinding etc. you'd need to provide a source according to whom, either binding or not binding, doesn't matter, it has to be cited.--Termer (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good version? Intresting who is responcible to nominate "good" and "bad" version? Please see European Parlament for more details - or at least visit it win web about types of resolition which it can adopt. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor – as advertised on CNN and Euronews

If trust to Ukrainian MFA - http://novosti.ua/ukraine/41943 soon we can see an video footage at CNN about Holodomor. If trust to Dr. Boriak - director general of the State Committee of Archives of Ukraine [56] there no films of 1933 Holodomor exist – so we can expect 1921-22 Nansen footage from Russia posed as Ukraine in 1932-33. So I kindly ask editors do not include this stuff (CNN etc advertising) in WP:article about historical event.Jo0doe (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What utter crap!!! You ask not to include material because you expect to see other material. Wait until you see it, and then make a suggestion. What is wrong with you. You are once again placing the cart before the horse. Why???? Bandurist (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not expect - you can't see nothing about Famine-1933 - becouse no similar to Russia Famine 1921-22 Nansen footage exit. It's clear - as Volyn location - is'nt?Jo0doe (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

На городі бузина ... а в Києві дядько.... What you are saying is complete gobbledygook. Bandurist (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

”Demographical losses”

[57] [58] While Ukrainian media does not comprehend the differences between “Demographical losses” and “deaths” – so Vallin got a "more losses". While as regards to “new findings” – reflect the inability to use SPSS on a basic level.

• Urban death by 0.5 million more then rural – despite the 7-8 millions was urban – 22-23 was rural – sad story of Ukrainian science while expected from www.memory.gov.ua.

If taking in average birth rate for 1925-28 in urban areas (140 thousands (excluding died before 1 y.o.) ) – the “researches” conclude the total disappearance of urban children for 4,8 years – noone at age 0 – 4 at all in 1934. As regards deaths ethnicity – absolutely hoax – no such data collected for all– only for children died before 1 y.o. –by mother ethnicity. Jo0doe (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

article header

OK, here is the deal: the version of the article header quoted below that has gained the widest support so far, among others by Irpen [59], by Bandurist [60], by Windyhead [61]etc. The only one who keeps tampering with the header by either removing facts or adding not cited opinions has been Jo0doe. [62][63], [64]
So, any changes that are not reasoned out at this talk page and have not gained the widest support should be avoided and the header should be reverted to the version below that constitutes the current WP:consensus Any future changes to this version of the header should go through this talk page and gain wider support in order to maintain the stability of this article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) is the name of famine that ravaged the rural population of Soviet Ukraine in 1932-1933 agricultural season and occurred parallel to devastating famines in other regions of the USSR. The famine was caused by the food requisition actions carried by Soviet authorities. The Holodomor is considered one of the greatest national catastrophes to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history where millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe. Estimates for the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range between 2.2 million (demographers' estimate) and 3-3.5 million (historians' estimate), and up to 10 million is quoted by the media and cited in political debates.

The reasons for the famine are a subject of current scholarly and political debate: there is no international consensus among scholars or politicians on whether the famine was an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization. or whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine were designed as an attack on Ukrainian nationalism that may fall under the legal definition of genocide, As of March 2008, the parliament of Ukraine and several governments of other countries have recognized the actions of the Soviet Government as an act of genocide.

The joint declaration at the United Nations in 2003 has defined the famine as the result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR. In 2008 the European Parliament has recognized the Holodomor as a crime against humanity.

• The only one who keeps tampering with the header by either removing facts or adding not cited opinions

Intresting could you prove your text. Please note WP:IS NOT DEMOCRACY. I've provide supported by facts, figures and refs - please do similar before make an anwarranted by facts in article desicions.Jo0doe (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you've chosen not to gain support to the changes you'd like to make to this article. and keep reverting it back to the verison where sourced facts get removed, personal opinions and factual inaccuracies inserted [65] In case "non binding resolution" or "binding resolution" is relevant, it would need to say, according to whom? currently it's just an opinion.

