Talk:Holodomor/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18


Hi there! As Bulgarian (Slavic language) I wonder why is голодомор transliterated in English like holodomor, when golodomor is the correct transliteration?... --Stalik (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - as a Ukrainian (Slavic language) I can answer your question - the "г" in 'голод' is an H sound, while the G sound is made by the letter "ґ". As you notice, there is a little vertical stem on the G letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. golod and holod are both mentioned here:
Graziosi, Andrea (2004–2005). "The Soviet 1931–1933 Famines and the Ukrainian Holodomor..". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 27 (1–4): 97–115. JSTOR 41036863. 
But I've no idea why we use golod instead of holod in English. ColaXtra (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Ukrainian Г is pronounced more or less like English "H". If it was "Golodomor", it would be spelled with Ґ. See WP:UKR for how we transliterate Ukrainian on Wikipedia. While "G" may be correct for other Slavic languages, it is incorrect for Ukrainian. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I would say, it is pronounced more or less as German "H". An equivalent of English "H" is Ukrainian "X". One way or the another, "Holodomor" is much more common transliteration in English literature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I think a certain Prince of Denmark might disagree [1] [2] ;) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
We are talking about transliteration from Ukrainian to English, not from English to Russian or Ukrainian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The correct pronunciation is GH as in BaGHdad.--Galassi (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
If you're a typical English speaker, "Baghdad" is pronounced "Bag-dad" (with a hard "g"), so that's a poor example. The sound is a voiced glottal fricative /ɦ/, which has no direct equivalent in most forms of English. English "H" is a voiceless glottal fricative /h/, while Ukrainian Х is a voiceless velar fricative /x/. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but, whereas English "H" is voiceless, Ukrainian "Г" is voiced.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Right. I didn't say it was an exact equivalent, but it's the same place of articulation. "Murmured H" is a common description for the sound. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the discussion is about transliteration, not pronunciation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The standard is H, in that case.--Galassi (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Therefore, the dispute is of pure theoretical interest.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
See "Competition Among Victims: Constructing a "Ukrainian Holocaust"" on p. 119-121.[3] The term was introduced into English because it sounds like "Holocaust", which would not be the case if it were spelled with a "g". Most writers refer to it as the Ukrainian Famine. TFD (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
And the fact that, y'know, "g" is the wrong transliteration for Ukrainian Г. Unless all scholarly and scientific transliteration systems were constructed for the secret purpose of enforcing the Holodomor—Holocaust connection. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. I cannot agree that "g" is wrong. Ukrainian Г is in the middle between "g" and "h", and both transliterations are wrong. By the way, for, example, Galicia is frequently transliterated with "G". However, again, these considerations are of academic interest only, because Holodomor is more abundant then Golodomor. However, to my big surprise, "Golodomor" is found more frequently in literature, then I expected, so I propose to change the first sentence as follows:
"The Holodomor (or Golodomor) (Ukrainian: Голодомор, 'Морити голодом', literal translation Killing by hunger)"
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I am speaking of correctness in terms of mainstream transliteration systems of Ukrainian. The transliteration of Ukrainian Г as "g" is an improper russification—people (like the OP) see Г and automatically assume it is like other Cyrillic versions of the letter. In fact, the sound underwent similar changes as in Czech and Slovak (to a lesser degree Belarusian) by which the notoriously unstable root Slavic *g sound weakened into a murmured-h sound. The sound can thus be viewed as between /g/ (a voiced velar stop) and /h/ (voiceless glottal fricative), but is closer to the latter in its place and manner of articulation, sharing only voicedness with /g/—and the transliteration systems reflect this in their orthographies.
Galicia is transliterated as such for the same reason that we have Kiev and not Kyiv—an overwhelming preponderance of sources using the an older transliteration based in Russian or German. Such is not the case here.
"Golodomor" should not be put in the first line of text. If anything, it can be made a footnote that describes it as a substandard variant of the transliteration using Russian standards for a Ukrainian word. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, your Gscholar results are (as usual) problematic. A number of them are Russian, some look to be flawed machine-transliterations and are just citations. If we look at one of the results (Serbyn), we see on p. 182 ""The question whether the Ukrainian Golodomor [sic!] was a genocide..."" (emphasis mine). Clearly, Serbyn regards it as an inferior and improper transliteration. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Lothar, I respected you for your polite and balanced posts, and I would like you not to disappoint me. There have been no problem with my gscholar searches before (the problems were with those few users who preferred to ignore them). With regard to this concrete search, I didn't analyse it, because I didn't think the issue deserved serious attention. I just noticed that, in contrast to my expectations, "Golodomor" appeared to be much more abundant. If most of those results are of poor quality, forget about that. However, try to remain reasonable and polite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't intending to be rude. Just pointing out that there is always more to Gscholar results numbers than meets the eye, which I think is a reasonable statement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Understood. Let me point out, however, that I did analyze my previous gscholar search results for adequateness of the key word choice. In contrast to this concrete case, there were no mistakes in my previous search results. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This source[4] states that "golodomor" is the Russian word for "holodomor", which in turn is derived from the Ukrainian word holod (hunger) and mor (death, plague). --Nug (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Russian "golod" and Russian "mor" are complete equivalents of Ukrainian "holod" and "mor", therefore, it is not more a translation then Russian "паровоз" is a translation of Ukrainian "паровоз".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the point is that the novel construction "holodomor" was originally Ukrainian and was then borrowed directly into Russian with Russified pronunciation, regardless of the fact that the constituent words are cognate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Main image

It seems unfortunate that the image in this article's lead section can't be one that effectively communicates the immense scale of the Holodomor, as is communicated by the main image in our article on The Holocaust. I've occasionally seen Holodomor photographs of starved bodies stacked like logs, or of platoons of Soviet troops seizing food supplies from peasants. Would that type of image be preferable for this article, or are there none available under the correct license? --Mors Martell (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The two images used for this article come from very unreliable sources and it is highly doubtful that they are representative of the alleged atrocities. See the chapter titled "Famine Photographs: Which Famine?" in Douglas Tottle's "Fraud, Famine and Fascism". So I propose that they be removed. -- Shilbhadra (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone out there thinks Douglas Tottle's book is reliable? How funny. Tottle's book is as objective and reliable as propaganda published in the USSR, or Holocaust revisionism.Faustian (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
There should be a FAQ required to read before making talk page requests like this.--Львівське (говорити) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
If Hearst Press press propaganda and Yellow journalism can be considered a reliable source why not Douglas Tottle's book? I have failed to find any responsible authority which has validated these photographs as authentic Holodomor photographs. Shilbhadra (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Because, from what I recollect, it has no scholarly basis.--Львівське (говорити) 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Inevitably Tottle won't be popular here as he completely demolishes the complete trash represented on this wiki page. And before any one insults the victims of the Jewish Holocaust by comparing his book to neo-Nazi revisionists, it should be noted that the crimes of the Nazis are extremely well documented, whereas the claims made on this page tend only to be supported by anti-Communist hacks and ultra-right Ukrainian nationalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Tottle is not just unpopular, but also unacceptable as a source. He was a trade unionist not an academic and his book was published by a Communist propaganda house, clearly biased. cwmacdougall 13:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
To anon IP, clearing out cupboards and food storage cellars leaving families with no food to eat, at all, is completely documented and has nothing to do with anti-communist hacks or any other labels you wish to toss around. VєсrumЬа TALK 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

On "man made" again and again

According to the new introduction, "The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, "Extermination by hunger"; 'Морити голодом', hunger-extermination) was a man-made famine." One more time some historians (Wheatcroft, Davies, Tauger) have criticized the characterization of Holodomor as "man made" (quotations here). Moreover, this term is never used by the historians who reject the genocidal interpretation (Terry Martin, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Viktor Kondrashin etc.). The "man made" term must be characterized as a particular POV to respect the neutrality of Wp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Its man-made attribution is a fact accepted by all sides and all historians. --Львівське (говорити) 23:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
It is NOT a fact accepted by all sides and all historians. just read the texts of Wheatcroft, Davies and Tauger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is pointless- this article is controlled by fanatical West-Ukranian nationalists who ignore reality in favor of their constructed national mythos. I am Ukrainian and even most Ukrainians do not recognize this as genocide, because we are educated people who actually know and understand history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC) A conspiracy? West-Ukrainian nationalists? Why not by aliens? And please, stop talking on behave of Ukrainian people. The fact you are Ukrainian don't grant you a right to deny Holodomor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the term "man-made" correctly, it does not imply intentionality. It simply means the famine was a result of human actions (as contrast to the FAD famine as a result of food shortage due to some purely natural factors). Were collectivisation and food requisitions a cause of the famine? Of course, they were, because without them, the death toll would be sufficiently lower. Therefore, although I initially objected to this term, I currently support it (despite the fact that I still see no evidences that majority view is that the famine was deliberately organized to kill Ukrainians).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The book "Years of Hunger" shows that the primary cause of the famine was a poor harvest caused by very poor weather for 2 years beforehand- thus, it is not man made- perhaps man-accentuated, and man-made-worse, but not "man-made" per se. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish you truly believe what you say. Otherwise I cannot understand how one could deny the crime caused the death of millions people. --DixonD (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Typical empty drivel. There is literally not a single scrap of evidence to suggest Stalin or any of the other Soviet leadership "planned" the "genocide" of the Ukrainians- it is total propaganda without any basis in fact. (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda would be denying it and pretending the same "famine" occurred in the rest of the USSR. Propaganda would be sending troops in to requisition all food in general, kill civilians, and then blame it on the weather. That's propaganda.--Львівське (говорити) 21:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I would say, to claim there were no similar famine in the rest of the USSR is nationalistic propaganda.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
"Pre-planned" is not a prerequisite for "man-made." VєсrumЬа TALK 04:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
That is correct: famine that was a result of human economic activity (deforestation, overtaxing, etc) is also considered "man-made". The term "man-made" does not imply intentionality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There is also intent, for example, the emtpying of cupboards at gunpoint leaving no foodstuffs and then preventing the population so assaulted to seek food elsewhere. Let us not purport this famine was simply some calamity of nature poorly dealt with. VєсrumЬа TALK 21:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course, I meant "does not necessarily imply intentionality".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Timothy Snyder - Bloodlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
If "man-made" only requires human activity as a justification, all famines deserve the rubric, since everyone behaves and all behaviour has ramifications in the environment. Notice also that capitalism and its pseudo-variants create a permanent famine by expropriating surpluses of everything. Use these criteria and Stalin and his regime are no different to any other state-controlling group.Keith-264 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Read answer to your question here : — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is a parody of historical analysis. As already pointed out, it's is controlled by fanatics who are determined to preserve the victim status of the Ukrainians vis-a-vis the Russians, and especially the "Jewish-Bolshevik hordes" of the USSR (Nazi terminology deliberately used, of course, as we are after all dealing with the descendants of collaborators). When large numbers of people tragically die due to famine and civil war in capitalist or western-backed countries, the issue is either ignored or blamed on the weather (or, worse yet, the "primitive" nature of the country in question). But when it happens in a country orientated around socialism, or some other thing the west finds objectionable, it is elevated to the status of a genocide, gets its own memorial day in Europe, and the inevitably absurd wiki page presents contested issues as iron clad facts. Personally I'm looking forward to the page that discusses the genocide of Koreans, Viet, or Natives perpetrated by the US (I won't hold my breath). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC) . I fail to see what your comment has to do with the man made question, really. I'm also fairly interested in what definition of genocide you're using. It appears to either contain "wars in which civilians were targeted" (which is terrible, of course, but not genocide) or possibly "sending a country billions of dollars of food aid, even though you're technically at war with them.[1]", neither of which is a generally accepted definition of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
My grandfather died fighting Nazis when he was 20, so I have never met him. My

grandmother told me how she survived Holodomor in the 30s in the Don area by eating field mice. She sincerely believed Stalin was not responsible (only some local officials were blamed) and she cried when Stalin died in 1953. She did not know that Stalin knew what was going on from Sholokhov's letters to Stalin. People who understood what was going on became "collaborators" as you put it, but I don't blame them because Stalinism was just as bad as Nazism, except that people were not aware when taking up arms against Stalin. The hunger was a mass event in Ukraine and adjacent southern Russia, which offered most resistance to Bolsheviks. This area is culturally very different from the rest of the former Russian Empire, and never experienced slavery like other parts of Russian empire, so people resisted Kolkhoz slavery the most, and that's why they were killed. Stalin explicitly called Holodomor "the war of attrition" ("Война на Измор") in his response to Sholokhov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be confusing two very different issues: was the famine man made and was it genocide? I think it is pretty clear from all the evidence that it was man made; i.e. it was the result of actions of the Soviet state, and indeed it was predictable that it would lead to mass death. But as the famine also occurred in non-Ukrainian areas, I would think prima facia that the case for calling it genocide is weak; it was a Communist atrocity against peasants in general, not Ukrainians in particular. Whatever your views on those two issues, it would assist discussion if people kept the two issues separate. cwmacdougall 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not Ukrainian, but I do think it was a genocide that targeted several groups. The fact that Ukrainians were not alone does not make it a non-genocide. (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It would only be genocide if they were targeted because they were Ukrainian. If they were victims because they were peasants, along with peasants of other nationalities, then it would be a different crime. But in any case, this issue should be separated from the issue of whether or not it was "man-made"... cwmacdougall 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It's technically not "genocide" only because killing off classes of people didn't make it into the final "official" definition. Current scholarship has relaxed on such artificial distinctions as long as a target population is clearly identifiable. Ukraine and the Ukrainians were clearly targeted as defined by the boundaries enforced to prevent escape from the primary famine area. It's a bit disingenuous to argue that because victims were not 100% limited to Ukrainians, "genocide" does not apply.
As for man made, you can't argue it wasn't man made when family homes were raided, all their foodstuffs removed from their shelves and cellars, and families were left to starve. This is, of course, beyond the confiscation of grain, including for seeding the following season's crops. VєсrumЬа TALK 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it could be called "classicide" or "peasanticide", and certainly it was manmade, but I don't think the English language has changed to include non-ethnic based mass murder in "genocide", nor should it. cwmacdougall 2:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I came to the talk page after noticing the 'man made' line at the very beginning of the article. I know little about this event (which is why I came to the page), and have no opinion on whether it was 'genocide' or 'intentional'. I do, however, have a problem with using the the phrase 'man made', particularly as a simple factual assertion right at the beginning of the article. The nature of the event, and its causes, can and should be dealt with within the article - there is no need to make an assertion right up front. The term 'man made', in this context, would seem to, in any event, have no clear, common academic meaning (we could , of course, outline what is meant, but that is the purpose of the article.) I tend to think that, if by 'man-made famine' we mean a famine that would not have occurred if people had acted differently, then most famines are 'man made'. - (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I think "man-made" would indicate the likely and predictable result of policies, whether it was intended or not, as opposed to the accidental result of misguided policies; it is negligence rather than just oversight. I believe the evidence supports that description (but not "genocide") and thus it is reasonable to have it in the opening summary. cwmacdougall 8:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
There are millions of people who starve to death around the world every year. This is a "likely and predictable result" of, for example, world governments not giving a high priority to preventing these deaths and devoting sufficient resources to the problem. If different policies were in place, these deaths would not occur - does this mean it is 'man made'? - (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No I don't think they are the same. In most of these cases the governments clearly don't want the famines, but fail to take adequate measures to avoid them. The Soviet famine in the 30s appears more deliberate, with for example Russian and Ukrainian peasants having their food stolen and then being prevented from leaving their villages in search of food. cwmacdougall 16:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfair deletion of ten sources, including hiding known facts about the famine.

