Talk:Holodomor/Archive 18

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


Neutral Point of View

The basic assumption of this article is that the Ukrainian famine was a man made genocide. If this characterization would only be contested by fringe factions it would be agreeable to present the event as factual. However, within the scientific community, the exact nature of the Ukrainian famine is a contested notion.

I'm not interested in discussing the myriad of arguments from both sides; it's not our jobs to pick. My point is that according to Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines; this article should not exist, since there is no scientific consensus. In my opinion the only valid solution is an article named Ukrainian famine that gives plenty of attention to the man made characterization of the event, as this is the most widespread theory.

On another wikipage ( this lack of consensus is in fact admitted. I do not see any reason outside subtle deception why this viewpoint should not be the starting point of the main article.Elite Peasant (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the article being renamed / reworked simply because you don't like it. The presumption that it doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines is laughable. --Львівське (говорити) 22:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In my two paragraphs I have not given any personal value judgement as reason for a change. My only issue was the unscientific nature of the article. If you don't want to discuss that than you could as well have said nothing at all. Elite Peasant (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
You've hit the nail right on the head, Elite Peasant: "there is no scientific consensus" (sic), therefore the article exists. I have to wonder at where the 'we' came from in your comment since your only contribution to Wikipedia has been this comment. Perhaps you speak for "the scientific community"? So long as the scientific community cannot come up with documented, absolute proof (it's known as speculation and opinions formed according to personal perspectives by individual scholars who have no conclusive proof either way), this article is not only justifiable but SHOULD exist in order to reflect that there is more than one understanding of the event. IMO is not NPOV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No, this article is about the the events that occurred in Ukraine in the early 30s; famine, repression, dekulakization, genocide, etc... As such I was directed to this page from "Ukrainian famine". Therefore this is an article that presents a dominant opinion on a topic with an absence of scientific consensus as fact. Elite Peasant (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
was he suggesting renaming the article to 'Ukrainian famine' from Holodomor? If so, Holodomor is WP:COMMON and extremely widespread per WP:N --Львівське (говорити) 01:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep(?!). Which particular Ukrainian famine might that be? The 1921-23 famine? As you say, per WP:COMMON, Holodomor is used extensively.
I've checked Ngram from 1920 to 2008 demonstrating the instances of the use of Ukrainian famine doesn't even differentiate between those two notable famines in the Soviet Union, while Holodomor has skyrocketed since 2000.
Compare googling Holodomor as opposed to googling Ukrainian famine which throws up genocide and Holodmor, and Ukrainian Famine 1932-33 (which also throws up genocide and Holodomor). Also, since everyone is so keen on what the online Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say on the matter, it carries several articles on the subject dealing with it as genocide, Stalinist tactics to crush Ukrainian nationalism, etc.
We've been handed the same lame duck being rolled out as NPOV (yet AGAIN): nominate a title that suits you; disregard that there is any serious scholarly discourse or scientific discussion of Holodomor as genocide and toss it under a cover-all banner of "scientific consensus". Apparently, Wikipedia is about ignoring subject matter that exists. Do you want to break the news to Jimbo, or should I? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting how according to you guys we should use the term Holodomor since Ukrainian famine also directs to other famines. But nobody seems to have bothered that "Ukrainian famine" leads you to Holodomor. All very neutral people. If the name is a problem for these reasons the solution is rather simple; name it "Ukrainian famine of 1932-33". Sadly, this isn't the problem but a load of sidetracking. The real problem is that this article is supposed to be biased in a way that pleases your political views. If you don't want to discuss whether the level of academic consensus allows this article according to Wikipedia's NPOV than just don't and the article will remain as it is anyhow. Elite Peasant (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Before you continue to make assumptions about 'us guys' and any personal opinions we may or may not hold, why don't you try reading WP:COMMONNAME, WP:COMMON and WP:N. Wikipedia policy does not allow for WP:OR (original research). If you don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's up to you to familiarise yourself with the most fundamental of them. Don't point an accusatory finger until you comprehend what it being discussed here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Before you make assumptions about what I did or did not read, why don't you try to address my complaints instead of spamming Wikipedia content guidelines? Holodomor is a very recognizable name; for the historical view that categorizes the Ukrainian famine as a act of genocide. It is not a valid name for the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 to which this article links to. There are really only two questions here =
Is scientific consensus high enough to categorize this event as a genocide? If not - which you seem to agree with above - Is an article allowed to take up one specific view as fact according to the NPOV? All the rest comes down to sidetracking. Elite Peasant (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The name 'Holodomor' does not imply genocide. The current president (Yanukovych) has spoken against the genocide narrative but still solely uses the term Holodomor. To say it is "not a valid name" for the article completely disregards wiki policy concerning common naming. This is just, as I pointed out, you just not liking the name and wanting to push some "Holodomor isn't real" POV. Your complaint is that there is no "consensus" but you have so far not addressed any specific issues with the article or how it fails to represent neutrality. The article, as far as I can see, represents the breakdown of scholarly opinion quite accurately.--Львівське (говорити) 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It would make sense for you not to accuse me of having an agenda when you have anti communist flair on your user page. And since Ukrainian politicians excel in abusing the deaths of their own ancestors to push whatever populist agenda is hot at the moment they are by far the least reliable source. On topic, Holodomor literally means killing by starvation and as such implies genocide. This characterization is in fact the central issue at stakes within historical research. Wiki guidelines that promote commonly used names are all fine to me; but they are subservient to the main objective; a neutral viewpoint. I do not have great issues with the rest of the article. Elite Peasant (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Your argument is that 'Holodomor' isn't a real term for the famine (just genocide). I haven't accused you of anything you haven't said yourself. Your assertation that "killing by starvation" means genocide is your own opinion and is thus original research. Killing does not imply a genocide of an entire people, I don't think any scholar would argue that Ukrainians weren't killed by hunger during a major famine, that is, unless you're pushing the fringe "the famine was not man-made" narrative, which won't go very far on an encyclopaedia. So which is it?--Львівське (говорити) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Words have literal uses and uses in practice. Concerning the literal use, the wiki is rather factual: "Ukrainian: Голодомор, "Extermination by hunger" or "Hunger-extermination";[2] derived from 'Морити голодом', "Killing by Starvation". Holodomor literally means the intended murder of a group of people by starvation. Already a contested fact: The most popular theory besides the genocide theory argues that the Soviet Union made use of an existing famine to get rid of kulaks, nationalists and other people they labelled "counterrevolutionaries". They used violent means, not starvation. Now, one could argue, since the Soviets at least made use of the misery of the famine get rid of these political opponents, that the word is still usable. But it's not. Because in practice, researchers using the word Holodomor see the episode almost exclusively in terms of an ethnic conflict. Which is an even more contested notion. (I should indeed give examples to support my case but don't pretend I'm making this up from thin air). Now, sometimes ideas and realities change while terms stick. And then they become accepted. However, this has not yet happened in the case of Holodomor. Serious research is only say 20 years old (tops) and for most researchers simply using the word is making a choice. I can't think of any word that is more an affront to neutrality than Holodomor. Elite Peasant (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
"researchers using the word Holodomor see the episode almost exclusively in terms of an ethnic conflict." This is more personal opinion with no basis in reality. --Львівське (говорити) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ngram for Ukrainian Famine 1932–33 and Holodomor. Attempting another convolution as Ukrainian Famine 1932-33 and Holodomor. In either instance, Ukrainian Famine 1932-33 does not appear at all. I wasn't aware that WP:CREEP applies to 3 links to policy and guidelines when addressing a newbie (according to his/her contributions with no evidence of activity on any other wikis to date, nor a relatively brief attempt address their concerns. Just wanted to check with you, Lvivske, as you've been a Wikipedian for longer than I. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that doing an ngram comparing a single word with a 3 word string is some kind of joke. Elite Peasant (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that you haven't bothered taking into account that the single word search is for a word that doesn't exist in the English language, and that your proposal for "Ukrainian Famine 1932-33" doesn't exist at all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, if neutrality triumphs over common word usage this comparison doesn't really matter anyhow. "Ukrainian famine" was merely a suggestion. It doesn't change anything to my main point that Holodomor is a loaded term, even though you reduce my point to a question of common word usage. The popularity of the term in English literature starting in the early 2000s is no surprise. Holodomor is a victim narrative central to diaspora identity building. Only later was it introduced in post Soviet Ukraine. Elite Peasant (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Another ngram might show this clearly: Ukrainian famine vs Holodomor. As you can see, Ukrainian famine has been a vested term since the 80s. Of course it refers to two (or even more) famines instead of one, but even today it tops Holodomor with a significant margin. The thing is, Holodomor is an interpretation of the Ukrainian famine of 32-33, the Ukrainian famin of 32-33 is not a synonym for Holodomor. Therefore Holodomor should point to Ukrainian famine, not the way around. Both concerning common word usage, common sense and neutrality, I haven't read much convincing arguments. Elite Peasant (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
What this boils down to is that you don't like common use guidelines because you feel the extremely well known, common use title isn't "neutral" to your own POV. A lot of your reasoning is based on original research and unfounded statements ("Holodomor is an interpretation of the Ukrainian famine of 32-33, the Ukrainian famin of 32-33 is not a synonym for Holodomor", "Holodomor is a loaded term", "Holodomor is a victim narrative central to diaspora"). This isn't going places. Repackage those arguments on the Holocaust article and see how far you get. --Львівське (говорити) 19:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The Holocaust means "the massacre" which is an accepted characterization of the event barring the ideas of fringegroups. Holodomor is a more recent term which characterizes the famine as a genocide or a intended murder by starvation. Essentially the two most disputed characterizations. That's why the phrase "recognizing Holodomor" makes sense; it implies this deliberate act of ethnic cleansing on top of a man made famine. "Recognizing the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33" means something completely different. The part of the victim narrative was irrelevant on my part, my apologies, it was not my aim to delegitimize their version. (though it was not my original research). Anyway, I believe I made my point to both you and Iryna. And I provided arguments that I do not believe have been properly refuted. But if you believe the page is good as it is, then I will abide. I'm not going to fundamentally change a page I haven't put any effort in. So, regards and goodbye. Elite Peasant (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't assume that you only have Lvivske and myself to convince. Note that, due to severe edit warring over the subject and extremist POV pushes from both sides, Eastern European discretionary sanctions apply. You'd have to come up with a far more substantial argument sans the lack of neutrality you've displayed in your arguments. WP:COI contributors, like yourself, are discouraged from editing in areas they are unable to be neutral about. That's a common sense policy for an encyclopaedic resource. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
What category do you believe I fall under? Paid by the Kremlin? Elite Peasant (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is more original research based on flawed perceptions. 'Holodomor recognition' is not exclusive to the genocide debate, as during Soviet times the famine itself was denied by the state, not its methods or goal, just that a famine happened. 'Holodomor' remains all encompassing of the famine as a whole, that people 'died by hunger' at the hands of a totalitarian regime and forced collectivization. Only a fringe view would debate this, and wikipedia articles do not need to bend to fringe theory on the grounds of 'neutrality' because that would impose undue weight (ie. giving 50% weight to Holocaust deniers and re-writing and naming that article to be inclusive of those few).--Львівське (говорити) 03:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, as I said, I abide. if I ever have time to analyze word usage in the main books on the topic and international diplomatic dialogue I will let wikipedia know. Elite Peasant (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