"the joint statement by the 37 delegations at the United Nations in 2003" in case it is relevant that the following resolution was proposed (DRAFT PROPOSALS) by 37 delegations, fine: the fact is the Joint Statement issued at the 58th Plenary Session of the UN General Assembly was supported by 63 States. Therefore you Jo0doe have not only manipulated the text and removed sourced facts in the article according to your opinions, you have altered it so that the facts are in conflict with given sources in the article. Yu mix up the proposal made by 37 delecations with the resolution supported by 63. The bottom line I do not see the changes you keep making to the header are reasonable and think any such changes should be talked through at talk here. And the article header should be returned to the clean version ASAP --Termer (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro version proposed by Termer seems quite reasonable and almost balanced. To make it completely balanced, I would propose to supplement the Ukrainian government's position with the position of the government of the Russian Federation. My rationale is as follows:

• RSFSR (Soviet Russia) was a second senior member (and co-founder) of the USSR; Ukraine and Russia histories were deeply interconnected during that time;
• Population of Russia also suffered from the 1933 famine;
• During Stalin's times both Russia and Ukraine suffered under the rule of Russian- and Ukrainian-born Communists in almost the same extent, so Russian point of view on the key points of joint history deserves to be taken into account.
• In contrast to many supid steps Russian government is doing frequently, the last Medvedev's message [66] to President Yuschenko where he propose "working on forming joint approaches to these events" and warns against a redundant politization of Holodomor seems very sober and reasonable.
  Therefore, I think that, although the Tremer's version is good enough, after introduction of a couple of words about Russian position it would be completely balanced and (I hope) would satisfy everybody.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Since the political dispute goes on mostly between the Russian and Ukrainian governments, and one is mentioned, so should be the other one. Only the Keep-it-simple rule should be followed while spelling it out exactly. I hear the Russian president made a statement recently. As long as you can squeeze it into one sentence in the header and then make a separate chapter in the article: "The position of Russian Government" or something under the "Holodomor in modern politics" where everything can be explained in further detail.--Termer (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As regards:

• In case "non binding resolution" or "binding resolution" is relevant, it would need to say, according to whom? currently it's just an opinion.

Please visit European Law article and European Parliament about which resolution it can adopt (see -it's not legal resolution) - it's not OR -it's awfull fact like Census in USSR conducted in 1926 - and not like Yuscheko claim[[67]]

• |Joint Statement issued at the 58th Plenary Session of the UN General Assembly was supported by 63 States from" EP

Please assist me to find out similar info at http://www.un.org/ga/58/. UN published all such documents if any were issued. Please note what becouse only 37 Countries Support the Draft (as of November 28 2003)- it was not included under proposes agenda item 117(b) for Third committee final papers.

As about Statement - see who is able to do so at UN [68]. So - EP as usual. I realy appriciate your efforts but please note History and International Law - both are scince.

• As regards to you "majority view" - at least we should wait for P.R. of China, India, or at least Pakistan legal institutions assessment of the Famine -1933. Or you suppose a different "grade" for human society majority opinions. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a legal expert, therefore I can't tell if your personal interpretation of European laws applies to the resolution. As long as any WP:RS doesn't call it a binding or non-binding resolution, it shouldn't be part of the article as something not possible to WP:Verify and therefore constitutes WP:OR. regarding 37 states proposal vs. 67 countries supported the UN resolution, it's spelled out in the EP resolution that's cited as one of the sources in the article.the Joint Statement issued at the 58th Plenary Session of the UN General Assembly on the 70th Anniversary of the Holodomor in Ukraine, which was supported by 63 States

the bottom line, I personally do not support the additions you have tried to add to the header since no source has been provided to those opinions of yours and they only make the text more confusing.--Termer (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. OK, just making a note of this that Jo0doe, instead of trying to reach a consensus on the question just goes ahead and reverts the article again to his/her preferred version [69] that includes partly removing the facts and partly adding not sourced opinions and partly factual inaccuracies already pointed out above.--Termer (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I try to made WP a reliable source of information.

I think editors which tired to contribute in article need to have a basic understanding about what actually them tried to input in the article. Otherwise I really don’t mind how they decide about the text included. At least you should to know what EP does not responsible for UN resolutions (again can you comprehend the difference between joint statement and mythical “resolution”. Consensus required augmented positions of sides based on facts.