My ten sources (and two paragraphs) were deleted without any justification. (Instead, personal attacks were used towards me.)

Since my post explained both views, & did so with nine sources (5 for the theory that the famine was purposeful, & 4 for the theory that it was accidental,) this was especially unfair.

IMO the deletion reveals the political bias of the group guarding this page: to only show one side of the events, & therefore hiding well-sourced basic information that explains how five other grain producing areas also suffered from crop failure & deaths- not just the Ukraine.

(I provided three sources for that claim.)

It appears that those guarding this page don't want people to know this famine affected many areas because they're (in a one-sided way) actively promoting the theory that the famine was created to hurt the Ukraine, purposefully.

As I said before, to understand the Holodomor event you must understand the areas involved in the famine.

Rediscoverer2 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

what are your claims and sources? this article is under heavy watch and if you want to put something in that bucks scholarly consensus, you'll have a hard time. --Львівське (говорити) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
> what are your claims and sources?
My sources:
^ Engerman, David. [Modernization from the Other Shore.](
^ ["Famine on the South Siberia".](
^ ["Demographic aftermath of the famine in Kazakhstan".](
^ С. Уиткрофт (Stephen G. Wheatcroft), "О демографических свидетельствах трагедии советской деревни в 1931—1933 гг." (On demographic evidence of the tragedy of the Soviet village in 1931-1833), "Трагедия советской деревни: Коллективизация и раскулачивание 1927-1939 гг.: Документы и материалы. Том 3. Конец 1930-1933 гг.", Российская политическая энциклопедия, 2001, ISBN 5-8243-0225-1, с. 885, Приложение № 2
^ 'Stalinism' was a collective responsibility - Kremlin papers], The News in Brief, University of Melbourne, June 19, 1998, Vol 7 No 22
^ a b c d e f Dr. David Marples, "The great famine debate goes on..", ExpressNews (University of Alberta), originally published in Edmonton Journal, November 30, 2005
^ a b c d e f Stanislav Kulchytsky, "Holodomor of 1932–1933 as genocide: the gaps in the proof", Den, February 17, 2007.
^ a b c Finn, Peter (27 April 2008). ["Aftermath of a Soviet Famine".]( Retrieved 21 July 2012. "There are no exact figures on how many died. Modern historians place the number between 2.5 million and 3.5 million. Yushchenko and others have said at least 10 million were killed."
My two paragraphs, [as seen here]( are:
The Soviet famine of 1932–1933 affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union including Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region and Kazakhstan,[3] the South Urals, and West Siberia.[4][5] This famine lead to the deaths of millions in those areas and severe food insecurity throughout the USSR. The subset of the famine within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is called Holodomor.
The causes of the Holodomor are a subject of scholarly and political debate. Some historians theorize that the famine was an unintended consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization.[6][7][8][9] Others claim that the Soviet policies that caused the famine were an engineered attack on Ukrainian nationalism, or more broadly, on all peasants, in order to prevent uprisings. Some suggest that the famine may fall under the legal definition of genocide.[10][8][9][11][12]
Rediscoverer2 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The information you included better fits within the article body rather than lead and the way it was included promotes a particular point of view.Faustian (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing, this was my take as well. It crowded the lead section and was formatted poorly; some best fit in the body (or is already included in some capacity) and the other read like a POV push.--Львівське (говорити) 21:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
> Pov push
Was it the first paragraph (listing of countries affected) that was a POV push? We both know that is not true. Or, do you think it the second paragraph? (explaining both theories with many sources.) Obviously that wasn't POV either.
What's pushing a POV is the way the wiki is currently written (hiding known facts.)
Rediscoverer2 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The idea of the Holodomor being merely a subset of the larger Soviet Famine is a particular POV; the way you tried to write the lead makes it seem like the POV. You listed the subset theory first, in the lede. An analogy would be to edit the article about The Holocaust placing in the lede a statement about the context of Nazis killing all sorts of people (Poles, gypsies, Soviet POWs), them listing all the non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, and finally listing the Jewish victims. Even if this were done with sourced statement, it wouldn't be the right thing to do, and someone reverting such statements wouldn't simply be "hiding known facts." Also, perhaps you are not aware, but using "the Ukraine" (rather than Ukraine) as you did in the edit summary is considered offensive to some Ukrainians, which probably colors how your edits were perceived.Faustian (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The idea to draw strong parallelisms between Holodomor and the Holocaust is also a POV, and this POV is minority view. Regarding "the", read this: both "the Ukraine" and "Ukraine" is acceptable. Interestingly, why did you decide that Ukraine can modify the rules of English language? That reminds me of the story about "in/on Ukraine" in Russian: as far as I know, the Russian usually say "on Ukraine", but "in Russia/America/France" etc. Modern Ukrainians also feel offended, however, I see no reason for that: Russlian language develops according to its own standards, and, as soon as the Ukrainians do not consider Russian language their state language, I do not understand why did they decide they have a right to set new rules in a foreign language.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't drawing parallels between the Holodomor and the Holocaust but making an analogy between adding a bunch of info about non-Jewish victims in the lead of the article about what happened to Jews, and adding a bunch of info about non-Ukrainians into the lead of the article about what happened in Ukraine, for the purpose of "context.". As for the Ukraine, anyone readng blogs or comment sections sees this used primary by Russian nationalists emphasizing that Ukraine is a borderland of Russia. That's just who uses it most of the time, nowadays. Your link basically says as much this: Those who called it "the Ukraine" in English must have known that the word meant "borderland", says Anatoly Liberman, a professor at the University of Minnesota with a specialism in etymology. So they referred to it as "the borderland". "After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians probably decided that the article denigrated their country [by identifying it as a part of Russia] and abolished 'the' while speaking English, so now it is simply Ukraine. "That's why the Ukraine suddenly lost its article in the last 20 years, it's a sort of linguistic independence in Europe, it's hugely symbolic." The Germans still use it but the English-speaking world has largely stopped using it. So, to summarize: Ukrainians copnsider it offensive, and the English-speaking world has mostly stopped using it. Yet this user has used it. Hmmm...Faustian (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
That is an example of circular argumentation: "since Holodomor was directed against Ukrainians any attempt to add information about non-Ukrainian victims are unacceptable; that Holodomor was directed against Ukrainians stems from the fact that mostly Ukrainian population was affected by the famine." That would work only in a situation when it the idea that Holodomor was directed against Ukrainians were universally accepted. However, we all know that was not the case, and that is one of major differences between Holodomor and the Holocaust. Therefore, the Holocaust could be used as an example only in a situation when some strong analogy was implied. Since no such analogy existed (at least, it is by no means a majority viewpoint), your example is a bad example, and it is de facto a trivialization of the Holocaust.
Regarding "the", again, I don't think Daily Mirror is a Russian nationalist source. And, by the way, let me remind you that some countries, such as Denmark, have a direct reference on the borderland position in their names, but they do not feel offended by that. I would say, exaggerated attention to "the" is a indication that something is significantly wrong with national consciousness of some Ukrainians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
My analogy involved mass deaths in which one group was, in each case, a disproportionate victim. It is thus a valid analogy. Daily Mirror seems not to use "the" consistently: [5]. IT is up to Ukrainians to determinewhat they consider tobe offensive. As the source indicates, Ukrainians consider it to be offensive, and most Engish-language sources have stopped using it. Yet this editor has chosen to use it....while adding info that pushes a POV that minimizes, relatively, the Holodomor. Faustian (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no clue why did you decide Ukrainians were affected disproportionally in the areas where the Soviet famine occurred. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going from memory Ukrainians were about 1/3 of the USSRs population at that time but about 1/2 of the victims of famine in the USSR at that time. Faustian (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
You guys know that you are most likely bothering to respond to a sockpuppet of an indefinetly banned user who's been bugging this article and many others with the same nonsense for like the past 7 years? Look through the history, this is the same person under a different guise, all over there. And he was indeffed for a reason. Rational conversation is not a possibility. Just revert him and WP:DENY.Volunteer Marek 03:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I am astonished that such an experienced editor as you resort to the personal attacks of that kind (accusations that lack evidences are deemed personal attacks). I myself witnessed a situation when some new user joined the edit war few days after a sockpuppet of some banned user had been identified and indefinitely blocked. This new user was geolocated (my guess) in the same area as the previously banned sock, demonstrated the same behavioral pattern and even the similar writing style. This user was blocked, but unblocked by arbcom because some unequivocal evidences had been provided that persuasively demonstrated he was not a sock. Interestingly, initially I was 100% convinced he was a sock, and this example taught me to avoid making premature conclusions.
In connection to that, I strongly suggest VM to choose between two options: (i) initiate SPI, or (ii) apologise and abandon his behaviour. If Rediscoverer2 is a sock, he must be blocked, if he is not a sock, he must be treated by his peers with due respect.
Regards. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack, it's probability. We have WP:DUCK for a reason. Note that even when I brought up that he was a banned user he didn't even deny it. Ok, look, the facts are that this is an editor who has wasted a tremendous amount of time with this kind of behavior (not to even bring up issues of harassment etc.) Any common sense assessment of the situation indicates a very very very high chance that this is the same guy. Now, I guess there's some small chance that this is a new person. I guess I could spend hours and hours trying to prove conclusively that is the case. But there are better things to do. If he wants to come out and argue that he's not User:Jacob Peters let him, we can discuss it then. But honestly, this guy socks so much that if I tried to file an SPI for every new sock that pops up I'd be doing nothing on Wikipedia except spending my time on those SPI reports. I'd become User:Mathsci or something.
Anyway. If you think there's something useful in what he's trying to add, content wise, bring it up here and we can discuss it. Without the disruption.Volunteer Marek 03:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, my experience taught me that simple coincidence of behavioural pattern is not sufficient to make a conclusion about sockpuppetry. So far, I see just one user here who violated our policy, and this user is you, VM. You accused a new user of sockpuppetry, and you should either support your accusations with solid evidences, or to apologize. If Rediscoverer2 is a sock, that will be a demonstration that, in this concrete case you were right. However, it still will not be a confirmation that your behaviour is acceptable in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, if SPI are so time-consuming I suppose that having to do one every time a sock is created gives a large advantage tro the sock-puuppet creator.04:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
(Re to Paul Siebert, edit conflict) Again, we have WP:DUCK for a reason, so that disruptive editors are not enabled in wasting other's time.
And think of it this way. Given the history of the article, any major changes, especially ones which are so drastic and which smack so heavily of POV pushing need to be discussed on talk here first. So regardless of whether this is a sock of an indeffed user or a brand new pov pusher, the edits should be reverted. That's as far as the article content goes.
As far as the particular account goes, if he's not Jacob Peters, then the worst thing that has happened is that I wrongly accused him of being a sockpuppet, which he is always free to deny. I'm actually doing him a favor by NOT filing an SPI (essentially because I don't have the time) as most likely he would be blocked in that case. Again, for the millionth time, under a millionth username. But I haven't filed an SPI and he's not blocked. And? His edits are still not acceptable. Volunteer Marek 04:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I see no problem with reverting these changes. Of course, all of that should be discussed first. However, you cannot and you should not propose just to ignore and revert a user who even did not exceed 3RR so far, and who started a quite polite discussion on the talk page. If you think he is a sock, and it seems obvious per DUCK, just request him to be blocked. However, I see no reason why a new user (let's assume there is 10% he is not a sock) should provide any evidences to you: who are you to request him to provide an evidence that he is not Jakobs Peters (remember, if Rediscoverer2 is not a sock, he has absolutely no idea who Jakobs Peters is). And, by the way, how do you think could he prove he is not Peters? --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I just can't help but chuckle at the irony (is that the right word here?) of a "Paul Siebert" defending a "Jacob Peters"? May I suggest some literary characters from anarchist Czech writers as inspirations for usernames instead? Volunteer Marek 04:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
VM, this post is a direct personal attack: do you realise you accused me of defending a banned user, and draw some conclusions based on my nick name. I am grateful that you value my sense of humour, however, please, don't forget about our basic policy and elementary rules of politeness. In future, please, try to avoid such allusions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict^2) It honestly wasn't meant as a personal attack or an insult, neither did I draw any conclusions from your usernames (I think you're confusing the verbs "to imply" and "to infer"). I was just amused by the irony. If "defending" wasn't the appropriate word, then substitute "discussing" for that. Volunteer Marek 04:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I am neither defend nor discuss Peters: we are discussing your behaviour towards a user who has not been proven be a sock so far. Such users must be treated with respect. No exceptions. Full stop.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree that users ought to be treated with respect and namecalling is uneccesary, since SPIs are far more time-consuming than creating sockpuppets if we have to go through SPI every time there is a very high likelihood of sockpuppetry (as in this case) when dealing with a likely sockpuppet, it seems that sockpuppetry can "win" by attrition.Faustian (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
That argument would be acceptable if there was a flood of socks on this page. However, in the current situation it does not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
This (perhaps sock) has already caused a lot of editors to spend a lot of time on stuff other than editing. It doesn't take a flood to be disruptive.20:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Saying "this is most likely a sock of a banned user" is not a personal attack, especially when that fact is ... most likely and lots of evidence points in that direction.Volunteer Marek 20:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The fact that stopped to contribute may serve as an indirect support of this your idea. However, I still believe that your behaviour was unacceptable: you cannot propose just to ignore a user simply because you believe he is a sock. Thus, if you exceed 3RR reverting a person who is, according to your belief, a sock, you still can be blocked, and event subsequent SPI will demonstrate you were right, your block still will be justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

<- Sure, if it got to a point where 3RR might be breached, I'd go to the trouble of filing an SPI first. Here however, the account was being reverted by multiple users and I think I only made one revert.Volunteer Marek 20:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was the following: 3RR violation is a policy violation, and it does not matter if your opponent is a sock or not. Similarly, a proposal to ignore some user as if he were an identified sock is a violation of the policy. You cannot do that, otherwise you may be subjected to sanctions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we have a more unconstructive conversation? VєсrumЬа TALK 21:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
If you think it is unconstructive, feel free not to participate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Did famine occur within the borders of the USSR 1932-1933 or ony within the borders of Ukraine?Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Read answer to your question here : — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
That being the case, Stalin behaved just like any other state-controller rather than an anti-Ukranian chauvinist.Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not know many state controllers who killed from 4 to 6 millions people in less than one year, during peace time... — Preceding unsigned

Odd how the number of victims seems to increase from 1, to 2, to 3 and now 6 million people. More of a bidding war than an attempt to take history seriously. What an awful joke this is.

comment added by (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 
The point is that since the famine occurred in Ukraine and other territories and since Ukraine had famines in 1922 and 1892, blaming the 1932-1933 famine on a Stalinist conspiracy against Ukrainians needs to demonstrate the differences. As for other state controllers, British Prime ministers made the effort in Ireland and the Scotch Highlands in the 1840s and in India C18th - C20th. Various US Presidents have also made promising efforts as the Iraqis will explain (the ones who are still alive that is.Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you didn't read this : , or you didn't understood what you've read... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I prefer this,%20%27The%201932%20Harvest%20and%20the%20Famine%20of%201933,%20SR%2091.pdf Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
you seem to ignore that History, as other Science is progressing : your document was published in 1991, the one I have provied was published in 2008, and using sources base on opened soviet archives.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
A source that takes Conquest seriously is one I discount; teleology tooKeith-264 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Wheatcroft and Davies praise Conquest's work, so I guess you'll have to discount them, too. You really should acquaint yourself more thoroughly with the literature on the subject before making rash contentions over what constitutes reputable scholarship. VєсrumЬа TALK 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Wheatcroft & Davies assert: "This reply, while confirming that Stalin's policies were ruthless and brutal, shows that there are no serious grounds for Ellman's view that Stalin pursued a conscious policy of starvation of the peasants during the famine." from Davies & Wheatcroft, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to Ellman, Europe-Asia Studies vol.58, No. 4, June 2006. (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Wheatcroft and Davies also assert in their seminal work on the famine that they intentionally avoided all discussion of Stalin's behavior or motivations owing to what they characterized as lack of records. It's disingenuous for Wheatcroft & Davies to assert "no grounds" when they purposely shied away from the issue. There's the most basic question: why not request external aid when there was historical precedent for doing so and instead confiscate not just grain but household foodstuffs leaving families to starve? I'm disappointed W&D should lower their standards in a shouting match with Ellman.
Editors here have gone so far as to misconstrue sources to indicate Stalin was intent on saving people when he was personally informed of their plight and that clearly he would have done more were he better informed of the dire circumstances. It's hypocritical to pillory Duranty for suppressing information on the famine (there is evidence he did so out of fear for his family in Moscow) and simultaneously exculpate Stalin regarding intent. One can argue about how the famine started, but there is no argument about how Soviet authorities dealt with it. VєсrumЬа TALK 05:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

blind reverts

What's with the blind reverting of sourced, relevant content? Explain to me how a historian's book is not a valid source for what said historian stated in his book. The name of the section is genocide denial; what sort of neutral point of view would one be looking for in such a non-neutral position?