This seems like a fine suggestion. I do think however that Cossacks should be mentioned in the article as well, since (a) the Holodomor hit Kuban and Don area very hard, cf. Robert Conquest's studies, (b) like Ukrainians, Cossacks refer to the famine in their lands as the Holodomor (while other ethnic groups, e.g., Russians, don't even accept the term Holodomor), and (c) it is clear that the Cossacks -- who formed the core of the White Army as well as independent from Russia republics in 1918-1920 -- were targeted as enemies of the Bolshevik State in what Stalin called a "war of holodomor" (in Russian, "война на измор"). Ukrainians and Cossacks are related to each other through a tight historical and blood bond. (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Alex Bakharev, I have no objections for such a suggestion.--Andrux (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Cossacks are a class, not an ethnic group, though the ones in the Kuban would likely fall into the Ukrainian category. They were targeted in the same manner as kulaks were. There's a reason Ukrainian national anthem says "we are of the cossack nation" --Львівське (говорити) 05:38,29 November 2013 (UTC)
In view of many people, Cossacks are an ethnicity, just like Ruthenians. The amalgamation of Ruthenians and Cossacks created the Ukrainian nation and the Ukrainian ethnicity. (The name Ukraine is old, but the concept of the Ukrainian ethnicity/identity is rather young; the Cossack and Ruthenian identity predate the Ukrainian identity). Russia's 2002 and 2010 censuses list Cossacks as an ethnic group (a subethnic group, to be more precise). In 1918 Cossacks formed independent states -- the Don Republic and the Kuban's People Republic -- and there were plans to make a federation of three republics – together with the Ukrainian State. Denikin destroyed these plans. The constitution of the Don Republic listed Cossacks as a major ethnic group of the republic. The Kuban Cossacks are tightly connected to Dnieper Ukraine, while Don Cossacks are tightly connected to the Eastern Ukraine (the area around Donets river). In 1708 Peter the 1st of Russia, also known as Peter the Crazy, waged a war against Kondraty Bulavin and destroyed the eastern part of the Don Cossack Host in the Eastern Ukraine, annihilating over 30 townlets (stanitsas). (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I suppose I will respectfully disagree on the equivalence of the terms Ruthenian and Ukrainian. There is no such thing as Russian Cossacks-- there are Kuban Cossacks, Don Cossacks, Ural Cossackcs, etc. all sharing a unique common culture. Cossacks -- the descendands of Cossacks -- do not identify themselves as Russians. The "checking off" as "nationality" is not a matter of pride, it is about the truth. You can perhaps read this, which is a petition to the President of the Russian Federation regarding the census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Well the term Ukrainian supplanted 'Ruthene' in the 20th century, most but not all adopted the new nomenclature. It's literally a synonym...I don't know what else to tell you. As for cossacks, Kuban, Don, Ural, etc. are geographic indicators, but each host has it's own ways. Yes they share a common culture, but that's just as any military family shares a common culture, for example. Further, cossacks do self identify as Russian...just as Ukrainian cossacks in Ukraine identify as Ukrainians. I don't know how to go further than that. Regarding the census, Russians also checked off 'Siberian' instead of Russian, so there's that. I read the link and in my opinion this appears to be a recent phenomenon as there's been a bit of a cossack revival of sorts in post-Soviet Russia. While what you say is illustrated here exactly as you said...that doesn't necessarily carry over to cossacks in the 1930s in Ukraine and the Kuban, we would have to find a historical text to confirm self determination apart from Ukrainian/Ruthenians in this period. Especially since it's only a few years after the revolution (with their monarchy falling and repressions beginning, they could be galvanized as separate from Russians more so today than in the 30s) --Львівське (говорити) 00:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is the link to the book "Geography of the Russian Empire" published in 1843. It lists Cossacks as one of the peoples in the Russian Empire, along with people called Rossiyane (which, according to the author, include Malorossy, Belorossy, Velikorossy). It says the Cossacks share with Rossiyane the religion and the language, but otherwise are completely different. So they are not even included in the category "Rossiyane" (Btw, Rossia is a Greek-based spelling of Ruthenia). Ukraina is a term that once apllied strictly to areas used to describe the territories controlled by Zaporozhian and Don Cossacks. (see the map in wiki article on Cossacks). Take care. (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe 'Rossiyane' is a reference to the three 'Russian peoples'. Rossia is the Russian spelling of Russia, not Greek... I think the easier way of remembering it is you have the Rusyns (who align with historical Rus) and the Rossians (who align with the new state to the north, Russia/Rossiya). Historical Rus (Ruthenia in Latin) covers Ukraine and it's people continued with the 'Rus' based ethnonym, but in the 20th century a national upheaval began and they identified with the region of Ukraine to set them apart more distinctly from Russians, who also laid claim to Rus. The whole cossack thing is very interesting; I still think it's class based (thinking their society is separate and distinct from the simple peasants). In the Ukrainian case cossack culture is extremely intertwined with the Ukrainian identity, all of Ukraine's historically great statemen were cossacks (You couldn't say Khmelnitsky or Mazepa were cossacks and not Ukrainian, for example) so in that case I don't think it's separate. In the Russian Cossack case, they are outside of the geographic area of Ukraine, so it wouldn't make sense to identify as 'Ukrainian' or 'Ruthenian', so they identify with their own pockets. You also have a history of cossack rebellion towards the Russian state, from Razin to the Don Cossacks during the time of Peter, so I can see why they would want to be separate from the forces of Russian nobility.--Львівське (говорити) 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, just want to point out that pre-Soviet Ukraine was ruled by a (cossack) Hetman (in this case, Skoropodsky), and during the civil war the Kuban Host joined Ukraine more on that here, and this article argues to the Ukrainian origins of the Don Cossacks (not Kuban, but they're mentioned) so I think targetting Ukrainians and Cossacks kind of goes hand in hand since the two are so related.--Львівське (говорити) 22:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
About «Cossacks». Let me remind you, that articles of wikipedia should be created based on RS. So, if anybody would present any RS on Holodomor, saying that «Cossacks» were among victims of Holodomor — why not to mention them in the wiki-article? But not before that.HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:51, 29
You obviously have zero familiarity with RS on the Famine.
There are thousands of documents like this and that portray the Famine in stanitsas across Kuban and Don regions. (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Will you be so kind not to discuss my skills (WP:PERSONAL)? As about so called «RS» you gave above — text on doesn't have any mentions of «Cossacks», same thing about the second link you provided — And you know what? — I'm not surprised, as history of cossacs finished long before 1932 — immediatly after Civil War in Russia bolshevists evaporated all cossacks. You should read this article — ru:Расказачивание. There is, surely, similar article in English — Decossackization, but it's not so reliable by facts and far behind it's Russian sister by it's content. HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You have not read the links I have sent you, haven't you. The articles do mention both Cossacks and stanitsas (Cossacks lived in stanitsas, organized in yurts, headed by elected atamans, and non-Cossacks lived in villages (selo, derevnya), organized in volosti, headed by starostas. This is a rather relevant detail, no?). The links I posted mention the citizens of stanitsas, not selas or derevnyas, starved to death. The majority of those citizens were Cossacks. Regarding the history of Cossacks being finished 1932, how do you explain , which is a 1936 decree of the Soviet government lifting the ban on the service of the Cossacks in the Red Army. And how do you explain that more than 100 Cossack regiments in the Red Army were formed during the World War II? And thank you very much for pointing me to "Decossackization" and "Raskazachivanie" articles. Incidentally, I have contributed to both articles at various points in time. (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
* In this case it will be a kind of original research. Geohem (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I gave you a quotes of top-ranked ukrainian historian of Holodomor Stanislav Kul'chitsky, who wrote (you here everybody speaks Russian, so you understand what he wrote, but if you by some reasons can't read my cyrillic alphabit above (AGF, AGF) — I'm happy to translate it for you into English); «russian (in the name of top scholars Zelenin and Danilov) and western scholars threat ukrainian famine as part of general soviet famine of the time». This is statement of the person, who's name mentioned 16 (!!!) times in the wiki-article! And you started war edits against this statement! This is tertiary RS by it's nature and should be added to the wiki article without any doubts. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
* Just distortion of a meaning. And in this book he wrote: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. Geohem (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
HOBOPOCC, this is just one sentence taken by you without paying an attention to the conclusion part as cited by Geohem. Moreover, there are other references (e.g. this one) published in peer-review journals in English, suggesting Holodomor as separate from other famines event.--Andrux (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
* Stanislav Kulchitsky has his own valid oppinion. And this oppinion is that famine in Ukraine was differ to general famine in USSR of that year. And this is oppinion of respectfull scholar, i.e. «secondary sorce» in local terms. When scholar Stanislav Kulchitsky gave his review on historiography of Holodomor, he acts as «tertiary source». This is the difference between these two statements of Kulchitsky. His personal point of view may be added to the wiki-article with proper attribution (NPOV). Information, which is taken from reliable tertiary source must to be added to the wiki-article. And if we trust Kulchitsky on Holodomor issue - and we do trust him, as his works are used even in the artice — intentions to reject his review on historiography of Holodomor are not fair. HOBOPOCC (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that no any further objections to my proposal to add statements of Stanislav Kul'chitsky on current historiography of Holodomor, which is tertiary source in it's origin, should be added to wiki-article without any doubts. My proposed adding is here in bold: «The Holodomor... was a man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR in 1932 and 1933...and a part of a general Soviet famine of 1932–33.<ref>Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5</ref>»HOBOPOCC (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Such statement is incorrect. It is not in agreement with the summary of prof. Kulchitskiy review work: Thus, the Soviet Union famine of 1932-1933 very easily separated from the Ukrainian Holodomor. Famine was observed almost everywhere, including, of course, and in Ukraine. But caused by the confiscation of all existing food, the Holodomor was special only for Ukraine. There are other sources to support the uniqueness of Holodomor, as compared to feline in USSR, please see the discussion above.--Andrux (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You are doing WP:NOTPOINTy now. I already explained why and how personal point of view of professor Kulchitsky («secondary sorce») to be separated from review of professor Kulchitsky on historyography of Holodomor («tertiary source»). And I gave you direct citacion of professor Kulchitsky: «...историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного» and I make translation of the text for our non-Russian speaking editors: «...historians (of Russian school Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet hunger... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-union famine...». Yes, professor Kul'chitsky personelly disagree with such position of world scholars, but he honestly declare present scientific approach to the Holodomor, even it's not according to his theory. If you denay such simple for understanding fact — I have nothing to do, but to rise this discussion to higher level. HOBOPOCC (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Kulchitsky didn't write about "Russian school". He has written about two of them: Danilov's and Zelin's point of view. By the way other researcher Kondrashyn has written that in the West and in Ukraine consider the Holodomor as an exclusively Ukrainian phenomenon <ref></ref>. Geohem (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You are providing wrong information about professor Kondrashyn. He declares that there are two schools in Ukrainian and Western scholarship - one traditional - that famine in Ukraine is part of general soviet man-made famine and another alternative school - declaring that Ukrainian famine was an unique one. His opinion doesn't make any conflict with review of professor Kulchitsky, as Kulchitsky says that bigger part of Western scholars stays on the grounds that Ukrainian famine is part of general soviet famine. HOBOPOCC (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Where does Kulchytsky state that the majority of western scholars support the Soviet view?--Львівське (говорити) 17:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know anything about «Soviet view» and Kulchitsky's view on it (такой вот каламбур получился). I think you mix up «russian view» and «soviet view». Soviet view on everything was over in 1991, Soviet system does not exist from that time, lucky we are. And what Kulchitsky actualy said in his book of 2007, I posted on this page already three times and now I make it for forth time and speciall for you: "...В. Данилов и И. Зеленин опубликовали в журнале «Отечественная история» (2004, № 5) программную статью «Организованный голод. К 70-летию общекрестьянской трагедии». В ней остро осуждалась хлебозаготовительная политика Кремля, которая стала причиной рукотворного голода во многих регионах СССР. Однако историки не нашли в этой трагедии ни убедительных признаков геноцида, ни принципиальных различий между украинским и общесоюзным голодом... Советологи и русисты в странах Запада тоже рассматривают бOльшей частью украинский голод в контексте общесоюзного..." (Кульчицкий С. В. Можно ли отделить Голодомор в Украине от общесоюзного голода 1932–1933 годов? // Почему он нас уничтожал? Сталин и украинский голодомор. — 1-е. — Киев: Украинская пресс-группа, 2007. — 207 с. — ISBN 978-966-8152-11-5) HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't speak Russian, but Google translate says he said, "Sovietologists and Russians in Western countries are also considering a large part of the Ukrainian famine in the context of the entire USSR"...--Львівське (говорити) 19:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I was confused by your «User talk:Lvivske|говорити». Anyway, I already translated this text above, but no problem, I would do it for you again: «...historians (of Russian school — Kulchitsky ment) didn't find in this tragedy convincing signs of genocide, as well as basic distinctions between the Ukrainian and general soviet famine... bigger part of sovietologists and russists in the West alsow consider the Ukrainian famine in a context of the all-Soviet-Union famine...»HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to the suggestion of (why not register like most of us?), I don't think you can say 'Stalin called [it] a "war of holodomor"' That is not really a good translation of the Russian, "война на измор". cwmacdougall 11:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could give a better translation? The word "izmor" has a very clear message, which is to kill by hunger. Too bad "izmor" is not a common English word, but perhaps it would be on day, like Holodomor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
How about "War of attrition"? "izmor" is usually translated as "attrition", which is different, plus "Holodomor" has a host of connotations, at least now; Stalin didn't call it that. cwmacdougall 2:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Why not simply translate it literally? It doesn't have to be confined to predefined idiomatic jargon. It means "War of starvation" or "War by starvation". Rhetoric such as, "Enemy of the people" et al didn't mean anything in the English language until its usage became familiar within the context in which it was intended. Keep it succinct. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A few comments from a "neutral" party