• DYK that EP resolution “postponed” forced collectivization by 2-3 year – from late 1929- spring 1930 to spring-summer 1933? Should we rewrite history per EP resolution?Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. If you Termer are generally agree with my major point, I would propose to re-group the text slightly. The statement about the number of the famine victims ("and up to 10 million is quoted by the media and cited in political debates") should be followed by the UN and EP declarations: both these declarations recognize Holodomor a tremendous tragedy and a crime, however, neither of them consider it an act of genocide. Therefore, placing it after the decision of Ukrainian parliament creates a (wrong) that these two resolutions support a current point of view of Ukrainian nationalists. And after these two declaration few words about different point of view on the causes of Holodomor should follow, something like that (of course, any changes are welcome):

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор) is the name of famine that ravaged the rural population of Soviet Ukraine in 1932-1933 agricultural season and occurred parallel to devastating famines in other regions of the USSR. The famine was caused by the food requisition actions carried by Soviet authorities. The Holodomor is considered one of the greatest national catastrophes to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history where millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe. Estimates for the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range between 2.2 million (demographers' estimate) and 3-3.5 million (historians' estimate), and up to 10 million is quoted by the media and cited in political debates.
The United Nations general assembly recognised Holodomor as the result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR. In addition, the European Parliament has recognized the Holodomor as a crime against humanity.
In contrast, the reasons for the famine are a subject of current scholarly and political debate: there is no international consensus among scholars or politicians on whether the famine was an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization. or whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine were designed as an attack on Ukrainian nationalism that may fall under the legal definition of genocide. The former point of view is currently supported by the Russian government [70], whereas the parliament of Ukraine and governments of some other countries have recognized the actions of the Soviet Government as an act of genocide.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support Paul Siebert's suggestion -looks good to me--Termer (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. And I believe a small re-wording: "several governments of other countries"→"governments of some other countries" to rise no objection.
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly object - it not a metters of "good" or "bad" wording - it's a matter of WP reliablity

• whole population was affected not only rural (again see recent Ukrainian official figures of losses and rural urban breakdown)
• The United Nations general assembly recognised is hoax – if you will be more familiar with a Legal matters you will be comprehend differences between “joint statement supported by 37 delegations” (see refs) and recognition by 58 General Assembly (so – actually DYK know what General Assembly used a capital letters?).
• Adding “In contrast” clear breaching the WP:ISNOT policy – you try to summon hoaxes about recognition by UN and pose respected economists of the past and modern historians which studied ecomony of the past as fringe theorist. Please read carefully WP:Rules. Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"ravaged the rural population" - "rural" is questionable - here I agree with Jo0doe . If I remember correctly there was a photo from Kharkiv with people suffering from hunger. Can somebody comment? --windyhead (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think that concrete photo to prove anything. In contrast to many famine or Holocaust pictures, this photo is not self-evident: we simply see a rather well dressed man lying on the streat. It is impossible to see if this is a result of starvation. He could be simply drunk (I believe it is possible to take such "Holodomor" picture even in present days Kharkiv). I didn't find that picture in the current version of the article and I support its removal. By the way, the picture in the lead is also questionable: high contrast black and white photos taken under inappropriate illumination can create such a "Holodomor" impression even if a child is well feed and healthy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. This is not a "Holodomor denial". My point is that evidences must be evident.

Recent changes in the article

Look like group of IP and recently joined this article editors would like to support Ukrainian nationalistversion of Famine-1933 (per Tauger work assesment). So WP again used for propaganda proposes without taking into account arguments at talk page. Thank you for using WP:ASSOAPBOXJo0doe (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Causes of the Holodomor

For a number weeks there was a tag on this article.

Editor Jo0Doe writes:

I agree with proposals with splitting after correct (historical and facts based) article sub-chapters attributingJo0doe (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then when one editor interprets this as agreement. Splits the article. Jo0Doe partially reverts edit as Vandalism. Why label this good-faith edit as Vandalism?

This was reported by Editor Jo0Doe on admin user page for Alex Bakharev I trust that admin Alex Bakharev will confirm what is and is not VANDALISM.

I reverted these edits since justification is invalid.

Bobanni (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to note

and to fair cite other editors opposals to splitting the article. As far as Causes section was simply blanked at it content was removed in the other article under POW lead by SBU - it's clear bad faith edits. Moreover again Map of 1933 Ukraine was removed by IP. It's actually very similar to Irpen concerns about spliting the article. While actually it's remind me story with Sluzhba Bezbeky NKVD units dressed as UPA fighters - "undesired info" removed to non-visited articles .It's clear bad faith attempt to use a well known habit of internet user majority not to visit "see more" articles. Bobbanie - please read a talk page first abou article contributors opinion.