Yeesh, I remember now why I stopped editing. Some things never change. LokiiT (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tottle was discussed above.Volunteer Marek
Tottle isn't a "historian", he's a union activist. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
He was discussed above but I don't see a consensus that his work is discredited; his own page states that he has academic support. There are far less credible sources being used in this article. LokiiT (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
His own page finds a Left-wing historian in another field and a Professor who stood as a Communist in Canadian Parliamentary elections supporting him. Even if we grant respect to their judgements, Tottle would still be a secondary source, not an acceptable primary academic source. He was a Communist trade union activist published by a propaganda house, and not remotely acceptable as a Wikipedia source. cwmacdougall 2:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with representing the left and/or communist point of view? Could you please point me to the wikipedia policy that forbids this? We represent the far-right view for nationalist Ukrainians after all. You could always take this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like, but removing content because "it was written by a dirty commie" is not valid reasoning. Google shows an abundance of material mentioning his views or similar, and as such it deserves a place in this article. No one is arguing that his views should be prominent or stretch beyond a paragraph. LokiiT (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that works by non-academic Ukrainian nationalist propagandists should also not be used as sources. If you think they have, then let's correct that. But Tottle is not an academic or a NPOV source and should not be used. cwmacdougall 01:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(<-) The 7.5 million death toll figure attributed to Marples is, in fact, not by Marples, but by Mikhailo Hoyan, a nationalist propagandist. Full quote: Hoyan calls for a tribunal to judge those who have damaged the “genofond” of the Ukrainian people and who are responsible for 7.5 million deaths, from Marples' Heroes and Villains: Creating National History in Contemporary Ukraine, p.50. (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The system here on Wikipedia is to question the use of a source at WP:RS/N and not to simply assert that a figure from a "nationalist propagandist" should automatically be removed on your say-so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, one can go to RS/N for a general discussion about a source, but one can also discuss it here on the article talk page. Reading the full quote, it does not look like Hoyan is a neutral and reliable source. Do you know anything more about him? I don't think we should use him pending further discussion here. cwmacdougall 15:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Not liking a source != Wikigrounds for removal. That is why the best place for that discussion is at RS/N. We are not required to use "neutral" sources in your opinion - the issue as far as policy goes is - "is it a "reliable source" using the Wikipedia definition?" At this point, no one has presented a cogent argument to disallow that source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was too precipitant, however I thought it was a pretty obvious edit. It read: "The estimates of the death toll by scholars varied greatly. Recent research has narrowed the estimates to between 1.8 and 7.5 million" (emphasis mine). Is Hoyan a scholar, researcher? I googled a bit and I found nothing about him, no c.v. or bios, there are no papers by some Hoyan on JSTOR, no evidence he conducted some research of some sort. So even if he turns up to be some kind of scholar, I suspect he is not much esteemed outside of nationalist rings. (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Um -- look up the footnote as cited by Marples. Cheers - the source appears to quite meet Wiki-requirements. Collect (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Citation, Marples p. 50: "Hoyan calls for a tribunal to judge those who have damaged the “genofond” of the Ukrainian people and who are responsible for 7.5 million deaths.[41]" Citation, Marples note 41, chapter 2: " Mykhailo Hoyan, “Na rodyuchii zemli pomyraly khliboroby,” Ukraina moloda, 8 September 1998, p. 12." (emphasis mine). Are you mixing up note 50 and page 50? Note 50 refers to "Slavic Review" (only reference to Slavic Review in the whole chapter), but it's about the 1991 Tauger's paper. It has nothing to do with Hoyan. Ukrayina Moloda is a newspaper and not even a big one. (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC) ---- edit: added wikilink (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Mea culpa on yhr chapter numberss - but the fact is that Marples is citing a reliable source - which is what Wikipedia requires. Wikipedia does not require that reliable sources be the WP:TRUTH as that is beyong the purview of editors here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

People pushing POV via blind reverts

I changed two POV things to be NPOV, & was a victim of blind revert with no said reasoning.

My changes:

1. I changed "man made famine" to "some believe it was man-made and purposeful." (Frankly "man made" is pointless language, since all famines can be labeled such.)

2. I changed the translation of "holodomor" to it's literal translation according to "death by hunger."

"Extermination by hunger" is just an extreme sounding POV interpretation.

I hope people will see my changes are the most NPOV, & the my "foe" here is not even seriously arguing- they're providing no reasoning at all for their revert. Volunteer Eddy (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Man-made" (origin) and "purposeful" (intent) are separate and distinct and best discussed separately. Your change also introduces weasel language ("some" believe). VєсrumЬа TALK 23:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
> "purposeful" (intent) are separate and distinct
Hint: The people saying "man made" *mean* purposeful.
(That's why I said it.)
And (again) "man made" could apply to all famines in history.
ie, all famines are man-made. (If people failed to grow enough food, despite natural disasters, that's man-made.)
> weasel language ("some" believe)
"Some believe" is more NPOV than saying it's man-made/purposeful.
In summary, you are just trying to provide spin to justify the POV, & have provided no rational reasoning against my NPOV changes.
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The concept that "all famines are man made" is probably not sourceable to a reliable source, which is the Wikipedia criterion for being an any article. Collect (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC) .

> [more spin]
My edit did not say "all famines are man made."
I was explaining how *logically* the inclusion of "man made" is illogical since it could describe every famine in history.
(Even if you simply didn't grow enough to overcome the risks of nature, that's a "man made" famine.)
You also haven't shown any reason why my NPOV edit should be abandoned in favor of the current POV.
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Your translation correction is of course welcome and NPOV, but your "man-made" edit and comments ignore the lengthy discussion above. In particular I think "man-made" would indicate the likely and predictable result of policies, whether it was intended or not, as opposed to the accidental result of misguided policies; it is negligence rather than just oversight. If you accept that, then it is not true that all famines are "man-made"; only a few are, such as this one, and it is wrong to add your weasel words. cwmacdougall 6:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
None of that is an argument against how it's more NPOV to say "some people believe" than stating it as a fact. I could always simply say " "people supporting the Holodomor genocide theory believe it was purposeful."
Here's a hint: the fact that you have to explain that by "man made" you mean purposeful shows that "man made" is not logical language. (Since all famines are man made, but not purposeful.)
Logically, that pointless language ("man made") should be scrapped entirely & replaced with accusations that the famine was "purposeful."
Volunteer Eddy (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Clue: calling outside editors "trolls" or "POV advocates" is unlikely to convince anyone at all. (talk- more arguing with POV trolls etc. as edit summaries). I suggest you have a cup of tea and simmer down a bit before trying to re-add your own concept of the "truth" here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Volunteer Eddy, I tried to define "man made" because I thought it would help the discussion; defining terms is often helpful when there is a debate or misunderstandings. But to me "man made" was always clear: not all famines are man made at all, though many could be avoided by human action the prime cause is often bad weather or plant desease, so to say the Holodomor was man made is to say officials were more responsible than they are with most famines in history, e.g. culpably negligent. "Purposeful" would be something even stronger. I'm not sure the Communist officials intended that millions die, but it appears they didn't care if that was the result of their policies. cwmacdougall 13:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. "Man made" means "resulting from human activity" (irrespective to what real intents were). In contrast to China or India, no famines took place in Ukraine before 1932.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, we agree on the first part. Ukraine was not spared in the famine a decade earlier. VєсrumЬа TALK 22:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the translation of the word Holodomor : What are the reason of the new translation and what are source for that???? Why was the origin of the word deleted (Moryty Holodom????) . If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it has to rely on good sources, and not e web site : you can fond a explanation of this word made by a renown historian Andrea Graziosi on page 2
Le Holodomor (nouveau terme forgé pour définir l’extermination de masse par la faim et son caractère intentionnel)
Le terme a été créé par la fusion des mots holod (en ukrainien, la faim, la famine) et moryty , tuer (par privations), affamer, épuiser ; ce qui met donc l’accent sur l’aspect intentionnel, à la différence du terme plus neutre de holod .
As the issue is translation, you might want to use an English language source. But never mind that, the problem is that "Морити голодом" simply does not mean "hunger-extermination" in Russian or Ukrainian as claimed; that is a mistranslation and I don't think it is supported by your source. It might be the origin of the term "Holodmor", and that latter term might mean "hunger-extermination". I suggest that I correct that bit, but leave the definition of "Holodmor". cwmacdougall 3:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


Marpeles per se is RS. The death claim section is attributed to footnote 41 - which is Serhii M. Plokhy, “The History of a 'Non-historical' Nation: Notes on the Nature and Current Problems of Ukrainian Historiography,” Slavic Review, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Fall 1995) pp 712 - 715, which is also apparently a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and is noted in a number of other reliable sources. Any figures are "opinions" but when they are published in a relable source per Wikipedia requirements, we ought not dismiss them as being "propaganda" or the like. Collect (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Unproven statement

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, "Extermination by hunger" or "Hunger-extermination";[2] derived from 'Морити голодом', "Starving someone" [3]) was a man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR and adjacent Cossack territories in 1932 and 1933.

How do we know the famine was man made? It might as well be a result of casual foolishness. I live in Russia, am Russian, and I know pretty well that in Russia most people are silly (I suspect, in other countries, too). So, no evidence. - (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was casual foolishness by the Soviets, that still makes it man-made. — Richard BB 10:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. It makes it "man-made", if there was a human decision that created or drove the famine. If there was not and there is no evidence to assert that it was not - then it was not. On the other hand, if there is evidence that demonstrates or asserts that human decision did contribute or exacerbate it - then it was man-made... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It would also be "man-made" if it was the result of gross negligence or the predictable result of human decisions, in this case deporting the more productive farmers, confiscating farm produce and physically preventing the resulting starving peasants from getting food elsewhere. It was indeed "man-made". cwmacdougall 12:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I thought the word "man-made" means or suggests "artificially made", i.e. "intently made", which is certainly a result of linguistic interference, partly because in Russian people's foolishness is thought of as a "стихия", a quasi-natural phenomenon, which cannot be dealt with by any human ability; the specific word is "мракобесие" (lit. "mirkness' devilling"). By "casual foolishness" I mean mostly people who make day-to-day decisions, i.e., the whole community, not just the [top] rulers, for it would be an extremity of silliness to blame rulers or words for everything. - (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually it means "made or caused by humans" and decisions which cause a problem do, indeed, qualify under that normal definition. In the case at hand, there is appreciable evidence that "man-made" is an appropriate descriptor. Collect (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can argue the man-made aspect of it, not all famine's are man-made, this wasn't a bad crop. It was the forced requisition of all crops and all food. Villagers were not even allowed to travel to Kharkiv to buy bread, even if they could afford it. Authorities in Donetsk took everything. Those taking the food were Russian, taking from Ukrainians (remember, villages were entirely ethnic Ukrainian, whereas cities had mixed populations). When you have Russian soldiers / NKVD officers taking every form of food from ones house, it's impossible to say it wasn't "man made". It's even harder to think it was just a bureaucratic mixup over alleged grain quotas.--Львівське (говорити) 15:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What is a Birth Deficit?