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

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

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


First of all, sorry for saying it wrong as Due to the importance and quality of Holodomor, it should be placed at the front. The "redundant" link is deleted, for your rigorousness --- I overlooked which page it was, and I confused this with the Soviet famine of 1932–33.
Secondly, I see that this issue has brought forth numerous debates. I personally have no energy or intent to make any lengthy arguments here, but seems that this issue is a bit heated up. I think I should leave the solution to everybody here then. -- Salute. SzMithrandir (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
SzMithrandir, everyone here is welcome to discuss the controversial edits! You are right that the topic is "hot" and there many evidences (as you can see in duscussion above) supporting Holodomor as a separate from Soviet famine event. --Andrux (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Holdomor Propaganda?

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

it appears you've been indoctrinated with soviet propaganda. read a history book before trying to make a coherent argument here. If you're just trying to troll, this won't go far. Also, the article does explain the name, it's literally the first section: Etymology.--Львівське (говорити) 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@Locktarogar, if you read up you will note:
  • as compared to the Russian famine of 1921 where international aid was provided and accepted, here Stalin suppressed news of the famine and, obviously, failed to accept any aid;
  • Ukrainian households stripped of all foodstuffs, left with absolutely nothing and left to starve, this wasn't just a requisitioning of grain;
  • Ukrainians were cordoned off and not allowed to leave the famine area, condemning them to die.
You would do well to study some history to put this tragedy into proper historical context instead of complaining that Russians don't bitch about the famine. They weren't targeted the way the Ukrainians were. VєсrumЬа TALK 03:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Considered genocide by thirteen states

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

...what?--Львівське (говорити) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no source for the statemant "recognized as a genocide" where do you take the information from? --Wrant (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
probably here --Львівське (говорити) 20:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Did other European countries know that mass starvation was happening in Slavic countries?