WP is not right place to "celebrate 75 Anniversary of Holodomor". Thank you

While indeed intresting why 75 is at 22 of NOvember 2008 - but not Spring or June??? Jo0doe (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving content to a daughter article is not a vandalism. The Holodomor article is already long and we still do not have all the needed material: e.g. the complete timeline, the story about each oblast and so on. Usually if we move content to a daughter article we still keep some brief summary in the main article. I think we need to do it here (maybe get a consensus on the scope of the summary first. Also the new article is probably should be added to {{holodomor}}.

I am not sure if WP is a right or wrong place to "celebrate 75 Anniversary of Holodomor" but if the 75th Anniversary would encourage someone to improve the article it will be a good thing. Also I expect many new publications related to Holodomor, lets use them to improve the content Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

see below contributors arguments agains split (actually blanking)Jo0doe (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Celebrating the 75th anniversary" is not only a poor choice of language, but quite offensive to those people whop actually lost most o their relatives in this tragedy. I suggest you reflect more on your language before making such posts in the future. Bandurist (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hope you know that the pre 1938 territories of Ukraine was not affected by Famine -1933 but the idea to "celebrate 75 Anniversary of Holodomor" was epecially popular there. I hope you know what "most o their relatives" commemorated memories at time which correspond to the events - mean winter - early summer 2008 and NOT "accordingly to the Decree". Political PR actions can not be nominated as such. Thank you for comprehandingJo0doe (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No Blanking here

Splitting article is not Blanking. Bobanni (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC) See Irpen Arguments:

Splitting off sections and leaving a brief summary is generally a good idea for large articles. However, there is an important caveat. The material being split off needs to be stable enough thus being satisfactory to most editors who are active in the article. Otherwise, what would happen is that there would be two independent content wars at two pages and the same material may get reflected at different pages in drastically different ways as one party may prevail in pushing its POV into one of the pages while the other party would succeed at the other page. As a result, two different articles on Wikipedia would contradict each other on a particular topic.

This happened for example when "Controversies of Polish-Soviet War" were split off the Polish-Soviet war. Same often happens when History section of the country's article with time evolves to contradict the "History of Country" article and so on. So, before splitting off sections, we need to insure that they are stable enough. "Causes of Holodomor" sections of this article is certainly not stable. Same can be said about politicization. So, I am afraid the split off would bring the exact same result in this case. But generally, this is the right approach. --Irpen 03:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to split the causes (that is, the dynamics) of the famine from the main article. Who did what and when (or didn't do what and when) is central to the topic. So, disagree to split. —PētersV (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mine I not listed - you know it.

So - in order to prevent

two different articles on Wikipedia would contradict each other on a particular topic.

Article should not be splitted by blanking and POV article creation by editor which never contribute to this specific article. Please respect editors who are active in the article (mean conribution - not rv and POV pushing acvities

Just an instance -

Holodomor

Estimates for the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range between 2.2 million (demographers' estimate)[5][6] and 3-3.5 million (historians' estimate),[7][8][9] and up to 10 million is quoted by the media and cited in political debates.[10]

Causes

Estimates for the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range between 2.2 million to 10 million. [5]

It's exactly what Irpen are spoken about. Moreover

2 other section was not splited to separate articles

It's not good editing - it's clear bad faith action.

Thank youJo0doe (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good editing vs vandalism: type blanking and WP:ISNOT breaching

If the editor appeared here only for blanking the 2/3 of the article and 5/6 of related to article topic text supposed a good faith editing but not as WP:IS NOT SOAPBOX breaching he’/she’s action look be like.

• the 3 (three) daughter article will be created
• the brief summary NPOV added at time of text removed from the main article
• the created articles got a similar NPOV heading

none of above happened

Instead – we’ve blanking [71] and POV-forked “article creation” [72] by copy-paste action and adding a POV non scholar chapter to the front. Again if we look at Recent “brief summary” – is it not look a similar? [73] Scholars works about economical situation in USSR at early 1930 and by the time Financial Times articles [74] nominated as “theorize that”

• Clear attempt to spoil WP reliability by pushing WP:Fringe and redistribute one almost agreed by contributors text of article to many POV-pushing articles.Jo0doe (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite

If editors really inspired by good faith, I expect they not object about removal of chapters mentioned above to the article Ukrainization or to Causes.. section as far as it cannot be separate due the absence of refs for most of it claims in it and tiny numbers of “scholars” which support the idea. While “disappeared meeting of bandurists” widely known as clear hoax similar to Ukrainians as a builders of Egypt Pyramids, Polubotko Golds at British Banks and Vinnitsa Massacre Jo0doe (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I do feel that the section should be expanded, possibly into a much larger separate article because there is just so much to write here.