Hi. What does "6.1 million birth deficit" mean? What is a birth deficit? You cannot possibly mean births that did not occur because of the famine, can you? Please be serious in your reply. Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  • If that, in fact, is what is meant by a "birth deficit", than regardless of what is quoted in an article, it needs to be rephrased and couched in terms and in a context of meaning that is actually a reportable figure. Otherwise, the current global economic slowdown would equally have to be described as a global genocide because of the population reductions it is causing, particularly in Western nations; and that seems unwarranted as a valid description, since you cannot really count as a loss something that never really occurred... It is a potential, not an actuality. Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
"Birth deficit" is widely used in academic sources as a "term of art". And is widely used to provide figures relating to incidents which appear to be reflected in a pronounced lack of births over a period of time in many places. Where a term is so widely used, it is not up to use to reword it unless the sources reword it. Collect (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is indeed in the source, but help us out by telling us what you, or the sources, mean in this context: does it mean miscarriages because pregnant women were starving, or something less direct, like parents deciding not to conceive or being infertile because of starvation. There is a difference. cwmacdougall 13:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It is as well established as, say, "Gross National Product" and the idea that it "counts miscarriages" is not going to be a productive argument here. We use what the sources say and that is that. If you wish to start an encyclopedia where words mean what you wish them to mean, then do so. It is the difference between the expected number of births in a specified demographic group and the actual number of births in that group. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
So it does have the broad definition including lack of births due to people deciding not to have children? cwmacdougall 21:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Any references from reliable sources that the starving people simply did not choose to have children? While choosing not to have children is currently one cited reason for NRRs being less than 1 internationally, I did not find that given as a reason in the reliable sources cited for this article. Might you furnish your reliable source for that claim vide this article? Collect (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I was not claiming anything; you were. You said that "birth deficit" means lower than expected births, which surely must mean people choosing not to have children as well as miscarriages. I would expect that in the 30s, in famine areas, there were significant numbers of people feeling it was not a good time to have children, so the "6.1 million" must include some of them, mustn't it? The Holodomor was horrible enough without exaggerating numbers... cwmacdougall 23:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Please find any reliable source, heck even a tabloid useless source, which makes the apparent claim you feel might be apt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: I am not claiming anything; I'm just trying to understand what you and the source are claiming. If you don't know, then say you don't know. cwmacdougall 13:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It means that fewer children were born during the famine for whatever reason. The deficit is the number of births required to maintain a constant population less the number of actual births. This information is required to calculate how many people died as a result of the famine. So if you know the total drop in population you can subtract the birth deficit to determine the number of deaths attributable to the famine. TFD (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me, but both the source and the article count "birth deficit" deaths in the total of people who died as a result of the famine. I think logically from your definition that "birth deficit" would include births that didn't happen because the potential parents decided it wasn't a good time to have children. I don't think that is what most people understand to be "deaths attributable to the famine", and it would explain some of the differences with lower estimates. Perhaps our text should make this more clear? cwmacdougall 14:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
There's a lot of reasons for different estimates. A Russian source can severely reduce the numbers, or claim it never happened at all, which Ukrainians claim is Russians whitewashing the Soviet famine. While a Ukrainian source is more likely to cite higher numbers which Russians then claim is a result of far right nationalists trying to put out bad propaganda on Mother Russia. As to your attempt to explain the difference, there's a 3.2mil difference in actual casualties to start with which the birth deficit doesn't change. With the birth deficit itself, while there likely were some people who chose not to have children, we have no way of knowing how many people did that and how it changes the number. Any attempts to estimate numbers on Wiki without even a blog or tabloid source is original research and not permitted on Wiki. Chrissd21 (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The number of deaths due to the famine is the decrease in population minus the birth deficit. TFD (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit war by

Please, stop your edit war. You try to remove correct improvements. The current statement that besides Ukrainians only Cossack lands were concerned is not the whole truth. The famine spread to all agricultural parts of the Soviet Union, including the Lower Volga, Northern Kazakhstan and Southern Urals. Regions like Saratov, Tambov, Orenburg were among the most harmed by the famine. It's completely unjustified to hide that Holodomor war part of a much broader famine in the whole agricultural belt of the USSR. Even in the Ukrainian SSR, other ethnicities became victims proportionally to their population share: Russians, Jews, Poles, Bulgarians, Greeks etc. The denial of these facts and the attempt to portray Ukrainians as the single and exclusive victims is against the principle encyclopaedic accurateness and is politically-motivated. --Shervinsky (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You started this war by changing the long-run, stable version of the article with you agenda, and also inserting statements that only few countries recognize this event as a genocide. I don't agree with your edits, and therefore I am simply reverting to the long-run version of the article, and yet you keep pushing your POV edits, without even discussing them. First of all, only Ukrainians and Cossacks (who are mostly of Ukrainian descent) refer to the Famine as the Holodomor! The Russians refer to this famine as the Soviet Famine, they don't use the word Holodomor. The non-Ukrainian portion of the Famine is called the Soviet Famine. There are two separate articles in Wikipeadia dealing with the famine -- the Holodomor and the Soviet Famine. If you want to write about other ethnicities perhaps you could just edit the Soviet Famine version, which deals with the broader notion of the famine of 1932-1933. Second, going back to your claims that Russians were also targeted by the famine, the "Russians" who died in the lower Volga region, Don region, Orenburg, Ural (Yaik) regions of Kazakhstan are the Cossacks, not Russians. Also ethnic Germans were the ones mostly targeted in the Saratov region (just check their numbers in the census before and after the famine). If you insist on other ethnicities, you should NAME who they are: Ukrainians, Cossacks, ethnic Germans, Russians. Don't hide the victims behind "other ethnicities". In his letters to Sholokhov, Stalin called this famine against the Cossacks "the war of attrition". This was a cold, pre-meditated murder by starvation, disproportionately targeting certain ethnic groups. In now way this was an oversight. This was a pure, calculated genocide. (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I was right, only some countries (about 20 out of 200) recognized Holodomor as some kind of ethnic genocide. My formulation is more precise than yours which suggests that it is recognized everywhere. Holodomor was part of a broader famine and it's more than legitimate to mention this fact. If you claim, that the Soviet Union had two simultaneous and differently-motivated famies that had nothing to do with each other you have to prove it. Cossacks are only partly descendants of Ukrainians. Kuban Cossacks are predominantly of Ukrainian descent, Don Cossacks, Volga Cossacks, Ural Cossacks are only marginally Ukrainian. Your attempt to portray everything as a deliberate act against ethnic Ukrainians (including Russian lands), is dubious and obscure. BTW, most Don Cossacks, Ural Cossacks, Volga Cossacks considered themselves as a subgroup of Russians. --Shervinsky (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You have to provide the reliable references supporting your suggestions. --Andrux (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Trivial things don't need to be proved. Wikipedia rules exclude trivialities because it offers a broad field for vandals who try to disturb constructive work. The fact is that the famine covered all agricultural areas of the Soviet Union and if you claim that Holodomor had no connection to it and don't even agree to mention it, YOU need to provide proofs. --Shervinsky (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
We are talking about non-trivial issues here. Holodomor was tightly concentrated within certain (but not all) parts of the black soil agricultural regions. The parts seem to perfectly coincide with the borders of Ukraine, the former Don, Kuban, Terek, Ural, and Orenburg Cossack Hosts. Also Saratov region was affected, but back then it was called the Volga German (Autonomous Socialist) Republic. The estimates of life loss during Holodomor were calculated by Robert Conquest and others, and they tell us a rather striking picture of human losses from starvation: up to 5 million in Ukraine, 1 million in Don, Kuban, Terek, and 1 million in "other areas" (Saratov, Ural, Orenburg). The picture is very clear -- it is very clear which socio-ethnic groups were the primary target of the Holodomor. We have to name them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViktorC (talkcontribs) 16:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. What we HAVE TO mention is that Holodomor was part of a broader famine and aimed no only at Ukrainians. It aimed against different ethnicities, including many Russians who lived in the Lower Volga and South Urals regions (even if we assume that Cossacks are not a subgroup of Russians). Even in the Don and Kuban area the Russians made up big parts of the populations and lived along with Cossacks. There is no proof that the famine (including Holodomor) had primarily an ethnic background instead of a social background (peasants of whatever ethnicity). --Shervinsky (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
@Shervinsky ... and no, Don Cossacks do not consider themselves of Russian ethnicity. In the 2002 and 2010 population census, they listed themselves as "Kazaki". The Census officials however listed "Kazaki" as a sub-ethnic group of Russian, which is not what people were writing when filling out the census forms. See on this. ViktorC (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Shervinsky, this is not a trivial issue, and Wikipedia is not a blog. Please, read the rules and provide the information according to Wikipedia regulations. There was a famine in USSR, and there is an article about Soviet famine of 1932–33 at Wiki. Holodomor was organized specifically in Ukraine, and can not be considered as "part" of USSR famine. The food was withdrawn by the orders from communists and population was blocked in the area they were leaving without being able to escape. --Andrux (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It's completely unlogical. If Holodomor is only about Ukrainian SSR then you have to excluse any Cossacks of the RSFSR. But you insist to take them in, despite the fact that most of them were on the territory of the Russian SFSR. Also the arguing with their relationship to Holodomor because of their "Ukrainian" origin is complete non-sense, because the most of them (Don Cossacks, Ural Cossacks) had only a marginal "Ukrainian" connection. So far you are not able to draw clear limitations what was Holodomor and what was the rest of the Soviet famine. You even claim that there is no connection between Holodomor and the broader Soviet famine which is againt the common sense and has no proofs. --Shervinsky (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the famine affected Russians and other groups as well as Ukrainians, and this broader famine was caused by bad weather, collectivisation, food requisition, and travel bans, so to exclude from the article mention of people other than Ukrainians, or even Ukrainians and Cossacks, is to lose context. Some argue that within this horror, Ukrainians were particularly targeted as an ethnic group. Could be, but that is a matter for further discussion after this broader context is established. I agree with Shervinsky. cwmacdougall 1:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. There are many sources that convincingly show that Holodomor was a part of a broader Soviet famine, for example the famous book of Douglas Tottle. --Shervinsky (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Be careful, as discussed before, the infamous book by Tottle is pure Communist propaganda, not an academic work, and not remotely acceptable as a source. cwmacdougall 11:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like, by describing Tottle's work favorably, Shervinsky has given himself away.Faustian (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Wishful thinking, boy. There are enough other sources that prove that. --Shervinsky (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Holodomor was part of general famine in Soviet Union in 1932-33

Articles of wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, preferable by secondary or tertiary in it's origin. So, such expert in Holodomor as Stanislav Kulchitsky, whom is "secondary sorce" in orgin, acts as tertiary sorce in his study of historiography of the issue. So, in his fundamental study of Holodomor he states (I repeat, as tertiary source): " В. Данилов и И. Зеленин опубликовали в журнале «Отечественная история» (2004, № 5) программную статью «Организованный голод. К 70-летию общекрестьянской трагедии». В ней остро осуждалась хлебозаготовительная политика Кремля, которая стала причиной рукотворного голода во многих регионах СССР. Однако историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного..." (Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5) (everybody on this page speak Russian, so translate in English (if needed) yourself and stop making sence, denaying simple for proving and understanding things). So, the mainsteam is that Holodomor was part of general famine. There are some other marginal theories about uniquity of holodomor, but wikipedia should not be tool for spreading marginal theories. HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Who are В. Данилов and И. Зеленин? I have read the publication of prof. Kulchitskii ((Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов?), and he has not mentioned Holodomor as a "part" of other famines. There are no reliable sources supporting your hypothesis--Andrux (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As Summary of his book Stanislav Kulchitsky wrote: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. (Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5) Geohem (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, and usually Soviet history falls into the 'revisionist/alternate' history category so we have to be careful with what is included that hasn't been peer reviewed and vetted.--Львівське (говорити) 15:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Excuse me, but I do not understand your post above. Are you trying to categorize Kulchitsky's book, published in 2007, as «Soviet history», or do you want to say that topic of this wiki-article applys to «Soviet history» category and that's why we need to be very carefull with RS? Please clarify. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


I reverted the figure range and some of the text int the intro back to about a year ago, which I think was the consensus variation from when we had the cabal and mediation problems. Hope there's no issue? Haven't stayed up to date really since then, but I thought we had a pretty stable intro for a while. Obviously right now some POV pushers with new accounts are trying to war on the page without using the talk...--Львівське (говорити) 15:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it was ever good. The issue obviously attracts political controversy, but the article should explain what happened, rather than be a tug of war between two points of view. TFD (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Explain what happened regarding which point? A lot is obviously covered in the body, the intro is...just an intro and should summarize.--Львівське (говорити) 17:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(Temporary) rearrangement of article in order to sustain reader interest?

Content issues aside: 'Was editing this for mechanics, and the awfully dry history section, subsections "Scope and duration" and "Death toll" IMO seems calculated to put a person to sleep--so soon after the Introduction foretells of an interesting article. This is a horrific, compelling subject not only for Ukrainophiles. But the lengthy citing of IMO dry statistics devoid of any sense of human suffering or tragedy--seems to read like a page from the official Soviet statistical manual for 1932 or whatever--and IMO has the tendency to kill all but the most devoted scholar's attention. This IS a general readership encyclopoaeidia, right? QUERY: What would anyone think of moving the entire history section--INTACT--to a less prominent place further down the article pending development of the so far empty "Implementation and abuse" subsection and moving something more compelling and lifelike in its place? Any specific agreement with or objection to this idea? Paavo273 (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do u want to change?--Andrux (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Holodomor as part of general famine in USSR of that period