Did other European countries know that mass starvation was happening in Slavic countries? Did Polish people know? Did German people know?

Yes. Snyder describes reporters informing the rest of Europe, to little fanfare. SabarCont 07:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the connection between "Slavic" and "Hunger"? Kasakhstan wasn't Slavic and several Slavic nations existed outside the SU.Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

tables need fixing/labelling

They're a mess - is it number in thousands, or is it number per 100,000? I have no idea what sort of quantity/ratio are we talking about, as they are not labelled at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoczek (talkcontribs) 10:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of teachings in Western European school - an explanation

I always knew that Stalin was a mass-murderer. But the fact that he killed more Ukranians than Hitler killed Jews finally explains the modern Ukrainians hate for the Russians. It's irrational, but understandable. But don't know what's more crucial, the killings of the Ukrainians or the fact that in Western schools nowadays nothing of this is teached! Only Hitler is depicted as the bad guy, but there were two bad guys back then...independent of modern Western history propaganda. Interesting how this event doesn't fit neither into Western nor into Russian propaganda, so nobody remembers it except the Ukrainians. Let's still hope that the Ukrainians will get their own freedom and real independence some day. -- (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The page is not for discussing the topic, but for discussing changes to the article. I do not think that the famine led to anti-Russian feeling, but has been used to promote anti-Russian, anti-Communist and/or anti-Semitic feeling. TFD (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Most western schools lump this into the rest of Stalin's mass killings, but westerners do write about it. Some may be surprised to learn that this doesn't create massive anti-Russian sentiments today, this is mainly due to the very thorough purging and repopulating of the lower class farmers that it affected, plus the amount of time that has passed. I doubt there are neutral sources for either of these things though, so they will not be in the article any time soon. SabarCont 07:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The Russians were multinational, including ethnic Georgians, Ukrainians and Poles.Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Was Holodomor the reason for anti-communism sentiment in western European countries?

Was Holodomor the reason for anti-communism sentiment in western European countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion about the lede

I think the opening paragraphs sort of pussy foots. In comparison, the article about the WW2 holocost comes right up and provides an estimate about the number of dead that gets precised later on in the text. Here, we start off with a vague estimate of 1 to 12 million that is really only of academic interest and should be deeper in the text. The best current estimate is what needs to be lead off with in my humble opinion. Given the current state of affairs in Ukraine, I don't want to jump in here and start making edits because it's probably a very controversial topic right now but this is my suggestion.-- (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Castrated article

It looks to me that the article was carefully whitewashed. All horrors are barely mentioned. Roadblocks that turned starved people back. Reports and appeals. Informational isolation, etc. Not a mention of the role of NKVD. -No.Altenmann >t 03:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"4 million Ukrainians"

I don't think it makes sense to claim "about 4 million" as the death toll in the opening sentence, seeing as the number of deceased is disputed (even throughout this article). Estimates have gone much lower and higher, so displaying an averaged approximation as a fact seems, at least to me, illogical. (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

fixed. -M.Altenmann >t 12:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mesle, Vallin 2012 Xx234 (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Circassians in see also

An anonymous editor wants to add Ethnic cleansing of Circassians into the "See also" section of the article. I do not think it belongs here as there are little in common between those events: the cleansing of Circassians happened in mid 19th century it was a result of forced expulsions to Turkey, human losses in the Caucasian wars and assimilation. It was organised by Russian empire and fueled by colonialism. Holodomor occurred almost a century later, it was a catastrophic famine, not an expulsion, organized by the Soviet Union and fueled by the communist ideology. If there are sourced that consider Ethnic cleansing of Circassians and Holodomor to be related please provide the rather than edit war. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As this editor has not left any edit summaries, I fail to see what the significance is over and above any other such events throughout history. That being the case, the 'see also' section would become an inexhaustible list. Personally, I see it as being WP:POINTy and intended as an explicit ethnic slur. Any additions to the content are welcome per reliable sources linking incidents, as are edits following bold → revert → discuss. The emphasis is on discussion and bringing sourced evidence to the table in order that other editors be given an opportunity to address proposed changes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


This is a particularly terrible facet of the tragedy. I've added some information on the subject into the article, but was reverted by a user. I would like to hear 3rd opinions on whther to include this information or not. See comparison of versions: [1]

Thanks, Phil. --Phil070707 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently misattributed image

1932 or 1922?

Similar things have apparently been discussed here repeatedly, but I can't find if it's been discussed with respect to this particular image before. This image, according to its file name and the claims by its original uploader on Commons, is supposedly attributed to Gareth Jones and shows a situation in 1933; however, its file description page on Commons currently sources it to an official website of the International Council of the Red Cross [2], which identifies it as a Red Cross photograph from the Russian famine of 1921, dated to 1922. I am aware there are multiple other websites out there that treat it as a photo of the 1932/33 famine, but are any of them reliable sources, and/or is there any reason not to follow the claim by the ICRC website? (It even cites an archival number for it, indicating that the authors of that page were confident in their attribution.) Fut.Perf. 15:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: This [3] website has a version of the same photograph described as "Printed postcard from Federation In Brussels raising funds for the victims of famine in the Soviet Union, 1921-1923)(Private Collection)" Fut.Perf. 16:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
And this [4], crediting it to "Herbert Hoover Presidential Library", describes it as "Five famine victims from Buzuluk, Russia", again placing it in 1921/22. Fut.Perf. 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's another, on a website of the National Endowment for the Humanities [5]. Fut.Perf. 20:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
In tracing it back, it was added by Tobby72 along with a number of other images last year. I'd take it that it was a good faith error. Thanks for pulling it up. There were a number of images mixed in with genuine Holodomor pics. I had a comprehensive list of those identified as being from 1921-22 (a number not even from Ukraine). I'll try to find it, but if any other images are added, they must be checked carefully for authenticity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Motivation/ Intent

The articles makes a strong case for there being an intent behind this, but then it presents no motivation for the intent. The section on "Causes" sort of touches on it very lightly/ briefly, but this is way into the article already, with nothing mentioned in the lead, and nothing in the rest of the article. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Rui Gabriel Correia Look @ my comment on the bottom of this page. Socialistguy (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem with the theory that the famine was deliberate. Essentially the theory claims that Stalin deliberately engineered a crisis in his own economy.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and? --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of sources

There's a claim in the article putting Holodomor into the same category with Holocaust. A vague claim in itself to compare starvation to systematic racism; the source for that claim led to the Maidan Movement's website, which can't be considered a neutral source in any way. Vmp4523 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, if you care to read the source, it is translation from another RS site and is written by Josef Zisels / AKA Josef Zissels. Nevertheless, I have substituted your 'POV' tag with a 'better sources' tag.
Having made a rather sweeping assertion regarding "A vague claim in itself to compare starvation to systematic racism;", I also suspect that you're not terribly well acquainted with the subject of this article. If you take a look at the top of this talk page, you will find multiple 'problem' template boxes that should indicate to you that it is not an article to be flippant about, nor has it been written frivolously or lazily. As you are an inexperienced editor, could I suggest that you please familiarise yourself with the subject properly, and spend some time reading through both the sources and archived talkpages. Thank you for your consideration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If scholars aren't sure if it was man-made, why do u put it was man-made? I'm not denying anything; I just think we should be more neutral about the causes and include Eastern sources given there are disagreements over whether it was really on purpose or not. *This book apparently shows evidence the famine wasn't directly cause by the Soviets. Socialistguy (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC) edited Socialistguy (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to see Douglas Tottle as other than a fringe opinion. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Jpgordon his Wiki article doesn't mention that and the book apparently has legitimate claims and acclamation by certain professors. There r claims that kulaks were partially to blame. Do u have proof his claims are fraudulent? Socialistguy (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC) edited 03:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC) and 03:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Socialistguy: As a new user, I suggest that you read this article's archives with great care with regards to Douglas Tottle (archive search provided for you). Jpgordon has also directed you to the Douglas Tottle article. Please read the archived talk on that article, also. It would also serve you well to read Denial of the Holodomor, particularly as regards the entry on him there. More to the point, try checking the article on Soviet famine of 1932–33. Denial that it was a man-made famine, even outside of the very different and distinct characteristics is WP:FRINGE, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Socialistguy: According to Soviet propaganda when socilists die it's man made, when socilists kill, it's a just punishement or a natural disaster.Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Xx236 what about western/capitalist propaganda? How do we know who's right? socialistguy - when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs. Thank you (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Socialistguy You are using And you are lynching Negroes tool.
Do you mean that the Holodomor has been invented by western/capitalists? Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I'm not denying anything, I'm asking after sources that don't serve interests outside providing information and knowledge on the subject. I also do not understand your use of heavy adjectives as an only way to point alleged problems to the comparison I made. Vmp4523 (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Vmp4523, have you bothered to look at the multitude of boxes at the top of the page? Please be aware of the fact that this article has been the subject of severe edit warring, and falls under WP:ARBEE sanctions. Please read all of the archived talk pages with care. It may also provide an insight into why editors involved in the maintenance of this article get 'heavy' about carelessly worded assertions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: You keep accusing me of sabotaging, yet you still avoid explaining what exactly was the problem. I'm sorry to say that I won't be following your responses further than this since you do not seem to be interested in solving the citation problem further. Vmp4523 (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is not neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by a neutral description of a genocide? Would a Freudian analysis of motivation of the criminals make the article better?Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Xx236 Where exactly you got the idea of Freudian analysis into this? Vmp4523 (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't read the paper but it may contain one [ - Predatory open access journal, not a reliable source. #.VVmoOfD-mUk].Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Vmp4523: I'm sorry? Where did I 'accuse you of sabotaging' this article? I've exchanged your 'dubious' tag with 'better references' and have explained that the source for this is a high profile and reputable scholar. If, however, this is not satisfied soon, I'm fully prepared to remove it as extraordinary. As regards Xx236's comment, it was a response to Jack Upland who has made a couple of noises about 'not neutral' and #Motivation/ Intent on this talk page, neither of which have demonstrated anything apart from WP:OR and WP:DONTLIKEIT, and essentially treat this talkpage as a forum. It was not directed at you, so I'm not sure as to what your problem with it is. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