I do not understand why Ukrainians as a builders of Egypt Pyramids, Polubotko Golds at British Banks and Vinnitsa Massacre have been wikiized as there are no such articles. Maybe that has to do with JD's malady or maybe he is working on these articles. Bandurist (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to move it into a separate article. It has a marginal relation to the famine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Info too small for separate article and luck of RS.It should be merged into existed one. I hope editor (which incorporate that stuff into WP) will expand WP with Repressed Tsymbalist and Repressed Trembitists article soonJo0doe (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Very stupid. Bandurist (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed - text of chapter is it.

After visiting a library and reading several scholar works about early 30 repression (and especially Union for the Liberation of Ukraine – no bandurists there, no especially and exclusively intelligentsia) . I’ve found that none from respected scholars support the fringe idea about

• The events of 1932-1933 in Ukraine were seen by the Soviet Communist leaders as an instrument against Ukrainian self-determination

As regards

• also the virtual elimination of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church

GPU statistics As of 1926 ROC Tokhon’s followers = 4700 parishes ROC “BUUC” =3500 parishes UAOC = 2800 parishes

From October 1927 higher clergy of UAOC church was under GPU direct control and church rapidly lost it followers, many clerics abandon them. Noone from UAOC official clergy was prosecuted at Union for the Liberation of Ukraine December 1929 process. UAOC was “self dissolved” in 29-30 January 1930 by GPU order. In December 1930 it was again reestablished but without “Autocephalous”. Last parishes of UOC “recognize the rule of the” Russian Orthodox Church by end of 30s.

decade-long Ukrainization program that had been decisively brought to an end

• and started an Bolshevik-ukrainization which brought to end the forcible ukrainization with artificially words absorbed from Galicia. Ukrainization still lasted but on less revolutionaty way.

The Communist Party of Ukraine, under the guidance of state officials like Kaganovich, Kosior, and Pavel Postyshev, boasted in early 1934 of the elimination of "counter-revolutionaries, nationalists, spies and class enemies".

Kaganovich removed from Ukriane from summer 1928 and has nothing with CPU.

• Whole academic organizations, such as the Bahaliy Institute of History and Culture, were shut down following the arrests.

New academic institutions established instead from 1934-35 - by 1938 Ukraine almost doubled the number of such institutions as compared to early 30s.

• Blind traditional folk musicians known as kobzars were summoned from all of Ukraine to an ethnographic conference and disappeared

well known hoax debunked by kobzars itself – see Мистецтво кобзарів Радянської України // Радянська музика, 1940, № 6,

• [75] – he must be dead is’nt? So chapter text consist of historically illeteral POV text which can not be split or used in other WP:Articles. While it’s expected from author which issue a passports implemented in 1933 for kobzars in 1928 – here [76] – and similar attempt in other articles. Jo0doe (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

kYIV POST

Bobbanie - Kyiv post hardly to imagine as RS on legal matters issue - you call as "data Russian reponsibilty - legal action and reparations" - please do not include in article - especially to lead every google results for HolodomorJo0doe (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a political issue - Kyiv Post is a reliable source and there is not any reason not to include it. Bobanni (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ISNOT for more details. This a legal issue Jo0doe (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Patriarchy and Genocide

Just recently the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy announced that The Holodomor was a Genocide see: here and link here. How do we include this info without setting off another revert war with the Holodomor Deniers? Bandurist (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you Bandurist really think that everyone who recognizes Holodomor a humanitarian catastrope but not a genocide is a Holodomor Denier? BTW, for many people Moscow Patriarchy posesses neither moral nor scientific (historical) authority: venal nature of this organization is well known...--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer is no. This is is your interpretation of my statement.Bandurist (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, did I understand correct that, according to you, people who consider Holodomor a tragedy and a crime, but not a genocide (like I do) are not "Holodomor deniers"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that either. You are over analysing my writings. There is no need to read into them anything that is not apparent.