Group of non-neutral editors in Holodomor atticle rejects information that mainstream in historyography of Holdomor treats it in context of all-Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933. Examples of reverts of such information: [6],[7]. Proper discussion on talk page of the article was opened in ample time ([8]). My oponents were not able to provide any reasons why this information not to be added to the article, but deleating this information anyway. It's imposible to find consensus with them, as they simply ignoring my arguments. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your POV has been disputed countless times and has never reached consensus. If you read the talk page history, you would find many instances of similar proposals which were all shot down. Just because you made some half winded argument and nobody responded for a couple days, doesn't give you consensus by yourself. You're being incredibly impatient and just because your POV isn't being included in the lede of the article, doesn't make others "non-neutral". Your assumption of bad faith editing is the result of you not liking the result. Also, we've already seen one instance of you misquoting sources, so perhaps readers see it as a waste of time to engage in this fruitless discussion if you're not going to work on a level playing field.--Львівське (говорити) 19:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
HOBOPOCC, you have been tried to add the controversial information to the article without providing a strong evidence of your POV.--Andrux (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
My «POV» is just your imagination. I provided RS - Stanislav Kul'chtsky, who gave review on historiography of Holodomor. Please discuss not my «POV» but this RS, if you have anything to comment on it. It seems to me that you do not have any arguments on against RS, that's why you are telling stories about my so called «POV» now. HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────HOBOPOCC, I would suggest that you read up on the specifics of consensus building and how consensus can be deemed to have been reached before you make unilateral decisions and insert your proposed content into the article. The fact that you proposed a change which was met with silence (other than a couple of comments clearly stating that it is believed that your POV is heavily weighted and no one actually wishes to engage in further discussions) and no "support" or "oppose" responses are to be found is read as "oppose". I'm not clear as to where this 48 hour cooling off period came from. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where this exists in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, how can your point of view (POV) be "my imagination"? We've discussed the citation (RS) you provided, please see the topics above. As I can see you just do not ike the result--Andrux (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that following the mediation cabal, which was a long time ago but still, where we left off with that was kind of the consensus stable version. I've not touched this article much since then, but seeing as we couldnt make much headway for drastic changes then with many parties involved, I really doubt radical changes to the lede should be implemented now, much less with limited involvement and potentially shady non-English sources (when we have like, a million english sources to work with on this topic, no need to worry about context or mistranslating). We already know how this will play out, NOVOROSS will create an RfC somewhere else, they will tell him to get consensus for his changes, he'll say he couldn't reach consensus because we're stubborn POV pushers, and an edit war will break out. Let's just avoid that altogether, k? (I realize I'm being rather crass, so be it)--Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm interpreting 'crass' as being good sense, although I have doubts as to NEWRUSS having any intention of being as neutral as is possible with regards to the content of the article and leaving well enough alone. My only interest in this matter is in documenting dramatic rises in activity on the article (edit warring having run its course long, long ago with no one 'winning' anything) and on the talk page. As my final statement on this resurgence of POV interest, I'd like to point out to NEWRUSS that English Wikipedia has, for good reason, developed a zero-tolerance attitude towards politically sensitive areas such as Central and Eastern European issues. If anyone wishes to push the envelope, that is their prerogative however 'Be bold' does carry a serious hazard warning: "... but please be careful!" (sic). Signing out (but watching). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • NOVOROSS, there were enough reason against your opinion, but you continue to try POV pushing, listen only yourself. It some kind of destructive behaviour.Geohem (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - For the benefit of those new to the discussion (I am one of those "randomly selected" editors volunteering to be invited to participate in an RfC) could NEWRUSS and his opponents please give us a summary of why NEWRUSS edits are or are not wikipedia appropriate (WP:RS, etc.)? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strange RfC considering that the discussions in the past on this article have uniformly rejected the "it was part of a general Soviet famine" as the sources do not back that particular position up much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Since HOBOPOCC's RfC relies on a passage isn't even in English, and insisted "everybody on this page speak Russian, so translate in English (if needed) yourself", and having doubted that everyone here and on wikipedia actually speaks Russian, I guess let's examine it via google translate (I'll paraphrase and grammar things up):
"In the journal National History (2004), Danilov and Zelenin's article "Organized Hunger" [...] sharply condemned the grain procurement policy of the Kremlin, which caused the man-made famine in many regions of the USSR. However, (some? these?) historians have not found convincing signs of genocide in this tragedy, or fundamental differences between the Ukrainian and Soviet famine. Sovietologists and (Russian historians?) in Western countries are also examing the Ukrainian famine in the context of the USSR"
Now, just based on this, I have a few points: a) HOBOPOCC is misleading the argument, he keeps saying Kulchitsky is an esteemed source and we have to use his work, but Kuly is actually just commenting on a journal article by Danilov and Zelinin, b) the credentials of the latter are in question, are they even historians? Andrux brought this up above and was ignored, c) What were their findings? How did they find no fundamental differences when most historians find many differences in how the policy was carried out (quarantine, procuring all food, border closure, etc.) --Львівське (говорити) 16:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • * So, as about «giving the summary»: we have top ranked Ukrainian historian Stanislav Kulchitsky, who is one of the best scholar of Holodomor. And he wrotes in his book: «...historians (of Russian school — Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet famine... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-Soviet-Union famine...» Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5. I already posted before, that Kul'citsky in this speech of his acting as «tertiary source» — he is making review on historiography. His personal opinion — «secondary source» as an scholar — that famine in Ukraine had unique roots/ At least he is honest to declare that historiography treats famine in Ukraine in context of all-Soviet-Union famine. What is more important for the lead of an wiki-articel: «secondary source» or «tertiary source»? This is ritorical question, as everybody understands that leads to be based on tertiary sources, as leads should give brief and most mainstream trands on the subject. All details, alternative and marginal POVs may be given in the body of the article. HOBOPOCC (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC) P. S. Lvivske gave wrong translation of Russian text and I pointed out him on that: «русисты» in Russian are not «Russians». Русисты in Russian are «Russian studies scholras». The way Lvivske acts (ignoring my ansers and repeating his lies) show not fair aproach to this discussion non-neutral group of my oponents, he belongs to. HOBOPOCC (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Repeating my "lies" by saying 'Russian historians' (in parenthesis with a question mark, as I was clearly not sure) instead of 'Russian studies scholars'? You're pushing it...regarding your argument on tertiary sources, he seemingly makes no claim to the legitimacy of this branch of the historiography, acknowledgement of fringe theory doesn't make it mainstream. Just because scholars are "examining" something doesn't mean it absolutely happened. Your edits which you are arguing for aren't for inserting into the article a note that this stream of study is being examined, or that there is debate, but rather that this branch (which the historian you're citing with such high regard completely dismisses!) is absolutely 100% is correct. This is silly.--Львівське (говорити) 18:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
So far your group on non-neutral ukrainian editos can't provide any alternative review on historiography of the issue. The only your group's anwer was that Kul'chitsky's personal opinion is that Holodomor was unique. No doubts. Official Ukrainian historiography (and Kul'chitskym — former communist party historian — is a brilliant illustration of polititian corrupted scientist) now stays on princip that Holodomor was genocide and that famine had an unique roots in all Soviet Union. Sorry, guyes, mainstream in the scholarship is diffeerent so far. You are simply blocking any attempts to add information about actual balance into the English wikipedia. HOBOPOCC (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If you can't backup your assertion that your view is mainstream outside of a Russian journal article that even a notable historian doesn't agree with (your own words), then this isn't going anywhere. I don't think anyone here has been non-neutral outside of yourself. You seem to be getting rattled because of the homework assignment we've given you. --Львівське (говорити) 18:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Nothing new. I already posted before: «group on non-neutral ukrainian editos can't provide any alternative review on historiography of the issue». So, at same position you stay. Any new RS? And who is Mr. Kulchitsky you may find yourself here: [9]. You shpould read schintific books, instead of pop-nationalsm propaganda. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────BoogaLouie, NOVOROSS insists that Holodomor was “part of general famine in USSR in 1932-33”. I and other editors provided arguments opposite his POV. To prove his POV, NOVOROSS has found one sentence in the monograph published by prof. Kulchitskiy, who is distinguished professor in topic of Holodomor. Prof. Kulchitrskiy discussed the issue, whether the Holodomor can be considered in the context of general famine in USSR or not. In that sentence Kulchitskiy wrote about two Russian scientists and western scholars who consider Holodomor “…mainly in the context of general famine in USSR”. However, the summary of this work showed completely opposite figure: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine'. I must admit that summary is based on the ALL findings of prof. Kulchitskiy, not just a few Russians and some western scholars. I and some other editors have pointed this out several times to NOVOROSS. Moreover, I have provided another RS, which is review article (diff.) published in peer-review journal where Holodomor was not showed in connection to other famines in USSR. --Andrux (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I can attest to the veracity of Andrux's reading of the article in its entirety, BoogaLouie. HOBOPOCC has indulged in serious cherry picking (and careful redaction of the excerpt taken in itself) in order to assert RS 'proof' of that which suits his/her POV interpretation. What has been derived by HOBOPOCC in taking the allusion out of context runs contrary to the position actually taken in this highly comprehensive article. The two Russian academics are mentioned in passing as being representative of a reticence to analyse the facts properly or acknowledge Holodomor as genocide. Given the context, HOBOPOCC has misrepresented how and why they were mentioned (as are the Sovietologists and russists who posit the idea of Holodomor as being part of the general Soviet famine). In no manner, shape or form can the appearance of their names be construed to be an acknowledgement of their being deigned to be scholars of any standing or merit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If you can't be civil then my prophecy is going to come true. Stop making things up, nobody said anything negative about Kulchitsky, you're using him as a source in bad faith at this point and ignoring all points made to your argument. --Львівське (говорити) 19:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Bad Faith note: In your quote above, you conveniently redacted after "Ukraine, which suffered the most" - here is what the rest of the text says:
the peasantry was particularly hit by the Great Famine and millions of individual farmers and members of their families died of hunger following forced “collectivisation”, a ban on departures from the affected areas and confiscation of grain and other food. These tragic events are referred to as Holodomor (politically-motivated famine) and are recognised by Ukrainian law as an act of genocide against Ukrainians.
You can't cherry pick quotes and take out things that hurt your own argument. What the rest of the statement says about Russia and Kazakhstan clearly demonstrates different reasons for death, with Ukraine they gave a list of what set it apart. Don't play innocent and pull stunts like this. --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think a good way to resolve this without sources and just logic, is that the Soviet famine on the whole included the Ukrainian famine in that they were concurrent, but the Holodomor was not part of the general Soviet famine. This is similar to how the Eastern Front of WW2 included the Holocaust, but Jews were not simply a casualty of war. Similarly, Soviet historiography (with no irony) also treats the Holocaust as a non-unique event that was simply a byproduct of the 'Great Patriotic War' on the whole. This, of course, would be treated as Holocaust denial and fringe theory by most.--Львівське (говорити) 19:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Lvivske, but your stories, which are product of your personal imagination, are not valid in this project. You should refer to RS. So far you can't provide any RS, proving your POV. I provided already two conclusions (one of leading historian of Holodomor and one of highest European institution) that famine in Ukraine was in context of all Soviet-Union famine. Can anybody provide any valid objections (proved by RS) to this statement?HOBOPOCC (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It was said above, that your opinion divide with Kulchitsky's opinion, which said: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. and Kondrashyn's opinion, which said that in the West and in Ukraine consider the Holodomor as an exclusively Ukrainian phenomenon. Geohem (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
the onus isn't on me to provide sources, it's on you, hobopocc. so far, you've falsified two sources, so who is actually just using their imagination here?--Львівське (говорити) 15:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You wrote: «you've falsified two sources» — how can you wrote such thing? I posted complete and full citation. The way you act is not fair way. You can't ignore documents I quoted, so you decided to put your criticism on me, saying that I «falsified» quoted documents! Unbelivable! For bouth RS I provided URLs. How can you say that I «falsified» them? Everybody can check by it's own that I quoted same text, as in original documents. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps говорити just disagrees with your interpretation of the sources, rather than the actual text, in which case the word «falsified» would be too strong. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

RSes, proving that Ukrainian famine was part of pan-Soviet famine

Well, my dear oponents, you are pretending you do not understand what RS are writting. OK, I'm arranging this section, where I would simply accumulate all RS of the high ranked historians, stating that famine in Ukraine was part of general famine in Soviet Union of 1932-1933. Sooner or later neutral (not-nationalists) editors would pay attention to this list and would say: «hey, stop making sence, it was a part of all-Soviet-Union famiune!». So, here we go:

  1. (N. B. This RS should be treated as tertiary source, as author making review on historiography of Holodomor) Author: historian Stanislav Kulchitsky ...В. Данилов и И. Зеленин опубликовали в журнале «Отечественная история» (2004, № 5) программную статью «Организованный голод. К 70-летию общекрестьянской трагедии». В ней остро осуждалась хлебозаготовительная политика Кремля, которая стала причиной рукотворного голода во многих регионах СССР. Однако историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного... Translation into English of his essential: «...historians (of Russian school — Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet famine... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-Soviet-Union famine...» Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5
  2. European Union. Parlamentary Assambley. Resolution 1723 (2010 year) Commemorating the victims of the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR: One of the most tragic pages in the history of the peoples of the former Soviet Union was the mass famine in grain-growing areas of the country which started in the late 1920s and culminated in 1932-33. Millions of innocent people in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, which were parts of the Soviet Union, lost their lives as a result of mass starvation caused by the cruel and deliberate actions and policies of the Soviet regime. In Ukraine, which suffered the most,...these events may have had particularities in various regions, the results were the same everywhere: millions of human lives were mercilessly sacrificed to the fulfilment of the policies and plans of the Stalinist regime.
  3. Author: historian Kirill Alexandrov, whos professional interest is anty-communism struggle in Soviet Union in XX century: 80 лет назад в Советском Союзе умерли миллионы людей...Численность населения СССР упала с отметки в 162 902 тыс. человек (на 1 января 1933-го) до 156 797 тыс. (на 1 января 1934-го). Число жертв Голодомора оценивается примерно в 6—6,5 млн человек. Из них около 4 млн погибли в Украине...Сегодня наиболее популярны две точки зрения на причины трагедии 1933 года. Первая — мор не имел искусственного происхождения, а стал результатом совокупности отрицательных факторов: неблагоприятных климатических условий, слабой урожайности и проблем в связи с форсированной индустриализацией в годы первой пятилетки. Вторая — массовый мор был репрессивной акцией русских коммунистов против свободолюбивых украинцев. Оба тезиса ошибочны...Зимой 1933 г. на Дону, Кубани, Украине, в Поволжье, Казахской АССР и в некоторых других регионах СССР начался повальный мор. Без войн и стихийных бедствий в стране голодали 25—30 млн человек. 22 января 1933 г. Сталин подписал директиву ЦК, запрещавшую выезд населения из районов, пораженных голодом...Голодомор 1933 г. был беспрецедентным преступлением, совершенным не по национальному, а по социальному признаку. Translation into English: «Million people died 80 years ago in the Soviet Union... Population of the USSR dropped down from 162 902 thousand people (for January 1st of the 1933-rd) to 156 797 thousand (for January 1st of the 1934-th). The number of victims of the Holodomor is estimated approximately at 6 — 6,5 million people. From them about 4 million were lost in Ukraine... There are two points of view on causes of the tragedy of 1933 are most popular today. The first one: the famine had no artificial origin, and became result of set of natural negative factors: negative climatic conditions, weak productivity and problems in connection with the forced industrialization in days of the first five-years period. The second one — the famine was a repressive action of the Russian communists against freedom-loving Ukrainians. Both points of view are wrong...In the winter of 1933 on Don, Kuban, Ukraine, in the Volga region, Kazakh SSR and in some other regions of the USSR began a general famine. About 25 — 30 million people starved hunger without war or natural disaster. January 22, 1933. Stalin signed the directive of the Central Committee forbidding departure of the population from areas, struck with famine... Famine-Genocide of 1933 was the unprecedented crime made not on national, and on a social sign «Голодные сытым не товарищи», Novaya gazeta publishing, 2013-08-14
  4. (N. B. This RS should be treated as tertiary source, as author making review on historiography of Holodomor) Author: historian Victor Kondrashin, one of the leading Russian historian of russian village in XX century: ...суть подхода российских и зарубежных ученых, не поддерживающих концепцию "геноцида голодомором" Украины, к проблеме голода 1932-1933 годов в CCCP: 1. Данный голод - результат антикрестьянской политики сталинского режима в годы первой пятилетки, ее просчетов и антигуманных, преступных мер по отношению к крестьянству, приведших к развалу сельского хозяйства страны и голоду. 2. Голод никто не планировал заранее, но им воспользовался сталинский режим, чтобы заставить крестьян работать в колхозах и утвердить избранный им политический курс. 3. Голод имел региональные особенности, определившие его масштабы и последствия. Прежде всего, он ударил по зонам сплошной коллективизации, где власть столкнулась с активным крестьянским сопротивлением хлебозаготовкам и угрозой окончательного развала сельского хозяйства. 4. Голод не выбирал народы. Геноцида отдельно взятого украинского народа не было, была общая трагедия украинцев, русских и других народов нашей страны по вине тогдашнего руководства СССР. Голод 1932 - 1933 годов - трагедия всей советской деревни... Translation into English: «...essence of approach of the Russian and foreign scholars, who does not support the theory of genocide-famine-against-Ukrainian-nation, towards famine in Soviet Union are: 1. This famine is result of anti-peasant's policy of a Stalin's regime in days of the first five-year plan, it's miscalculations and anti-humane, criminal measures in relation to the peasantry, resulted in deterioration of agricaltural sector of the country and famine. 2. Famine was not planned in advance but Stalin regime indeed used happened famine in order to force peasants to work in collective farms and to approve the political policy chosen. 3. Famine had it's regional variations, which have defined it scales and consequences. First of all, it struck on zones of massive collectivization, where the power faced the active country resistance to grain-collections and threat of final disorder of agriculturral sector. 4. Famine hasn't chosen the nations and it was not genocide of specialy chosen Ukrainian nation. There was the general tragedy of Ukrainians, Russians and other people of our country because of the policy chosen by leaders of the USSR of that time. Famine of 1932 - 1933 - the tragedy of all Soviet village...» «Was famine in Ukraine of 1932-1933 genocide of Ukrainian nation? Answer to professor Stanislav Kul'chitsky» 2008
  5. (N. B. This RS should be treated as tertiary source, as author making review on historiography of Holodomor) Author: David R. Marples, Professor History at the University of Alberta: The article discusses recent historiography on the Ukrainian famine of 1933, arguing that whereas there is today a consensus in Ukraine that it constituted an act of genocide by Stalin's government against Ukrainians, no such agreement exists in the West. Further, Western works, while they may offer valuable insights and their conclusions notwithstanding, have tended to neglect the national issue altogether. Ethnic Issues in the Famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine. 09 Apr 2009
  6. Author: one of the leading Ukrainian historian ever Petr Tolochko: Не было точечного геноцида, касающегося именно украинцев. В то время одновременно голодало Поволжье, голодали Дон, Северный Кавказ... Голодали все. Был неурожай. Говорят, в Украине умерло больше, чем в других регионах. Охотно допускаю. Но почему это случилось?... почему из Украины выгребли хлеба больше, чем из других регионов? Из Кремля ведь не видно, где мужик прикопал мешок с хлебом. Свои же показывали, свои же вытрушивали. Проявляли чрезмерное усердие, выслуживались, старались, угождали, предавали. Translation into English: «There was not any genocide focused to Ukrainian nation. At the same time the Volga region starved, Don, the North Caucasus starved... Starved all. There was a crop failure. They say that Ukrainians died at more scale, than in other regions. But why it happened so?... Why they took bread from Ukraine in bigger quantity, than from other regions? After all, it was not visible to them, sitting in Kremlin, where Ukrainian peasant hid a bag with his bread. It was nobody, but locals, who pointed the hidden bag and took it away. It was locals who showed excessive diligence, toadied, tried, pleased, betrayed.» Interview of Petr Tolochko to «Bulvar Gordona» newspaper. № 10 (46) 2006
  7. (N. B. This RS should be treated as tertiary source, as author making review on historiography of Holodomor) Author: Bohdan Klid -- assistant director of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) at the University of Alberta. His article dedicated to genocide-aspect of Holodomor. A am not arguing on this point now (bellow Lvivske, violating AGF, giving his vision of my «hidden intentions» - [10] — but I want to asure all concerned that he was wrong), but he gives brief review of historiography of the famine: ...lack of consensus among scholars (on genocide issue). There is general agreement among scholars that the Holodomor resulted from the actions of Soviet authorities and was thus man-made and avoidable. However, some scholars... have argued that the charge of genocide in Ukraine cannot be substantiated because famine occurred at the same time in other republics of the Soviet Union... — so, even pure genocide-supporter Bohdan Klid mentioning like fact (but not somebody's opinion) that famine in 1932 occured in different areas of USSR, not only Ukraine.
  8. Author — it:Andrea Graziosi. Prominent italian sovietologist, who recently published an article "The Soviet 1931–1933 Famines and the Ukrainian Holodomor: Is a New Interpretation Possible, and What Would Its Consequences Be?". Harvard Ukrainian Studies 27 (1–4): 97–115, text of wich is not available for me in English, but in Russian only: [11]. This historian suggested new conception, briefly described as theory, that it goes without saying, that during 1931—1933 pan-Soviet famine took place in the Soviet Union "on the upper lever", at the same time and by same main reasons, some "local famines" happened in some selected areas of the Soviet Union and in every area famines had their local peculiarities. I do not want to make translation from Russian into English myself, as there is original English text — so, my translation definatly would be worse and differ to professional one, but I'm giving to you here some Russian texts by Andrea Graziosi: В 1931—1933 годах сотни тысяч человек умерли от голода на всей территории Советского Союза. Однако в некоторых его областях, а именно в Казахстане и на Украине, на Северном Кавказе и в Нижнем и Среднем Поволжье положение было несравненно более тяжелым. Все эти районы, за исключением Казахстана, принадлежали к числу самых значительных производителей зерна...Причины голода повсюду (опять-таки за исключением Казахстана) были сходными: губительное воздействие — ив человеческом, и в производственном плане — раскулачивания, которое превратилось в настоящий разгром крестьянской элиты государством; насильственная коллективизация, заставившая крестьян уничтожить большую часть их имущества, плохая организация и нищета колхозов; безжалостные и непрекращающиеся реквизиции, связанные с неудачами индустриализации, стихийной урбанизацией и ростом внешнего долга, остановить который можно было только с помощью экспорта сырья; сопротивление крестьян, которые не желали мириться с тем, что очень скоро получило у них название «нового крепостного права», и работали все меньше и меньше, отчасти из-за неприятия новой власти, а отчасти из-за физического истощения, вызванного недоеданием; плохие погодные условия 1932 года... Между тем интенсивность, быстрота распространения и последствия голода, о которых мы можем судить по новонайденным документам и недавним исследованиям, вне всякого сомнения были различны в разных регионах и республиках, и различия эти очень значительны. I do realize that my oponents doing their best to denay any arguments of mine. But I've found «independent expert» on citated articale of Graziosi. Please have a look at an article of some student Taylor Schmidt of Oklahoma University: The historian Andrea Graziosi... pointing out that the famine was “pan-Soviet” and affected several regions, Graziosi claims that the famine particularly hurt the Ukrainians. Some remark: please remember, that you should not argue with me, you should not argue with Taylor Schmidt of Oklahoma University, who's article I just used as an illustration, but if you do not agree that "famine was “pan-Soviet”" should argue with Graziosi. And again: fact that famine in Ukraine was part of pan-Soviet famine doesn't have anything common with denial of genocide (it's absolutely another story) or does not denay facts that famine in each area has it's own peculiarities and that Ukraine suffered the most.
  9. Joint Statement on the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Holodomor) ( November 2003) by the United Nations was quite straight in regards to the fact that famine happened not only in Ukraine and not only Ukrainians who were starved till death exactly at that time: 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;
  10. Authors V. Danilov, R. Manning, L. Viola. 2001 © Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001 © The Federal Archival Service of Russia, 2001 © Boston College (USA), 2001 © University of Toronto (Canada), 2001 © ROSSPEN, 2001: THE TRAGEDY OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. Collectivization and Dekulakization. Culmination of the peasant's tragedy... Year 1933, in any case it's first half, was, perhaps, the most dramatic year in the history of Stalin's "revolutions from above". The main part of published documents directly or indirectly are connected with unprecedented in the history of the former USSR famine which was the all-country tragedy on it's scales and consequences, peak of which fell on winter and spring of 1933... (page 40)

HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC) UPD HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) HOBOPOCC (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC) HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC) HOBOPOCC (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC) HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Marples - you're not using Marples as a source, just the summary of the journal article without actually reading the article, much less providing a direct quote, citation, or even page number.--Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The source for the statement above, Victor Kondrashin, is also a politician - a member of the regional parliament of Putin's United Russia Party. I'd view his credentials carefully.Faustian (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 Comment: Typical ad hominem comment. HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
For the benefit of other editors, and for documenting the discussion on the talk page, the remainder of the abstract redacted by HOBOPOCC reads as such:
"... The article demonstrates that national questions remained uppermost in the discussions of party officials about the failure of the 1932 harvest in Ukraine and argues that a more definitive study of the famine would be enhanced by discussion of the disparate views and further use of archival evidence." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, I would like to know how HOBOPOCC distinguishes between RS's he considers should be "treated as tertiary sources". Marples is one of many (including Bilinsky) whose work in available through "Taylor & Francis Online". Please explain. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, HOBOPOCC. I strongly support your position based on serious sources and it was already supported by other editors, such as Cwmacdougall. Until the counter party can disprove it, instead of limiting itself on simple and empty phrases of protest, I strongly advocate the integration of the information into the article that Holodomor was part of a broader Soviet-wide famine.--Shervinsky (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
So you're strongly supporting disregarding consensus? For the record, Holodomor denial is covered in the article and the scholarly debate is covered in the 3rd paragraph of the introduction, to present the fringe Russian view as absolute fact is irresponsible in poor Encyclopedic taste.--Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As about question of Iryna Harpy posted at 06:02, 10 December 2013 — I want to pay her attention, that I answered similar questions on this page couple of times already in the past. When scholar is writting about some issue he is dealing with, he acts as a «secondary source». But when same scholar if giving review on historiography of the subject — he acts in such case as «tertiary source» — «As tertiary sources, encyclopedias and textbooks attempt to summarize and consolidate the source materials into an overview». Articles of wikipedia should be created based on secondary sources, as a rule, this for sure and no doubts. But in our case we are discussing the lead of the article, and leads, which are aiming to give the most summarized and general consensus information in view of majority of scholars, should be written using mainly tertiary sources. So, leads should contain «mainstreams» in historiography of the subject. All details, peculiarities and alternative theories may be given in the wiki-article's body, as per weights of each of such alternative theories. Do you understand now? Please let me know if you still have any questions. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? I have asked you how it is that you've determined certain 'tertiary sources' to be over and above other 'tertiary sources'. Everything you have offered has been based on the most flimsy pretexts and reconstructions of the same material you have been offering throughout. Your sources have been read through and understood to be what they are: cherry picked, redacted constructs which are not actually supported by the source itself when it is read in its entirety. Presenting them anew does not suddenly make them credible, nor do they suddenly transmogrify into irrefutable tertiary sources because you've presented a ridiculous interpretation. Everything you have proposed is, essentially, a misrepresentation. I am getting fed up with having to waste ridiculous amounts of time in checking your "RSes, proving that Ukrainian famine was part of general famine in the Soviet Union". I am also getting extremely irate at having to repeat trojan, cherry picking, bad synthesis, bad everything. To add to that, your English is infuriatingly weak and it is difficult to establish what you are arguing. I shouldn't need to read what you've written several times in order to understand what you are attempting to convey. I have serious misgivings as to whether your capacity to understand English is causing you to misunderstand criticisms of your proposals. I have given up on trying to extract you 'the user' from you 'the content' because they have long been indistinguishable. Bang on as many doors as you wish and continue to demand justice for yourself. Your attempts at discussion are a parody of scholarship on any level. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
So far I can't find on this page any «other 'tertiary sources'» you mentioned, so it's impossible to compare who's «tertiary sources» are «above» and who's are «under», sorry. As about your style in this discussion and continues personal attacks on me — they are visible to everybody and would be valuated by admins sooner or later. HOBOPOCC (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
There are several native speakers, who assume that your level of English is poor, which is not a personal attack. Editor at En-Wiki can not clearly understand your messages, and I am also have some difficulties to interpret correctly your grammar constructions...--Andrux (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I for one would like to personally thank you for teaching us what tertiary sources are and how to use them. Does this make you a quaternary source? Can we cite you? :) --Львівське (говорити) 15:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The issues with the Kulchytsky and EU statement have already been discussed here. Reread my comments about these sources above. In regard to the EU statement, you just repeated the same quote with crucially important parts redacted, which makes the paraphrased quote in of itself useless. Alexandrov advocates a third position - that it was not repressive and not natural, but then says a 'general famine' started in several areas of the USSR, and then points out the I have no clue what he's rambling about here, but it doesn't seem to apply to this discussion.--Львівське (говорити) 20:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    Im ignoring your posts now and I shall ignore them in future at list till the moment you stop pretending you do not understand what it's written in RSes. In case if you do not pretend you do not understand what it' s written in RSes, but really can't understand them, so it's even stronger reason not to discuss with you anything. Let's RSes talk, not anonymous editors of wikipedia. HOBOPOCC (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
You can ignore my posts all you want, but you don't decide consensus and policy. :) --Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

All answer to you question, concerning what well known historians have to said about the famine in Ukraine is written here and here

And if you unsderstand it well, ther was not ONE famine but MANY differents famines, and the worst was in Ukraine ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  • thanks for the links! Please provide citation from linked book that «her was not ONE famine but MANY differents famines». Maybe it is simply your own false interpretation of author's story. Besides, it' absolutely clear that in every area famine has it's local peculiarities. But it's also clear, that famine in USSR, even happened in different areas, has same reasons and happened at same time, i. e. famine in Ukraine, in Kazakhstan, Volga delta and Belorussia - is one big famine, happened by policy of soviet regime, even in Ukraine famine took hardest «human harvest», and this, and, perhaps, some local differences, MAYBE makes Ukrainian famine unique, but nevertheless this very unique famine is anyhow just a part of famine, which happened that year in many different areas of Soviet Union.HOBOPOCC (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I can provide such citation. Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence says: "Famines in the Ukraine were different from other famines occurring in the Soviet Union between 1931 and 1933".--Andrux (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
who is author? Nicolas Werth? yes, he is very respectful scholar and this is his personal opinion. Need to admit, that at this point his opinion is different to mainstream, as I pointed out before. Besides, we can write in the wiki-article something like this: «Holodomor in Ukraine was part of general Soviet famine of 1932-1932, even it has some local signes which make it differ and unique comparing to other areas of hunger». HOBOPOCC (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
At this point you're just playing WP:IDONTLIKEIT and pretending your fringe view is mainstream, and mainstream is "just someones opinion". The train has come off the tracks.--Львівське (говорити) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
"Personal opinion", really? Or maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Such "personal opinion" was published at Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, which is definitely reliable source. I disagree with the sentence you suggested, since it is not supported by reliable references.--Andrux (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────HOBOPOCC, I fail to see where you have brought anything new and of substance to the table. I could find countless resources for any contentious issue (Intelligent Design, conspiracy theories, et al) based on WP:FRINGE: by no means does it make it any the less fringe, just a lot more of it. Incidentally, you should tread talk pages with a little more care. Creating a section on a talk page asserting that you have absolute proof of the non-existence of Holodomor is not appreciated.