An enormous problem with these articles is that with so many Western contributors and dominant media, we tend to forget that even "our" NPOV is far from universal. The following had a disparaging tone:

... it is not an article to be flippant about, nor has it been written frivolously or lazily. As you are an inexperienced editor, could I suggest that you please familiarise yourself with the subject properly, and spend some time reading through both the sources and archived talkpages. Thank you for your consideration".

No one owns an article, and comparing atrocities with the Holocaust has almost every time been slammed. Some of the Bengali and Irish famines were as, if not far more, deadly, and were also due to poor policy. Saying the Russian State forged a Holocaust to systematically exterminate the entire .. Ukrainian people(?) is extreme. And please don't use propaganda terms such as And you are lynching Negroes or Whataboutism, because pointing out hypocrisy is perfectly valid reasoning. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Prinsgezinde: As a suggestion, do not misrepresent editors by creating your own WP:SYNTH conflating cherry picked strands of this, that, and the other, then stringing them into your personal account of discussions that have transpired. Secondly, no personal attacks. Also, take a look at the top of this talk page as it carries two important templates, being "Not a WP:SOAPBOX", and the fact that this article is under WP:ARBEE sanctions. Thank you for your consideration (noting that my use of "consideration" by no means carries the weight of the tone you have personally attributed to it). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Questioning any genocide is horrible and this was a genocide. But flinging around sensational comparisons is bad too. The two genocides can't be compared in scale or methodology, and the source was poor, so I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You've removed sourced content on the basis that you, personally (WP:POV), deem it to be sensationalist. Your rationale is entirely POV, and the content has been restored by an editor other than myself. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. 'Flinging around' [sic]!? These recent disruptions smack of being a pattern of mimicry by editors since it was targeted on this talk page only a few months ago... despite the fact that it's literally been there for years. The source is, in fact, a serious one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Referenced but Unattributed Quote, with Problematic Moralizing

Currently we have a quote in the article that reads as follows: "Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was "not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you." The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died."

The quote has a reference to a work by Timothy Snyder, but the quote itself is not attributed to a source. This is always a problem, but doubly so because it makes the statement "the good people died first", implying those that did what they had to do to survive (prostitution, etc.) were "bad people". This isn't cool.

I've tried to fish out the quote from Snyder's work, but all I could find on Google Books is a version where book search doesn't work. Until this gets fixed, I move that this quote simply be removed. A lot of people died and they don't deserve an unattributed quote painting them as morally lesser because of what they did to survive. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the quote is available here, therefore it is WP:V whether you have access to the publication or not. The question here, therefore, seems to be that of your not liking it. Please stop edit warring over the quote (here and here). Given the context it's used in, if you're concerned with the moral factor, removing it leaves:
Evidence of widespread cannibalism was documented during the Holodomor.[1]

The Soviet regime printed posters declaring: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act."[2]:225 More than 2,500 people were convicted of cannibalism during the Holodomor.[3]"
For me, from a 'moral' point of view, the tone is changed to an even more deleterious one (please read the reference footnote for the very first sentence) indicting the victims of the famine as being immoral ghouls. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Сокур, Василий [Sokur, Vasily] (21 November 2008). Выявленным во время голодомора людоедам ходившие по селам медицинские работники давали отравленные "приманки" – кусок мяса или хлеба. Facts and Commentaries (in Russian). Retrieved 27 July 2012.  The author suggests that never in the history of mankind was cannibalism so widespread as during the Holodomor.
  2. ^ Várdy & Várdy 2007.
  3. ^ Holodomor Archives and Sources: The State of the Art by Hennadii Boriak "The Harriman Review Vol. 16, No. 2" 2008 page 30
Your sarcastic and venomous reply doesn't help the situation, nor is it welcome. Take it down a notch. Then please re-read what I wrote.
The issue is not whether or not the quote appears in the source, but rather whose voice it is in. Is it the author's voice? If so, it doesn't say that in the body. Currently we have a quote—referenced but unattributed—that essentially says that those who did what they had to do to survive are 'bad people' (opposed to the "good people" who died) without saying who said it. That's fucked up and you might want to go and take some personal reflection time if you think that's OK. Seriously, some of you anonymous users need a dose of humanity.
Meanwhile, the Soviet comments are irrelevant. Much of the article discusses how the situation has been viewed as genocide—committed essentially by Moscow. That doesn't mean we need more victim blaming in the text, especially from a disembodied quote dropped into the middle of the article that doesn't say who said it. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you interpreted my comment as being 'sarcastic' and 'venomous' as it was not my intention. I merely pointed out what you'd left behind as reading as moral posturing. Simply removing all of the the references as you've done without consensus is not the answer as, if you care to look at the talk templates on this page, this article has been the subject of extreme edit warring and is being watched by more editors and sysops than you'd probably be aware of. At the moment, none of the content you've boldly removed has not been properly discussed as being DUE or UNDUE. You were welcome to add the POV tag again (I inadvertently rolled back both of your edits, thus removing the template), but would suggest that you self revert to the long-standing consensus version while discussions progress simply because it it you who is looking like a WP:POINTy editor after having breached 3RR in spirit. To an extent, I agree that what you've left is a better version, but that does not factor in the opinion of other editors: you and I agreeing is only consensus between two editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Mortality and causes of death in 20th-century Ukraine 2012 Xx236 (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: ... name "marples2005" defined multiple times with different content

Xx236 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Kuśnierz about Holodomor

Robert Kuśnierz has published many texts about the Holodomor, in several langauges:
The dead link should be replaced. Xx236 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The list was ordered alpabetically but several entries have been added at the end. Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Victor Kravchenko (defector)

I Chose Freedom presents insiders story.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Soviet famine of 1932–33#Torgsins

The section should be copied into this article, I don't know how to do it according to copyright.Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


Provided by the State - which State? Soviet Union or Ukraine? What was the source of the grain? Ukraine?Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Xx236. You've made some good points about the content and additional sources, but I haven't the time to develop the article further at this point. I'll get back to your input ASAP in order to improve the article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I almost sure they were talking about the Central (Soviet Union) government, but I have to check with the source (saw Wheatcroft online somewhere)Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic population of Ukraine before holodomor (1925)

The main victims were peasants and the map shows the cities.Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Among city population was the same percentage loss of population, also, in the rural population was the same population structure. Russians also died in a huge numbers in Ukraine. Image restored. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Spources, please.
Ethnic composition of Ukraine changed during the period, I don't know the reasons but higher mortality is a rational explanation.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I am working on a map showing the percentage of population in these regions - not just cities. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead para

Original statement: 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.[1][better source needed] If Soviet policies and actions were conclusively documented as intending to eradicate the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, they would fall under the legal definition of genocide.[2][3][4][5][6]


  1. ^ Josef Zisels; Halyna Kharaz (11 November 2007). "Will Holodomor receive the same status as the Holocaust?". Archived from the original on 28 June 2007. Retrieved 21 July 2012. 
  2. ^ Peter Finn (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. 
  3. ^ David Marples (30 November 2005). "The Great Famine Debate Goes On...". Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 15 April 2009. Retrieved 21 July 2012. 
  4. ^ Kulchytsky, Stanislav (6 March 2007). "Holodomor of 1932–33 as genocide: gaps in the evidential basis". Den.  Retrieved 22 July 2012. Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4
  5. ^ Bilinsky 1999.
  6. ^ Kulchytsky, Stanislav. "Holodomor-33: Why and how?". Zerkalo Nedeli (25 November – 1 December 2006).  Retrieved 21 July 2012. Russian version; Ukrainian version[dead link].