However, it is quite unusual to see the UOC (MP) taking such a position. It makes one think what sort of pressure the UOC (MP) must have been under to succumb to such a position, as it has until recently represented the thoughts of its leaders in Moscow. What will the reaction be in Moscow? There are numerous questions which now can be asked, however what is apparent is that this is a clear erosion of Muscovite hegemony in Ukraine. Bandurist (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That means almost nothing. Since Tzarist times Russian Orthodox church has been always respectful towards its bosses.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, as far as you propose to include a position of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy, a position of the Moscow Patriarchy itself also has to be included. This position is as follows: "Historically genocide is a term that means extermination (of people) on the bases of ethnicity or religy, that never took place during the mass famine in 1930th". (V. Chaplin). You see that Urkainian Orthodoxes support Ukrainian government, whereas Russian Orthodoxes support Kremlin. Therefore, on average, utilisation of the Moscow Patriarchy's position has zero effect. However, you can take both of them into account simply by adding appropriate references into the text below (see above for the whole lead draft):

In contrast, the reasons for the famine are a subject of current scholarly and political debate: there is no international consensus among scholars or politicians on whether the famine was an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization.[10][5][14][15][16] or whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine were designed as an attack on Ukrainian nationalism that may fall under the legal definition of genocide.[13][15][16][17][18] The former point of view is currently supported by the Russian government [70](include the Russian orthodox' position here), whereas the parliament of Ukraine(include the Ukrainian Orthodox' position here) and governments of some other countries[19] have recognized the actions of the Soviet Government as an act of genocide.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Position of the UOC (MP) is an about face which they only recently announced (last Thursday). Are there any more recent announcements from Moscow? Otherwisem I would expect that the announcement also covers the thoughts current in the Moscow Patriarchy, especially when one keeps in mind that most of the priests in the MP are of Ukrainian ethnicity. Bandurist (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are. The Chaplin's words are a direct comment on the UOC decision. As I already told MP is very obedient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

.

• using word and "Hodomor was a Genocide" is not a same thing - especially for clergy text.

However, if you review the sources supplied carefully you will notice that the spokesman for Moscow Patriarchy specifically uses the term "genocide". This is the fist time I have seen it from the MP. For me this is unexpected and significant. Bandurist (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See this ref - [77] no documented evedence for intent to destroy ukrainians as ethnical group still exist - as also for prosecuted bandurists. Can we stop Völkischer Beobachter article text published in August 1933 usage?Jo0doe (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• see also here [78]Jo0doe (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

While not add to article header this scholar text

Jo,

Once again you are barking up the wrong tree. Stalin had a number of nationalities "transplanted". Look at what he sis with the Crimean Tatars. Khrushchev revealed in 1959 that he was going to also resettle all the Ukrainians. Speaking at the historic 20th Congress of the CPSU General Secretary Mykyta Khruschev revealed the truth about his predecessor's unjustified genocide targeted at individuals, groups, and entire nations. A total of three million Ukrainians (out of a 1950 population of 53 million) were eventually deported to Siberian labour camps, while another million Ukrainians died as a direct result of political terror" (http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/ukr2001.html, 2004).

"The blood-freezing list of Stalin's crimes, included deportation of certain disfavored peoples to the remote areas of the USSR (mainly to Siberia and Middle-Asia). On June 22, 1944, Stalin, Beria and Zhukov signed a degree dooming Ukrainians to this terrible fate. In a preamble to this decree, its authors claimed that 'under the influence of the pro-fascist Ukrainian nation, many Red Army soldiers and commanders have taken the enemy's side. The deportation was ordered to begin after the end of the harvest season - when all the crops had been gathered and transferred to the State.

WARTIME DEPORTATIONS

"Monstrous are the acts whose initiator was Stalin ... the mass deportations from their native places of whole nations, together with all Communists and Komsomols without any exception; this deportation action was not dictated by any military considerations. At the end of 1943 a decision was taken and executed to deport all the Karachai from the lands on which they lived. In the same period, the same lot befell the whole population of the Autonomous Kalmyk Republic. In March 1944 all the Chechen and Ingush peoples were deported and the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic was liquidated. In April 1944 all Balkars were deported to faraway places. The Ukrainians avoided meeting this fate only because there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them." link title

Сьогодні, певно, всі в Україні знають про таємний сталінський «Приказ № 0078/42 от 22 июня 1944 года», підписаний Л. Берією і Г. Жуковим. Там ідеться про заплановану Москвою депортацію всіх українців з України «в отдельные края Союза ССР», що мала розпочатися «после того, как будет собран урожай и сдан для нужд Красной Армии».here