Shervinsky, this is not to be turned into a game of tag-team editing. Your 'support' of HOBOPOCC's incredible revelations backed by 'scientific' research is nothing short of transparent posturing as to the validity of the content. Please remember that you have already been warned off editing or involving yourself in this area of European history. Unless you have something constructive to add to the discussion, encouraging disruptive editing is something you should not engage in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a needlessly long and tedious discussion. Hoboross, I don't think you are serving your cause well by your style of argument, which I think is counter-productive to your viewpoint. I think there is a clear consensus that the famine or famines were man-made and spread across the Soviet Union. The disagreement is over whether the famine in Ukraine had sufficiently different characteristics from other Soviet famines to treat it as a separate event (I remain sceptical). I would suggest a long pause, and then a new section to concentrate on positive well sourced discussion of that issue. cwmacdougall 0:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the best course of action would be to first show what he wants to change in the article itself. Previously it was just stating flat out that it's part of the general Soviet famine, but his arguments have been more along "see, there's a dispute" - but the scholarly dispute is covered already. He needs to be more clear about what he's trying to prove, what he wants to change in the article specifically, his proposed change - and then work backwards and provide sources to back up his proposals to gain the consensus he desires.--Львівське (говорити) 01:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Given the name of this section, I believe HOBOPOCC has already made his/her position clear. In terms of an overview, the content changes he/she wishes to introduce are cherry picked excerpts redacted, interpreted for us (as if we are unable to draw our own conclusions from the excepts cited by reading them in context and in their entirety) and shoehorned in to support a POV rewrite of the article, full stop. I may be a simpleton but, "RSes, proving that Ukrainian famine was part of general famine in the Soviet Union" seems self-explanatory. My interpretation is that HOBOPOCC was not trying to find consensus for a few additional sources, but was trying to introduce a trojan or two. Having failed on that level, he/she appears to be jumping straight in with a coatrack on which to hang an entirely new article. Nevertheless, I would be prepared to evaluate a well structured proposal to be backed up by appropriate research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I think your WP:TROJAN assessment is spot on. His plan, I believe, would be to show good sources saying in bare minimum that Ukraine suffeed from the Soviet-wide famine, which it did - and ignore all content about its unique nature. Then after establishing it was part of the Soviet famine, the goal would be to show that everyone accepts the Soviet famine happened, but the 'genocide' thing is just a POV theory in the west. Honestly, his condescending attitude, view that everyone is his opponent, lack of ability to communicate in basic English, and refusal to work towards consensus (i.e. he's "ignoring" me) says enough about what's going on here. I fear now that his next step will be to give up on getting consensus, and just start WP:CITEKILLing fringe Russian-language sources out of context to say, "omg they're deleting my RSs without providing proper reasoning!", he's already made up the "they ignored me for 48hrs so I can force it in now" rule...--Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Reference 5 does not support the idea of one common famine at all. Author is discussing the ethnical and national issues related to Holodomor. WP:CITEKILLing does not really work. --Andrux (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This is all I see now. lol --Львівське (говорити) 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
How remarkably accurate! And here was I simply seeing more attempts at pulling a rabbit out of a hat a la HOBOPOHOCC. In general, however, I'm seeing yet more non-content from someone who is wasting inordinate amounts of time and energy which Wikipedians who actually contribute constructively on all manner of subject matter would rather dedicate to developing and maintaining verifiable, reliably sourced articles. This has become disruptive behaviour at its most irritating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Reference 6 (an interview of Tolochko) does not correspond to Wiki requirements for reliable sources.--Andrux (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Not only that, but he seems to be a historian of ancient Rus', not of Soviet era history; so that in of itself makes him not the best authority - much less the "leading Ukrainian historian ever", as per Hobopocc. In the interview, he says "I never said that I do not recognize the existence of the Ukrainian people. But I do not recognize still a single political Ukrainian nation. Not a nation" and goes into some rhetoric on Galicians. I don't think I need to elaborate more on his political leanings...--Львівське (говорити) 22:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Lvivske, that reference 6 is published in "Bulvar", which is Tabloid . Not really convincing source...I would not be surprised if we get here an article from yellow press as a source "7" :))--Andrux (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Definately, to use schientific monographs as an RS - this is the best! No doubts. But in Petr Tolochko case it really doesn't matter at which platform he posted his vision of the issue - he is a scholar of such dominance, that can afford himself to give interview even to tabloids - and only because of fact that it's a tabloid - his opinion would not weight less. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
But it does matter for Wikipedia, and this case looks as a WP:OR.--Andrux (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but OR has nothing to do in this case. Historian and academician of NANU is RS, not depending at which platform he posted his valuable opinion on the subject, which he is an expert. HOBOPOCC (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I strongly suggest to Hobopocc to read "Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939" from Terry Martin, who is one of the first to introduce the national interpretation of the famine in Ukraine (With in some way, J Maces), and his work has been used by many historians to help them in their interpration and works on the famine in Ukraine (N Werth (Encyclopedi of Mass Violence), A Graziosi (Letter from Kharkov), and so on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, I'll try to find this book. However I do not think that upon reading it I would change my mind, as I know the issue quite well. I do belive that tragedy of famine was all soviet-tragedy, but not only Ukrainian one, even that Ukraine suffered one of the upper grade - but not even the highest - Kazakh nation suffered the higest, - that communists were trying to destroy private owners - farmers, but not ukrainian people. And I do know that famine had it's own scarring peculiarities in every separate geographic areas. But all that can not reject simple fact in my point of view: Ukrainian Holodomor took place in context of Pan-Soviet famine of 1932-1933.HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • re: Bohdan Klid - First, your comment is "However, some scholars... have argued that the charge of genocide in Ukraine cannot be substantiated because famine occurred at the same time in other republics of the Soviet Union...", however, your argument is that the Ukrainian famine was part of the Soviet-wide famine. We aren't talking about the genocide question, and "famines happened in the USSR at the same time" is not the same thing as "the holodomor was a part of a those famines too"; and "some scholars have argued" is not the same as "the ones arguing are absolutely right" (he goes on to say they are wrong). Further, from your own source, he points out "The mobility of Ukraine’s peasants was blocked through the January 22, 1933 decree depriving them of possible access to food in other regions of the Soviet Union" - there was food in the Soviet Union, and Ukrainians could not enter the Soviet Union, making the Ukrainian situation literally isolated from whatever pan-Soviet famine occurred in other republics.--Львівське (говорити) 09:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    Are you simply pretending you do not understand what's written in quoted RS? Why did you give as prove of your point of view some absolutely not connected to our dispute question if peasants were able to escape from famine areas or not? then you are making some conclusions, which are wrong. But I'm not willing to go deep into this discussion, as it out of range of it. And what Bogdan Klid is thinking himself - it doesn't matter now, because he is thinking on genocide, which we are not discussing now. We are discussing fact, which you deny - fact that Ukrainian famine happened by same reasons and at same time as famine in all grain areas of USSR. And this is fact, which is confirmed by all scholars. Scholars are discussing if Ukrainian famine was differ in it's continuation and outcome, but nobody can disagree that at the same time pan-Soviet famine happened. HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what you're even arguing. Okay, just so we're clear you are arguing for the fact and for the Wiki article to reflect this notion that the "Ukrainian famine happened by same reasons and at same time as famine in all grain areas of USSR - and all scholars agree on this". Right?
On that premise, you cite a source who leads off his discussion with "Controversy can also occur because of a lack of consensus among scholars." He then cites Graziosi, and says "in assessing the issue one must take into account the extremely high mortality rate in Ukraine—triple the mortality rate in Russia. This was caused by the additional measures taken by Soviet authorities that intensified the famine in Ukraine". So the famine happened for the same reasons in Ukraine as in Russia? Similarly, the EU Parliament resolution you cited above also states in Ukraine those "died of hunger following forced “collectivisation”, a ban on departures from the affected areas and confiscation of grain and other food" but "in the grain-producing areas of Russia, the famine caused by “collectivisation” and dispossession of individual farmers" So as a recount, that's collectivization + ban on departures + confiscation of ALL food, vs. Russian collectivization and dispossession.
You are either entirely oblivious, or intentionally ignoring your own sources.--Львівське (говорити) 15:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Again you are trying to lead our discussion to wrong path. Explanation of Graziosi is about another issue - it's about discussion if famine in Ukraine was genocide or not. Graziosi thinks that the answer is «yes» because so and so... But same Andrea Graziosi in his quoted article confirmed and declared, (and that would be my following citation in my list) that both scholarship approaches are correct — scholarship of one general pan-Soviet famine and scholarship of unique Ukrainian famine. but now I can't stop explaining you, how Graziosi is wrong in his «mortality rate» comparation! I even can't understand, how such respectful historian can make such primitive mistakes! The actual reason of differences in mortality rate in Ukraine and Russia was that famine happened in all territory of Ukraine, as Ukraine in all it's territory is «grain area» , but famine on territory of Russian Federation happened also only in «grain areas», but only some small part of Russia is «grain area». But statistics, which Graziosi used was statistics taken from «all over»! You may blame on me now, that I'm making OR, but it's so easy for understanding. Besides, conclusions of Graziosi at this point were criticized already by Russian scholars. They argued with his figures of mortality rate, providing another figures, showed that in Povolzhie (actual area of Russia, which suffered from famine) rate of mortality was not less and even may be higher, then in Ukraine. Same story about «the ban on departure from affected areas» - first of all - it's very correct statement by it's nature - please pay attention - ban was in force for departure from affected areas, but not from territory of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic - the military-man units were controlling railways and roads not permitting peasants ENTERING CITIES AND TOWNS - and secondly - I wonder if you really don't know or just pretending that you do not that - same ban on departure was in force in all other famine areas! To be honest, it was first implemented in Ukraine something around February 1933 (I may be mistaken in exact date) and in couple of weeks expanded to all other famine areas! That's about it. HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Not only do you think you know more than historians, but you think they make 'primitive mistakes'? Show some lack for the scholarship, it's what we base articles on. They discussed mortality RATES, not net losses. You again don't seem to understand the source material well enough to product a proper argument. Finally, you contradicted yourself again. If you agree that "both scholarship approaches are correct — scholarship of one general pan-Soviet famine and scholarship of unique Ukrainian famine" then you agree there should be separate articles for Holodomor and Soviet famine of 1932–33. So what exactly is the point of this other than to push your POV --Львівське (говорити) 15:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that it's you who do not make difference between "rate"/"losses". Definately, I do pay everybody's attention to mistake of Graziosi — he took average rate of mortality in Russian Federation and Ukrainian SSR — and mistake of such statistics is that all Ukraine was covered by famine, but not all Russian Federation was covered by famine, so average picture for Russian Federation would be better — in some areas of it rate of mortality was very high (same as in Ukraine), but in some — normal, thus if you would take an average (arithmetic mean) — it would look better for Russian Federation. Comparing in such condition average rate of mortality in this two republics of USSR would bring you to the wrong conclusion. HOBOPOCC (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Just to inform Mr HOBOPOCC , who is Nicolas Werth : his biographie and his writings . And as you can notice, Mr Werth has published some books with notable russian historian, who have worked on russian archive, S.Mironenko, V.P.Danilov, A.Berelowitch, V.Vinogradov, L.Dvoïnykh, A.Berelowitch. And for your information, Nicolas Werth's "opinion", as you said, is shared by many historian, as Mr Andrea Graziosi, Mr Stephane Courtois, Mr Roman Serbyn, Mr Stanislas Kultchytsky, Mr Jan Jacek Bruski, Mr Andryi Portnov, and other (not to forget Norman Naimark, Thymity Snyder). All ther analyses are base on newwly published materials, which are letters from Stalin, and OGPU - NKVD archives. They all presentes the fear to lose Ukraine, and the action to take to fight the supposed nationalist counter revolution : all the political action are tekn in thie way.
An to your information, what has happenned in Khazakstan has nothing to do with wha has happened in Ukraine. : As elsewhere in the USSR, forced collectivization and "Dekulakization" since 1930 had brought about great upheaval in Kazakhstan where moreover a vast plan of sedentarization was underway. In this cattle rearing and transhumance region, the creation of kolkhozes and sovkhozes was indeed supposed to force nomad and semi-nomad stockbreeders to settle. Measures were taken to guide Kazakh economy from a "natural economy" to a "socialist economy." The development of a cereal-based agriculture was intended to break down clannish structures that, according to the communists in charge, maintained "Kazakh masses" in a state of oppression. Achieving a record of forced collectivization and forced sedentarization as well as tripling mandatory meat deliveries led to a strong decrease in livestock. At the end of the 1920’s, the largest livestock count in the entire USSR was in Kazakhstan. An 85% reduction over three years (1929-1931) resulted in great impoverishment of the Kazakh population. . and no letter from Stalin about some ukrainian nationalist there.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing the last RfC and closing off the repackaging of the same in the sub-header discussion

Proposal 1: Closing the RfC

The RfC was simply a rehashing of the same arguments postulated in earlier RfC's and was greeted with agreement that all arguments were null and void. As this RfC brought in neutral parties who were unconvinced by HOBOPOCC's arguments, it should be noted as having been rejected unanimously.

Proposal 2: Closing off the discussion 'proving' Holodomor was part of a pan-Soviet famine

I propose that this section be closed off and HOBOPOCC be discouraged from continuing his one man war for the following reasons:

  • Repacking a rejected RfC as a tertiary source content debate and simply recycling the same material offered in the RfC (and continuously adding more purportedly irrefutable sources to keep the argument going) can only be perceived as being bad faith attempts to get your own way.
  • Misrepresentation of the substance of sources (both appropriate and inappropriate) and insisting that you are the only one who fully understands the material is unabashed arrogance and more argument for the sake of getting your own way. We are all capable of reading and analysing the material for ourselves and drawing our own conclusions.
  • Forcing other editors to jump at shadows every time you present yet another piece of 'proof' is a waste of valuable editing time for those of us who don't have single purpose accounts. Having to wade through your sources and analyse them diligently is bad faith editing as you are tying up our precious time. Solid counter-arguments have been presented for each of your proposed sources.
  • This is not a blog or forum and the article's talk page is not to be used as such (please read the instructions at the top of the page!). You have summarised your own reason for being here in your forum-like comment, "... I'll try to find this book. However I do not think that upon reading it I would change my mind, as I know the issue quite well." (Sic) We are not here to debate the issue endlessly, nor to convince you that we are right and you are wrong. Neither your personal opinions or our personal opinions are relevant to the content of the article. We are not here to capitulate to your every whim. You are constantly presenting more nonsense and it has become irrelevant whether this is a reflection of bad faith or your own inability to interpret resources available.

Finally, I would also propose that HOBOPOCC desist from posting here ad nauseum for the purpose of wasting our time with more of the same spurious attempts to change the entire slant of the article. Having already sought recourse through an RfC and third party dispute resolution, he should be wary of crying wolf yet again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna Harpy. This discussion does not make any sense, since HOBOPOCC can not provide any reliably enough sources, but still continues his POV-pushing.--Andrux (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Though I am inclined to think that the Ukrainian famine was indeed part of the wider Soviet man-made famine, I agree that the current discussion has not been at all constructive. Let's close the RfC and revisit another day. cwmacdougall 9:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that that could be argued (that there is overlap from collectivization which caused a famine in the entire USSR), but his explicit phrasing of famine occurring for the exact same reasons in Kazakhstan and Russia as in Ukraine, falls squarely into the 'denial' WP:FRINGE category. Just as some say the famine is exaggerated by the Ukrainian state / western agencies for the purpose of state-building around a common 'victim' tragedy (like Israel and the Holocaust), post-Soviet "union building" is based around the idea that all of the USSR suffered in a common, equitable tragedy. Any RfC based around something like this is going to go nowhere productive. --Львівське (говорити) 15:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree to close this nonproductive discussion.Geohem (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • May be it's better to discuss and find a consensus about further development of the wiki-article? As you may see by RSes presented by me, there is a strong demand to add some information to the lead of the article that famine in Ukraine happened at the same time and by same main reasons as pan-Soviet famine. My proposition is to add following text: and a part of a general Soviet famine of 1932–33. Objections and/or corrections for such text? HOBOPOCC (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • As you may see by RSes presented by me, there is a strong demand to add some information -- Wikipedia doesn't work that way; the "strong demand" is solely by you and clearly lacks consensus, though you've tried very hard to achieve it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe, HOBOPOCC, it's better for you to try to understand what other editors are are growing weary of telling you. Every one of us has a personal opinion but agree that we are in the same position regarding the content of the article: at this stage it simply isn't possible to make absolute statements as to whether it was or wasn't part of the broader pan-Soviet famine. The fact that you're bent on trying to wear us down because you don't like it is getting you nowhere (other than in other editor's bad books). Ranting at people and calling them your 'opponents' does nothing to enhance a collaborative environment. Just try to stop being angry for a while and understand that Wikipedia articles are not a matter of life and death. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this matters, but in doing some research the other day I came across a site on radical groups in Ukraine, one being neo-cossacks, whose website is The first site describes them as "viciously anti-Ukrainian". If the the username is related to the politics of this side, it may explain the POV being pushed here. Again, not saying there is a connection, but in trying to figure out the motives behind this debacle of a debate, I found this red flag to be enlightening.--Львівське (говорити) 01:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that COI matters very much. As I pointed out in one of the many forums he's chosen to do battle in order to get his way (this being an extract from his own talk page, 2nd bullet point in one of his many attempts to have administrators block or reprimand me for my supposedly wicked, un-Wikipedian behaviour), his moniker is inappropriate and has only been tolerated thus far due to its implications not being recognisable in the English language. Even if he is not associated with this extremist group, his statement on his home (Russian) Wikipedia user page neutralises his mock-indignation at anyone reading anything into his username, "Я выбрал себе ник НОВОРОСС, потому что живу в Новороссии"/"I chose the moniker NEWRUSS(IA) for myself because I live in New Russia." According to one of his user boxes, he's from Odessa which, last time I checked, is in Ukraine. If they were to check the rest of his user boxes on the corresponding userpage, it takes absolutely no stretch of the imagination to get an indictingly solid insight into his political position, even sans a connection to the extremist group you've noted. By no means can he be understood as even being capable of being neutral.
Quoting myself on the matter, I stated, "Had I chosen a username such as DOWN-WITH-MUSKOVY or UNITED-UKRAINE4EVER and started working on sensitive Russian issues in what can only be interpreted as a bombastic manner, I doubt that any Russians or Russophiles (however neutral they are) would feel receptive to my changes or my engaging in relentless pushy, indiscreet activity on the talk page. The same would apply to working on Polish articles with a username of UPA-RULES, or Islamic articles with a username like CHRIST-SAVES." If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Yes, the policy of not attacking the contributor but the content is an excellent principle. While I wouldn't consider it to be desirable to exclude extremists from Wikipedia, separating their views and agenda from their content and manner in which they interact with others is nigh on impossible. Extremists, by nature of what they are, can only bring COI content and attitude into their areas of special interest. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop flooding the discussion page with personal attacks and things that have nothing to do with the topic of the article and the connection of Holodomor to the pan-Soviet famine. Your flooding and obscure attempts of personal characterization of users are a symptom of your lack of arguments on the issue. Concerning the discussion itself and the proposal to close it, I don't see any reason to do so. HOBOPOCC is the only serious and faithful participant here. --Shervinsky (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • According to whom, Shervinsky? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Shervinsky, to support ideas of Russian nationalist you must provide convincing references rather than your personal thoughts.--Andrux (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The lack of valid arguments from your side is already pretty telling. All you can do is to avoid factual discussion and to attack personally. I'm not a specialist on Holodomor sources, though it's obvious that it can't be separated from big famine that spread across the whole country. I can only judge by the behaviour on this page where HOBOPOCC tries to collect sources and the other side only produces flooding. --Shervinsky (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The Russian Neo-Nazi flag on his user page is a touch unsettling...--Львівське (говорити) 19:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You and Andrux do not have any other arguments, but personal attacks on me. I'm OK with it, I do not care. HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We've made many arguments and critiques of your bad sourcing, but as you said, you choose to ignore me. --Львівське (говорити) 21:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Continuing to flood this page with more unreliable sources and misinterpreted readings of sources will not gain you consensus. All you have established is your inability to analyse material in a reasonable and neutral manner. Your claims to be interested in changing the content to reflect 'truth' can only be read as being ingenuous. Badgering other editors working on this page, harassing administrators and other neutral parties to intervene on your behalf (plus refusing to listen to their advice), and refusing to step back merely demonstrates your fanaticism and inability to collaborate with anyone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've looked through edit history--it's been a while--and I don't see any contribution by HOBOPOCC which isn't a tired, amateurish, POV-laden rehash which merely disrupts legitimate article content. Sorry to have to be so blunt. VєсrumЬа TALK 02:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Corrections to lead