Have some concerns about these two statements:

  • The first statement is weakly sourced (web article of a state visit - not a scholarly source; the improvement tag is from May 2015; has been compared by who?) A more definitive source is needed to support this statement.
  • The second statement comes across as inconclusive ("if it were conclusively documented... then it would fall under the definition..."). This is an encyclopedia, and I would expect facts rather than suppositions, especially in the lead. Also, some of sources used are not scholarly (i.e Peter Finn | Washington Post). One of sources even refers to this as a "great debate." Thoughts on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Please read through the talk and archived talk for this article. Note, also, the talk templates at the top of the page (including the fact that it falls under Eastern European discretionary sanctions). I realise that you are not an experienced editor and it's fine for you to express your concerns. My question to you is a simple one: are you familiar with the subject of this article, as well as its surrounding articles? I'm assuming good faith on your behalf, but this is an extremely high profile article dealing with a highly controversial issue. I'm hoping that you've done some serious research into the subject of the article. I'm more than happy to discuss your concerns if you're confident that you know your subject matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the article presents a tendentious view, beginning with the title ("Holodomor"), which is not the usual name used in reliable sources, and is a neologism which sounds like the "Holocaust", although it is not linguistically connected. TFD (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
There exists a more general problem - people starved also in Kasakhstan Famine in Kazakhstan of 1932–33 and Russia proper (but including ethnic Ukrainians in Kuban). The Kasakh article kk:Қазақстандағы 1932—1933 жж. аштық needs translation, probably even the Russian one ru:Голод в Казахстане (1932—1933) contains some useful data and references, unfortunately noone is interested. This page dominates the other ones because Ukraine cares about the victims, Russia prefers to remeber the most beautiful moments.
Any discussion of Joseph Stalin's politics needs broad knowledge. Please start reading about the Collectivization in the Soviet Union. Victor Kravchenko (defector) described his active participation in the Holodomor in I Chose Freedom already in 1947. Even the Harvest on the Don by Mikhail Sholokhov, published in Soviet Union, shows the Soviet system.
There exists no Holocaust order signed by Adolf Hitler and there is no Hunger order signed by Joseph Stalin.
Demography of Ukraine has been studied by French demographers. Why to discuss the subject using old press articles?
Declan Curran, Lubomyr Luciuk, Andrew G. Newby, Famines in European Economic History: The Last Great European Famines Reconsidered

Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether the famine specifically targeted ethnic Ukrainians or whether it was wider. TFD (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
... Yes, The Four Deuces, and there are other articles dedicated to those questions according to WP:TITLE (denial article + genocide question). As conforming to WP:TITLE for this article, you are well aware of the fact that the neologism issue has been discussed to death here before (just remind yourself by typing 'neologism' into the archived talk search box). Whether you or I, or anyone else likes it or not, "Holodomor" has been in use as the WP:COMMONNAME descriptor for the event for over 20 years. It is used by scholars; it is used in research; it is used in the media. Please demonstrate that there is another form of nomenclature for the event. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Ukrainian famine is the most common term used in reliable sources, while the term holodomor is mostly used by advocates of a particular view of the famine. Ukrainian famine also meets the tests of being more recognizable and being neutral. Certainly the issue has been debated, but consensus can change. TFD (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


I am indenting this to the beginning as it was not my intention to start a discussion on the article's title or the use of Holodomor in political discourse.

In any case, my concerns were of different nature. Take for the example, the statement: "...the loss of life has been compared to the Holocaust."

It is my understanding that the WP:Lead is to be a summary of the important main text of the body and when something is stated in the lead, it must also be stated in the body; and when stated in the body, the point(s) should have greater detail and RS citing.

The word Holocaust appears exactly once throughout the article -- and that is in the lead. There are no further explanations in the article on who compared it to Holocaust, in which context it was compared, what is the scholarly consensus, if any, etc.

In contrast, the article does an excellent job in discussing Holodomor in the context of it being genocide, there's even a separate article that explores this further (Holodomor genocide question).

Hope this explains my issues with the lead. In summary, it makes a strong statement of comparison to Holocaust, but fails to expand on it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

See "Competing victimhoods - Post-Soviet Ukranian Narratives on World War II", p. 121, fn. 79: "The word Holodomor appeared first in Ukrainian newspaper publications about the past in the period of Perestroika (1988-1989) and has become the standard term used in the Ukrainian debate for the great Famine of 1932-33....The term tends to suggest that this crime is unique among Soviet crimes, and thus creates a Ukrainian match for the word Holocaust."[6] The term Holocaust came into general use in 1978. TFD (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, I admit - the origin of the term and its use in the English language discourse are both very interesting topics, but that's not the discussion I'm trying to have. Perhaps this can be broken out into a separate discussion? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: If you'd like to start an RfC, given the sanctions status of this article, it would require more than local consensus unless we want a BATTLEGROUND on our hands. Such an RfC needs to be carefully thought out and presented. There are associated problems in that it poses questions surrounding the nomenclature as applied to spin-off articles as a matter of parity. P.S. The background to its usage as interpreted by some scholars is not what it relevant: it is the fact that it has become the WP:COMMONNAME in English language sources for the event. Discussing it as a victimhood narrative is irrelevant to the title of the article... in fact, it's subject matter for another article unto itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Xx236: I agree that there are articles on related targeting of Cossack and other ethnic communities who were perceived threats to the Stalinist order. The difficulty is in even getting such articles started without POV-ers from multiple sides tearing such articles to pieces. We know that this is politically sensitive territory to cover. The articles would have to be thoroughly researched and the basic groundwork for the structure of such articles tightly written before even trying to move them out of a draft space. That's not to say that they aren't essential projects for development, simply that it's difficult enough to hold even the Holodomor, Holodomor denial, and the Holodomor genocide question articles together without constant disruptions as it stands. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, it is not the common name, and whether or not it is biased is relevant to the naming policy. TFD (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
As I've already noted, you're free to start an RfC based on CCC. Whether or not it's understood to be the common name or perceived to be a biased name is dependent on reliable sources and is up to community consensus, not just the two of us. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Re to comment by K.e.coffman in the the beginning of this thread:
  1. Intro should not include inline references at all if they are provided in the body of text. It should only summarize content of the page.
  2. Yes, it is widely accepted (majority view) that the famine was "man-made"
  3. The "genocide" question is controversial, but it is highly notable and therefore should me mentioned in intro
  4. The title "Holodomor" seems to be more concise, specific and common than "Ukrainian Famine" based on Google books searches, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I got it. Actually, the last phrase ("If Soviet policies and actions were conclusively documented...") should be removed - agree, and the previous phrase should be rephrased and better sourced (yes, it was compared with Holocaust, but not with respect to the number of victims, but in general). My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Ukrainian famine - If there is any other Ukrainian famine we should add the years.Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any issue with the article being titled "Holodomor." Saying Holocaust and Holodomor sound the same as an impetus for a title change to avoid confusion is about as tendentious as arguments can get. Others may disagree. VєсrumЬа TALK 01:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not say the title should be changed because it sounds like Holocaust. I said the term was chosen by people who draw a connection between it and the Holocaust because of its similar sound, which of course is backed up by sources. Again it is a less common name, probably more familiar among Eastern Europeans, but certainly not the usual description in reliable sources and not readily recognizable by most readers. Incidentally, it shows spelling error when I write the term here. TFD (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If you have academic sources which state that "death (extermination) by famine" was chosen as a term specifically because in Ukrainian it sounds like Holocaust and not because the term itself if is descriptive of the historical event, feel free to expand the etymology section. But your contention in no way detracts from the legitimacy of the current title. VєсrumЬа TALK 06:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since this topic is still active, and there seems to be somewhat a consensus (?) on the statement "...the loss of life has been compared to the Holocaust" -- can it be edited or removed? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe lack of response means consensus on Wikipedia, so I will go ahead and remove. I did keep the ref as I was not sure if it supported the Holocaust claim. Still, it's a pretty random article about a state visit, so probably not scholarly anyway, so I'd like to remove it, since it's tagged 'better source' since May. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Which policy lead to you believe that lack of response ≠ consensus? Please point the relevant passage. There is no consensus for the removal, meaning that content remains at the consensus version... which is what stood prior your removal. Note, also, that given that the tag was added here by a an editor of dubious experience and specialised interests, I take on the responsibility of having changed it to a 'better source', ergo I'm going to find more RS for the statement. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Np, just making sure this was not forgotten. How can this be closed out? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it can be closed off per se 'til the fat lady sings (and I'm 1. actually a bit on the skinny side, and 2. couldn't hit a note first time to save my life). Sadly, the subject has become a political football with a number of nationalist interest groups butchering it as opposed to genuinely delving into good, collaborative research and sharing documentation and information still in existence. Toss a fear of competition over the 'victimhood' narrative into the equation and the only losers are the victims and any interest in the 'truth'. My only real objective is to do justice to the WP:TITLE, and that title encompasses treating the subject as the subject regardless of my own personal views. Neither you nor I WP:OWN this article. P.S. looking to editors to side with you is not kosher, no matter how much respect any of us has for any such editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Drop of Ukrainians in percentage of population