Bandurist (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion about Nazi leaflet - you can visit Great Patriotiv War Museum in Kyiv - they got a collection of such funny "decrees"Jo0doe (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

From the 1930s to the 1990s, anti-Soviet Ukrainians outside the USSR pointed to the Famine as proof of the criminal and anti-Ukrainian nature of the Soviet regime. Within these circles, the Moscow government held responsible was seen as both Communist and Russian. At the same time, Ukrainians in the diaspora found the Famine an important means of questioning the stereotype of “Ukrainians” as victimizers (Nazi collaborators, pogromists) rather than victimized. Attention to the Famine also made more explicable why some Ukrainians would have little loyalty to the Soviet Union in 1941 or might at first have viewed German rule as even a possible improvement. Linked to the denial of war criminality, although also motivated by other factors, is the construction of Ukrainian victimization narratives. The most important of these concerns the famine in Soviet Ukraine in 1932-33, which Ukrainians in the diaspora frequently contrast and connect with the Holocaust.

The most articulate segment of the diaspora are the Western Ukrainians who left Ukraine after World War II, which is the target group for insinuations and accusations of war crimes, and particularly their descendents.

Frequently diaspora authors urge fellow Ukrainians to follow the example of the Jews and produce a more detailed, more convincing narrative of their own holocaust. The claim is often made that the Ukrainians suffered as much as the Jews, indicating a competion in the intensity of victimization.

.

Indeed it explain a lotJo0doe (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jo,

There are people that claim the earth is flat see: Flat Earth Society and back up their claims with "bogus" science just like you do with your "bogus" history research. That does not automatically mean that their opinion has to be included in an article on the curvature of the earth and on astronomy. Bandurist (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not mine - not mine - you see an authors names they are respected not pro-Soviet scholarsJo0doe (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Split after the...

• See above arguments against splitting, see above legal matters misrepresenting in the lead and OR about EB.

While, dear editors, if you really need to split the important part of the article - I suppose you the following way So now we've a scholar (Tauger) assessment of "Holodomor causes" per how such historical events represented by group of researchers:

• Ukrainian nationalist interpretation holds that the Soviet regime, and specially Iosif Stalin, intentionally imposed the famine to suppress the nationalists aspirations of Ukraine and Ukrainians. (A conspirasy plan ...)
• revisionists argue that the leadership imposed the famine to suppress more widespread peasants resistance to collectivization
• experts of the past version [79] which supported by historians which deal with soviet economy of late 20s-early 30s

Moreover to reach NPOV a soviet mid 30s version of the event can be added - as far as it partially reflect the foreign experts of the past and modern and past historians which deal with soviet economy of late 20s-early 30s version. I propose do it first in Causes... article and only after that remove this section from main article. Thank you

• Jo0doe (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I must say I've read the link [80] you've provided at some talk pages. Interesting indeed. I guess, what would happen if a politician in the European Union would start writing public statements with, say, Holocaust in quotation marks. Russia obviously hasn't reached the stage yet, where a current leader of the country would be able to reject crimes that some of his predecessors committed.--Miacek (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read this stuff [[81]] at least to Vol XXV to comprehand the difference between Famine-1933 and Holocaust, while I expect - it's too hard to assess Jo0doe (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not interested in covering in depth the Nuremberg process. I also don't think that happening to be in war against Nazi Germany could in any manner 'redeem' the crimes Stalin committed.
Also, as you are almost certain to continue tomorrow or the day after tomorrow with your edit wars in numerous articles related to Ukraine: please, take a look in dictionary or grammar books before posting your stuff. Your posts are difficult to understand, which might give one reasons to guess that you're using some Ru-En translation engine for working in English Wikipedia. --Miacek (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Russian grammar "holodomord" so belowed by North-American Ukrainians is given correctly becouse this term was not adopted in Russia for historical event as Famine 1931-1933 in USSR.Jo0doe (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you try to spoil the WP:relibility by blanking and inserting hoaxes about Nazi compatriots - I urge you not to do so. OUN-B is not Ukraine - Congress of Free Ukrainians also.Jo0doe (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