The narrative and references implied that Wheatcroft and Davies support the bad management not intentional school of thought. This is not correct. W&D in their seminal work on the famine explicitly state that determining intent was never in the purview of their scholarship. They state that there is no smoking gun in the archives and they are simply not going to pass judgement about it. So, while they document troops looting family cellars bare leaving them to starve, they do not jump to concluding Stalin wished it so. Nor do they jump to Stalin didn't wish it so. VєсrumЬа TALK 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

good work, their work is often used as a spear by some editors --Львівське (говорити) 02:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. This is what happens when people look for sources that support their conclusions as opposed to reading the entire source to understand what it really says. W&D's book on the famine is one of those you have to read from cover to cover:
  • "Not intentional" = misrepresentation, W&D explicitly state they are staying away from the question of intent completely, doesn't mean there wasn't intent; when one documents that every bit of food a family had was taken away by troops--we're not just talking grain, I mean every bit of food--someone was following someone's orders, that's how the Soviet Union worked
  • "Obsoletes Conquest" = misrepresentation, W&D go out of their way to explicitly praise Conquest's work and unique contributions to the understanding of the famine
and so on... Now if I could only find documentary evidence of the apocryphal report that when the Ukrainians weren't dying fast enough, Stalin sent in Khrushchev with machine guns...
З Новим Роком! VєсrumЬа TALK 02:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, VєсrumЬа. Good catch and excellent clarification of the lead. Was that the same report where Chuck Connors carried his beautiful new bride, Brezhnev, off into the sunset? You may be thinking of the Hollywood film based on the documentation. Happy holidays to you, too! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
For anyone who may take my comment to be in bad taste, please excuse my levity over a serious and tragic matter. Just needed to push the release valve after the abusive attacks by IPs on my own user page over the matter (with members of both sides of the political leverage interest groups accusing me of taking sides). I'm not here to act as an enabler for any interest groups. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
No offense taken. While I removed the "Incomplete" as well as "POV" tags which were putatively added at the time, I do have to say that too much has been moved out into Causes of the Holdomor, the narrative that remains is an incorrect (similar to the lead) rehash of he-said she-said. "Implementation" remains empty and, really, is better served by a causes and effects section as the article had earlier, but summarized given the daughter article. VєсrumЬа TALK 03:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Critique taken on board. I've spent a little time going through the history of the article. It's been badly destabilised by serious edit warring. I suspect there may be missing pieces that weren't reinstated (just as weasel words and leading language have managed to work their way in). Given that it was a cursory reading of the history, I'll see whether I can find anything that could or should be salvaged and paste it into this talk page for comment by other contributors/editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
user skeptic made a change to the lead to "bring it into conformity" with your ending edits. I reverted it; the edit changed "man-made famine" to "famine, generally regarded as man-made". As far as I see, nowhere in the end of the intro does anyone call into question that it was man-made (as opposed to a natural disaster), just intent. I saw this edit as another POV push on his part.--Львівське (говорити) 09:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I would have reverted it myself had you not gotten to it first. While I agreed with one of his changes ('were killed' to 'died', although I used the word 'perished' simply because every second word is some sort of convolution on 'deaths') as being identifiably WP:Weasel, making qualitative changes to the content under the pretext of "bringing it in line" with the Holodomor Denial article (per my discussion with him on his talk page) is purely nonsense. The articles deal with different positions and, therefore, do not have to agree with or complement each other. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My edit was to bring the opening of the lead into conformity with the first and last sentences of the final paragraph of the lead. There seems to be consensus that some scholars accept that natural factors played a role so what is wrong if the opening sentence of the article reflects this. I suggest other editors do not make assumptions about my motivations in editing this article. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Man-made" does not infer intent. There is no controversy that the forced collectivisation of Ukraine and resistance of the peasantry were essential causative factors in the calamity. That makes it man-made. The debate is only over genocidal intent, that is, if you go into someone's home and take every bit of food they have and then prevent them from leaving to forage, was that because you were ordered to starve the family to death, or was it merely personal grass roots initiative (a death wish in the Soviet military, so, no). Such smoking guns, that is, Order No. ##### on a piece of paper in an archive, remain elusive.
"It was purely a natural occurring famine" = the alpha and omega of the Holodomor (which your edit represented as a stated scholarly position), is a fringe opinion if that; even there, all Stalin had to do was request and accept foreign assistance as the Soviet Union had earlier, instead of suppressing news of it. Accordingly, "man-made" applies in all cases.
I would also mention that Herbert Hoover had led that earlier successful international relief effort. There is also fresh evidence that Walter Duranty was not Stalin's apologist, rather, as the most respected member of the press with connections to the Soviet leadership, Stalin coerced Duranty into denying the existence of the famine out of Duranty's fear for the safety of his Russian wife and child, who lived in Moscow.
I hope this clarifies. Natural causes can be remedied; instead, regardless of intent or non-intent, the actions of Stalin and Soviet authorities focused and magnified their injurious effect. VєсrumЬа TALK 16:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I'm going to be busy again the next few days, but next on the list I believe is that the "Causes" section needs to be redone in line with my clarifications to the lead to eliminate implications of purely natural, no harm no foul, just a tragedy, as representative of any sort of reputable scholarship. I'll see if I can dig out my copy of W&D for their specific statement on not touching the "intent" question. VєсrumЬа TALK 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors and bad economic policies as causes of the famine and the degree to which the destruction of the Ukrainian peasantry was premeditated on the part of Joseph Stalin.[10][20][21][22] Using Holodomor in reference to the famine emphasizes its man-made aspects, arguing that actions such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement confer intent, defining the famine as genocide; the loss of life has been compared to the Holocaust.[23] "

The first sentence should reflect this from the final paragraph of the lead. It mentions natural factors clearly there are soe scholars who don't think it is 100% 'man-made'. The term 'Man-made' can imply intention, in British English at least, as in 'Fabric man-made'. The fact that Holodomor is not the only term for this famine might profitably be reflected in the opening line 'Holodomor' is a "Ukrainian term for the famine....".

I don't have any axe to grind on this, though my views may be affected by having spent more time in Russia than Ukraine, but agree with Timothy Snyder about Yukovshenko doing this country a disservice by exagerating the number of deaths and think that any appearance of bias will likewise do Ukraine a disservice. Instead of making wrong assumptions about my motives why not welcome my input as someone trying to be neutral who doesn't know too much about this subject but points out inconsistencies in the article. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yukovshenko? Did Yanukovych and Yushchenko visit Chernobyl and come back as a conjoined mutant? I kid...yes there has been politicization of it. As scholars discuss, this is much in the same vein that the Holocaust industry has taken hold in Israel - victimization aids the nation building narrative. Now that said, the number of deaths is one thing (we use the scholarly general median for the article's range, not the high end 10 million), but I don't think saying it's man-made (when everyone knows its man-made due to collectivization foremost) shows any sort of bias. I think I (or others) may have seen your edits (and I apologize if I took you the wrong way) as being in the same vein as many who try to push certain fringe narratives, since they look similar in tone (natural vs. man-made, another popular one is pan-soviet narrative vs. ukraine). Now, what scholars also point out is that the current regime's stance is also politicization of the even, that is, the pan-russian narrative which seeks to unify the former soviet people under a common memory; numbers in this narrative are soviet-wide and not broken down by who suffered more, and so on. No matter where you go on this topic, if it's not from oa well known vetted western historian, it's going to have a political slant. --Львівське (говорити) 00:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@Sceptic1954, I'm afraid you're grinding an axe whether or not you're aware. The article clearly separates "man-made" from "intentional", you appear to insist on conflating the two, which would lead you to misinterpret scholarship on the subject and perceive the inconsistencies you speak of. VєсrumЬа TALK 01:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I forgot to hit 'save' before I had to prepare lunch, so I'm posting my response as was immediately after reverting your edit, Sceptic1954. Here goes:
"I don't have any axe to grind... but agree with Timothy Snyder about Yukovshenko (?!) doing this country a disservice by exaggerating the number of deaths..." (sic) Pardon? This is NPOV? You've completely lost me on everything except adding that it is the "Ukrainian term for the famine." Aside from the fact that I would read it as being implicit (since the etymology is explicitly qualified in the first sentence), it has been adopted by other nationalities to designate their stance on this particular famine. I don't mind qualifying the "term" as being explicitly Ukrainian (therefore can also be read as a made-up term for a made-up famine) so long as it is balanced by qualifying every other term used for this particular famine and stating who used/uses it. Should I go through the Holodomor Denial article and suggest that the same be done there in order that we can stretch the interest-group intentions and positions into an article unto each? My understanding is that, "Using Holodomor in reference to the famine emphasizes its man-made aspects" is self explanatory. Added to that, if we keep shuffling around the sentences used in the lead, someone is always going to feel that something else ought to take precedence.
I suspect that you're mistaking the subject of this article as being something other than it is as the result of your personal POV (as evidenced by your own statement), and I don't believe that Vecrumba's elaboration of the use of 'Man-made' in the context of this article could possibly be any more succinct. If you are having difficulties in following the arguments and can't make unbiased edits, it is probably best that you avoid editing this article. I don't see how changing, " In the absence of absolute documentary proof of intent" to "explicit and conclusive", then amending it to, "conclusive" trumps "absolute". 'Absolute' is an all-encompassing term. 'Conclusive', 'explicit', 'implicit', 'break the code in documents available', 'find someone who worked for the NKVD who holds the key to the truth' is overkill and does not assist the narrative. We can parse the use of language here, on the talk page, until we go blue in the fingers... but that doesn't mean that deconstructions of every word are transferred into the content of the article. If you truly believe yourself to be neutral, I suggest you should parse your own perspective as exhaustively. You're not.
I'm not stating anything about my own position. This article essentially deals with reasonable doubts. Speaking of reasonable doubts, unless the NKVD or (or even the KGB) thought it best to keep detailed documentation lest they be caught out with their pants down should international auditors came a'knocking, it seems a little unlikely that an 'explicit', 'implicit', 'conclusive' or other paper trail will ever emerge. The fact of its non-existence 60 years after the fact of being in a position to clean house thoroughly does not automatically mean documentation and intent never existed. Interest groups aside, this article represents the fact that the matter has not been closed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. The fact of the name confusion shows my relative ignorance of the subject. I came to this page wanting to know more. When I write something I am always interested in how it comes across to my target audience: are you writing to satisfy yourselves or to inform the reader. The article doesn't seem too biased to me, given the perspectives of the dominant editors but I'd say that as with any article, the more it strives for neutrality ad to eliminate, any appearance of bias, the more effective it will be. I may not have time to make more edits for now.Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a tough article because of the variety of viewpoints, and thus contributing editors. I've stayed off it for the most part because it's such a headache/warzone at times. I've done my own research and feel I know the topic well enough, but I think just about every source I've read is included in the article in some way. Like you said, it's largely a matter of presentation and neutrality.--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, Sceptic1954. This is only an 'on my watchlist' article as any activity on the article or talk page sets off a red alert. It's a high profile target for POV interest groups. In fact, you've had the misfortune of stepping in just as the dust settled over a protracted POV push. I do appreciate that a fresh pair of eyes can pick up on remnants from hit-and-run edits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of multiple issue tag

It'd be fabulous to think that the article is in good enough shape for the maintenance tag to be removed... but I'm envisaging it being the equivalent of waving a red flag at this point.

The contributor who removed it doesn't have authority to do so. I've taken it as a good faith mistake and have reverted it. If anyone with the authority to make decisions on whether it still applies wants to remove it, they're welcome to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Whisternefet, you're welcome to remove the tag as I didn't tag the page. As a WikiGnome, you're following the letter of tagging policy and, true, the tag provided no details as to what the issues are/were. It would, however, be appreciated if you were to check in on the talk page of this article before removing the tag in order to find out something about the article first. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
He's right, the point of that template is so the top doesn't get cluttered with a series of POV/OR/UNSOURCED/ETC templates in succession. Just replace it with a more specific template if you think one applies to the article in its current state. Technically, there's no ongoing talk page discussion concerning a glaring issue so maybe it's not needed... --Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. It certainly looked as if it had been placed there as a badge of shame. Retaining it attracts all sorts of contributors who don't know anything about the subject who want to clean it up. It may needs a tiny amount of copyediting at some point, but I don't actually see anything that merits a serious clean up. Just thought it prudent to make certain no one else had specific objections. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)