Just to remind you that the article falls under WP:ARBEE sanctions. I don't want to embarrass you by slapping an ARB boilerplate on your talk page, so I thought I'd leave you a discrete heads up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I do not understand you, what is your problem? The source do not said that the majority of whom were ethnic Ukrainians, but Ukrainian peasantry. Also saying that four to five million were Ukrainians - not ethnic Ukrainians, which is different, as on the territory of Ukraine was always a large amount of other ethics (mainly Russians and Jews). And sorry, but removing of numbers which represents a real impact on the Ukrainian population, is also for me incomprehensible. Then we could delete also all numbers of death toll, although I do not know why should I do that. Even my numbers are more accurate, because they represent real status. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any data regarding Jewish peasants in Soviet Ukraine? Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Its already in the Death toll section. It seems that you did not even read the article. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my unprecize statement.
  • Census 1926: Ukrainians 80% (81,3% of victims), Russians 9.2% (4.5%), Jews 5.4% (1.4%), Poles 1.6% (1.1%).
  • Another important crime was the Great Purge, the main victim of which were (relatively) ethnic Poles.Xx236 (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I removed Jirka.h23's edit [7]. What he inserted into the lead was a classic example of WP:SYNTHESIS. He used sources to show that the percentage of Ukrainians in Ukraine dropped between 1926 and 1939, and then presented this as if it was caused by the Golodomor. In reality, there is no source cited that says that the dop in percentage was caused by the Golodomor. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Vanjagenije. I'd been distracted from this article due to the usual multitude of other priorities on Wikipedia. It appears that my lack of immediate response was incorrectly interpreted as 'silence = consent' by Jirka.h23. Editors are welcome to form a consensus on content based on good research, not based on a PPOV conflation of their OR interpretation of the meaning of statistics. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so what you two need, is a source that Holodomor had direct major imact on ethnic Ukrainian population in Ukraine? Ok, I will look for it. Because think that it did. (and it is supported by mine source). Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Earlier famine

There should be a reference to the 1921-23 famine, which was just as much a result of Soviet policy, and killed some 1.5 to 2 million.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Genocide question

The map in the Genocide question paragraph does not reflect reality. Many countries marked on the map does not recognize the Holodomor as an act of genocide. For example my country (Czech Republic), it does not recognize the Holodomor as an act of genocide, but only recognize the Holodomor as a criminal act of the Stalinist regime,*1 which is definitely different. Same with Chile, and so on.*2 This should be corrected. And one more question, how is it with the USA? Does it recognize as a genocide? I know that Canada does, but the US? Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The map has been corrected. Now, what about the U.S.? Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
According to this source, USA does not officially recognize the famine as an act of genocide. Map corrected. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the site you found (good find!) is up to date, therefore the map is now current. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Countries do not generally either recognize or not historical events. It would be most unusual for any country to "recognize" any event as a genocide - unless it was a current event and there was a UN vote. Even in that case, voting for a UN resolution declaring an event to be genocide is not the same as a "country" recognizing this.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Gareth Jones Holodomor1.jpg tagging

I was looking for a better image version and full extent version was found but it was tagged A starving child during the Famine of 1921-22, this tag comes from the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies site. It looks like a reliable source, I guess. But File:Gareth Jones Holodomor1.jpg was uploaded to Commons from LiveJournal and tagged using this not so reliable source. But another one copy of this full extent image was found at Nigel Linsan Colley site tagged image "Another child victim of the famine" and image has to be made in 1934. In LinkedIn Nigel Linsan Colley tells he is 'Independent Information Services Professional'.

Prof. Roman Serbyn (University of Quebec at Montreal) article has more detail supporting 1921-22 version is here; the full set of 17 photos is described 'The 17 photographs reproduced here come from the documents of "Union international de secours aux enfants", deposited in the Canton Archives of Geneva. The sender had made a list of the pictures on a separate sheet of paper and inserted the paper in the envelope. The photographs arrived in Geneva on 5 May 1922 and the date was entered on the list.'. File:Gareth Jones Holodomor1.jpg was described 'A village boy who killed and ate his brother (guberniia or province of Zaporizhzhia).', Ukrainian description of the same image is more detailed: "Хлопець села Благовіщенка Іляріон Нищенко, що через голод убив свого 3-літнього брата і з'їв його" - A boy from village Blahovishchenka - Ilarion Nyshchenko - from starvation killed his 3 year old brother and ate him. Complete set of 17 photos were sent by International Red Cross Mission in Ukraine to the Geneva Headquarters of the "Union international de secours aux enfants".

Prof. Serbyn article is a sort of author made brief extraction from his book Roman Serbyn, Holod 1921-1923 I Ukrainska Presa V Kanadi (translation: The Famine of 1921-1923 and the Ukrainian Press in Canada), 1992, ISBN 0-9696301-0-7.

So I'm not sure with current File:Gareth Jones Holodomor1.jpg tagging. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources and, yes, just going on the Ukrainian Encyclopedia alone, I'm removing the photo based on the fact that this article is about the single event known as 'Holodomor', not about the 1921-22 famine. If there is any reasonable question mark over it, it goes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Holodomor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct archived captures added x 2. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of my edit

This article is about the Holodomor. If you have references about Jewish victims of it, please list them here, bot don't discuss other crimes here.Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the edits are destructive but I'm not going to start an edit war.Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The editor uses at least two IPs. Please register.
The only source is Himka's article of 1999. Himka has published several texts since 1999.
Trawniki men were mostly Soviet P.O.W.s , so nationalism+communism.
You are using the Holocaust to relativise the Holodomor - Eastern Ukrainian peasants starved and it was O.K. because some Western Ukrainians participated in the Holocaust several years later. It's absurd.

Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss the text, not the Edit summary field or changing IP Talk pages.06:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Xx236 (talk)
In 1923 Kiev had 128,041 Jews, 140,256 in 1926, and in 1939, 224,236 doesn't say anything about the Holodomor. Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia summarizes existing knowledge. It's not the right place to present your opinions. The Himka's article is biased, which is written at the very beginning, it's about the collaboration, not about Ukrainians during the war. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up on this dynamic IP's WP:POV WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:OR again, Xx236. I hadn't caught up with the fact that the user had reverted us both again in order to introduce their unencyclopaedic WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Holodomor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

All captures redirect to 404 page. Removed as an alternative version already exists. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

There are about 200 presidents in the whole world, why this one is presented here? Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xx236: I guess that president of Ukraine is depicted because Holodomor happened in Ukraine. But, it's just a guess. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that Xx236 is referring to the rapid succession of presidents from around the time of the Orange Revolution onwards. The reconciliation process with Poland over past atrocities, just as one example, went into a complete turn around under Yanukovych. There are a lot of overlaps with Holodomor in modern politics, and these issues should probably be dealt with in that article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: No, he is not referring to Ukrainian presidents, he is referring to "200 presidents in the whole world". Vanjagenije (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: Ah, I see. I misunderstood. Would I be correct in assuming that using both the photo of Yanukovych and Medvedev at the 75th anniversary Remembrance Day (a duplication of content in the body) right next to it is a little WP:POINTy and misleading? I'm not sure of what the content is in aid of, particularly given that Russia does not recognise Holodomor as being anything outside of being part of a broader Soviet famine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
As an update, I've gone BOLD and removed both the photo and duplicated text in the body of the 'Remembrance' section for Ukraine as WP:UNDUE. There's no context for the content other than WP:OTHERSTUFF. If anything it's misleading parading Yanukovych and Medvedev as if they held a political position recognising Holodomor (in fact, it's hypocrisy that shouldn't feature). 2010 was actually the 74th anniversary, and there's nothing to make this particular commemoration more important or unique than than any subsequent ones. This is an article on 'Holodomor', not a PR piece for Yanu and the RF. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that were good removals - I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my lack of precision, I meant "not a PR piece for Yanu and the RF".Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The picture had been happily expelled from here but it recently resurfaced in Memorial in Commemoration of Famines' Victims in Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Xx236: Yes, I've seen it. I haven't had time to do more work on the series of articles surrounding Holodomor for a few weeks, but I intend to remove it from there as well. Not only does the title of that article need to be changed to reflect the 2015 change to the museum, if photographs of international ambassadors paying tribute to the victims are needed, there are other photos of dignitaries from the other side of the world available for usage. Aside from obvious factors discussed on this talk page, it also makes it promotes an understanding for the reader that it is a subject of only localised interest between Ukraine and Russia and trivialises the extent of its being an issue of global recognition to one extent or another. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I've just removed the image and caption in question yet again as there appeared to be a consensus for its removal. It was restored without discussion on January 31st. If there is a valid argument for the use of this image, would editors please bring their rationale for discussion before simply restoring something after a month (i.e., please follow WP:BRD). Cheers, all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