August 14 Stetsko and Bandera submit a memorandum which consist following chapters: “OUN past collaboration with Germany”, “OUN and new order in Europe, “Basin for German-Ukrainian friendly relation”, “State as a factor which allow an creative labor for peoples” , “OUN target – Ukrainian state” “30 June 1941 Act and German-Ukrainian collaboration”, “position of OUN to the Ukrainian state government” “OUN for farther collaboration with German”, “Conclusion“

Could you explain which from above are difficult to understand. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't like to enter into a longer conversation here regarding things not directly relevant for the article at hand. However, I would like to draw your attention to what Alex Bakharev has written on your talk page on June 20, 2008. I think these points are still relevant.--Miacek (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you also visit Wikipedia:VAND - Type Blanking and Sneaky vandalism - Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes) reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "rv vandalism" in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted. I hope you read the talk page [82] and note that book John Alexander Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, 1963. does not have referenced by it information - so, by your edits, you engaged in hoaxing the WP.

Please avoid of doing so - regardless of your personal opinion about well studied histrical events. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper way to revert a split

The correct way to revert a split is to merge the split article back into the main article. Simply going back to the pre-split article given that there were many interim edits. Otherwise edits are going to be reverted without explaination or discussion. Bobanni (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to spoil the WP reliability by inserting in it well known hoax about fully dissapeared kobzars, popularity of GPU controlled Church and end of Ukrainization in 1933. Please do not enagage in blanking the article data which agreed upon main contributors to article - it's also spoil the WP Reliability. Please do not downgrade scholars work only becouse you belive that they are wrong. See above arguments. Please be more familiar with the history and geography of the country you would like to input info about. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really sad to note the deliberate attempt to spoil the WP reliability and to soapboxing the historical article (event). You refuse to recognize the contributors opinions about splitting as also to follow the WP:NPOV. Thank you for your effort to create a soapbox from WP:history article. Good luckJo0doe (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

%820*&^^%$#+_(*^#!+_)(*&^&$(* @#$~~&*()_+)()(*&&$Bandurist (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

British historian Robert Service

Could anyone provide a name of publication in which he claim 14 million lives (~half of Ukr SSR population) died in UkRSSR Famine -1933 - does he provide estimation process for such figures? Not mine opinion about his book:

• Robert Service is clearly a very intelligent man who has trawled through miles of archives. Unfortunately he cannot hide the fact that he is rabidly anti-Communist. He makes too many childish remarks about the most prominent leaders and even the colour prints in the centre of the book are accompanied by petty jibes.Thank youJo0doe (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Words of Horror...

I don't know if this is helpful or not but Nikita Khrushchev says that during the Holodomor in the early 30's mothers made glass canning jars with their own kids inside it as a food... I can give a source if someone would like to use it in the article. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I also knew that kind of sources - brief summary of most located at one book [83] - at least at p.42 we can see the origin of A British protestor picture [84] = Völkischer Beobachter August 18 1933 and picture itself - Russian Famine 1921-23Jo0doe (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Krzyzowiec. Yes, I've also read of such things. You might indeed give the source here. --Miacek (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
RE:Jo0doe So you suggest that some lampoon of an obscure left-wing activist from Canada is a valuable and definitive source.--Miacek (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• So - you reject the existance of Völkischer Beobachter August 18 1933 issue and mentioned picture in it? I also hope you've note a Himka and Frank E. Sysyn words (and many similar from respected scholars)? Fraud,Faschism and OUN-B propaganda - not suitible for WP.Jo0doe (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An article published today, documenting cannibalism in Ukrainian SSR. [85] --Miacek (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOHOAXES

I hope editors read my explanations [86] [87] [88] and able to comprehend differences between The “joint declaration at the United Nations” and the “joint statement by the 37 delegations” as also legal recognition of crimes against humanity and declaration to Ukrainian people. I hope you also read why when and how disappeared GPU controlled UAOC together with “kobzars conference”. So please do not perpetrate hoax at WP to illustrate a point –“famine-genocide” – proved by “witness” Hay-Holovko – please respect historical facts and do not use bones of victims to build a soapbox for Nazi-collaborators – see Demyanyuk case.Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How disgusting - comparing other editors to supporters of Nazi collaborators. And this troll complains abut being called a clown. Thank you. Faustian (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We might just try to ignore this user on talk pages and undo his postings in mainspace, but I do think that this should not continue endlessly. He is simply littering the talk pages with endless arguments based on Soviet propaganda lampoons and all this expressed in a baby English that makes any discussion difficult.--Miacek (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)