This article is already too severely biased not to contextualize it in the historical series of droughts and famines in Czarist Russia, other pre-USSR territories and the early USSR - people were helped in Czarist Russia, they weren't during the Holodomor. The Holodomor was the direct result of the crazy collectivisation, which included extermination or expulsion of local leaders. Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you responding to someone? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
User:MaeseLeonXx236 (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think he's making a speech Santamoly (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
And what are you doing here? Playing sax?Xx236 (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree more background is needed. It's similar to the Great Famine. --Monochrome_Monitor 07:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Which Great Famine?
The Holodomor is a part of the Soviet famine of 1932–33. Unfortunately the page is very short and the Kazakhstan famine of 1932-1933 needs to be translated from Kasakh.
The context of critics of this page is frequently Communism or Russian nationalism.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I also think the conspiracies should be addressed. It's a common meme of nazis that "communist Jews" killed "20 million Christian white Ukrainians" and that bullshit. Nevermind the fact that ukraine itself only claims 3.9million dead.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
At least 6 million Ukrainians were murdered by the Soviets. ( (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC))
Did you mean "6 million Ukrainians were murdered by Soviet Ukrainians"? Ukrainians are still murdering Ukrainians 75 years later. Are there any up-to-date numbers? Santamoly (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Stalin actually starved 12 million Ukrainians to death in the Holodomor. Only Russian nationalists deny it was a genocide as they cannot deal with the fact they no longer matter since the Soviet Union imploded. ( (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC))

Reminder that this talk page is not a forum

The talk sections above are explicitly WP:FORUM. Please stop using this page as a forum: try going to a forum. Unless you have constructive comments to make about the content, and the content at issue is backed up by reliable sources (plus haven't been discussed to death in the archived talk), stop using it to rabbit on about Stalin, Putin (who is further covered by WP:BLPVIO on talk pages), and whoever and whatever you want to make personal assertions about, plus flame each other about. Enough trolling. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Direct responsibility for the implementation of Stalin's policies

The responsibility of Genrikh Yagoda for the implementation of Stalin's policies in Ukraine is a known fact.[1] [2][3]

It is a relevant information for the article and as such should be mentioned. -- EatsSweets (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but not in the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know how to make this edit. -- EatsSweets (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I have talked to a helper on the Wikipedia IRC channel and he recommended me to insert the changes into a particular place, which I did in my recent edit here. This edit has been reverted due to WP:POV, WP:CON, WP:DUE. Comment from Ymblanter above ack'd the edit already. If you think that a mention of the person responsible for the implementation of the policies is not relevant for the article then you should remove all the other names as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EatsSweets (talkcontribs) 23:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
There were MANY officials responsible for the holodomor implementation, and there in no reason to single Yagoda out.--Lute88 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, which 'other' names should be removed? The only name being used at the moment is that of Stalin. The WP:TITLE of this article is "Holodomor", not "List of Soviet infrastructure placed in charge of implementing Holodomor". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I was the editor EatsSweets talked to on IRC, and I indeed advised him that the body of the article might be a suitable place if Yagoda was to be mentioned. At a closer look I have to conclude that the addition was unsuitable for several reasons: Firstly, it's factually incorrect in the details; at the time of the Holodomor Yagoda was not head of the NKVD but assistant director of the OGPU. That could be fixed, but secondly, the given references are problematic. One is a pamphlet hosted on someone's personal website. Apparently it was once published in the Toronto Sun, but since the author does not discuss Yagoda's role in any detail and does not assign sole responsibility for implementing the forced collectivization to him (and gets his title wrong), it's not helpful. I could not find "Holodomor: the Ukrainian holocaust" on either Google Scholar, Google Books or WorldCat. A web search brings up quite a few citations, many Wikipedia-related, but not the work itself nor any evidence that it exists. The third source is highly reliable but does not assign responsibility for forced collectivization to Yagoda. Historians seem to disagree with each other on Yagoda's role in the Holodomor, with some arguing he was demoted for not being ruthless enough. Summarizing all that as "Yagoda was directly responsible" is at best a gross oversimplification of a complex topic, and I doubt this article is the appropriate place to explore Yagoda's role. Huon (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Huon: I've actually communicated with the EatsSweets on their talk page. The motivation behind the inclusion of the content is distinctly WP:NOTHERE, and I'm not prepared to even tolerate the beginnings of a discussion of the introduction of WP:FRINGE theories of this calibre on this talk page (or any other talk page). Cheers for chasing up the sources! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Huon: Thank you for following up in this Talk Page. The first source you refer to has in the header "Holodomor: the Ukrainian holocaust".[4] The Torronto Sun article is referenced in multiple works[5], including Ukrainian newspapers[6]. The reference for Yagoda's responsibility for the implementation of Stalin's policies as an assistant director of OGPU is mentioned in the first source.[7]. It says: "Yagoda commanded the GPU of Ukraine, Belarus, and the NCT to act in accordance with his memorandum of the preceding day and 'immediately arrest all [peasants] who were making their way from Ukraine and the NCT and submit them to thorough filtration.'"
There's also a document stating he was sending reports to Stalin about the results of his operations and that he had sent the draft of an order to the OGPU on the campaign against theft of grain to Stalin. This has broadened the OGPU’s authority to include organization of grain storage.[8] Your reference of him being demoted for his unsatisfactory performance supports the fact that he was the one in charge, even if only through the chain of command.
If these sources are enough to establish the fact of Yagoda's role in the Holodomor then there's no reason to further explore his role in the article itself. The one sentence in the edit[9] is simply a mention of this fact, not a discussion about his role. I believe it should be mentioned since the works on this topic also mention his role in the Holodomor and because people responsible for crimes are usually attributed for their crimes, such as in Bosnian genocide and Armenian Genocide.
NOTE: As you can see above from Iryna's reply, regardless of all the provided sources, this has been automatically disregarded as a fringe theory and I have been labelled as WP:NOTHERE. Since she claims to be 'not prepared to even tolerate the beginnings of a discussion', you can assess for yourself how much objectivity and professionalism the opponents of this edit have. It wouldn't surprise me if I'll get banned soon, just for pointing it out. -- EatsSweets (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if Yagoda was a notable executor to be listed here, but I know that the answer should be academic, not one found in a newspaper article. The Communist Party ruled so the leaders in Moscow and in Ukraine were responsible. The OGPU was a toool, one of many. Party and Komsomol activists robbed peasants of food. Many Germans claim that Adolf Hitler murdered the Jews, they prefer to forget their grandfathers participation. Yagoda was a vintik in the machine.
You haven't been labelled as WP:NOTHERE, but your contribution. At the same time you write about your opponents, rather than about their edits. Please - less emotions.Xx236 (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The referenced text is: Roman Serbyn Holodomor: The Ukrainian Genocide, the listed authors are editors of the book. The book mentiones Yagoda on four pages only.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Xx236:There are multiple other sources listed above that support the this fact. Saying that the Communist Party is responsible is really just removing the blame from anyone else regardless of their actions and role in the whole chain of command. As I have pointed out before, the people that command others to commit genocide are attributed for their crimes in other similar articles, such as Ratko Mladic in case of the Srebrenica Massacre. He was a general, not the leader, yet he's held responsible. You don't provide any sources about the Communist party nor the Komsomol having knowledge about the actions during the Holodomor. It has been already mentioned that Yagoda sent reports directly to Stalin, not the Communist Party.
If you read about the meaning of WP:NOTHERE, you can see that it describes an editor (a person) that is not here to build the Wikipedia. You can follow up on my Talk page about Iryna's previous comments. Also, my comment was describing the nature of the edits here. They are unconstructive and don't even discuss the matter at hand, just directly dismiss it as WP:FRINGE regardless if it falls outside of the definition, because both academic and newspaper sources were provided.
I don't understand how it is relevant that the book mentions him only on four pages, since his name might be omitted elsewhere because of the context and because the book describes the whole Holodomor as such. Your mention of many people believing that Adolf Hitler killed the Jews, instead of attributing their grandfathers, leaves me puzzled. It wasn't Hitler was carrying out the murders. Indeed, in the Holocaust article it's the SS that is mentioned as the one coordinating the process. Reinhard Heydrich is mentioned specifically as the chief of Reich Main Security Office and they were the ones carrying out policy against the Jews described in the Heydrich's report. This is what I'm trying to add to this article. Simply naming the chief of the organization that is held responsible. -- EatsSweets (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
NKVD was a tool of the Communist party (Stalin's). The division of responsibilty between NKVD in Ukraine and the CP of Ukraine was more complicated.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Party and Komsomol activists invided villages and robbed food. Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
German law system after the war punished low level executors rather than Nazi politicians who designed and controlled the Holocaust. Some German sources push the responsibility from the German Nazi state to local thugs. Irving tried to prove that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust. Please don't go this way. Stalin and his team (Political Bureau) ruled and were responsible. Absolute power creates also absolute responsibility.
Please quote your source that OGPU was the only responsible. The PB member Lazar Kaganovich personally oversaw grain confiscations, so Yagoda was his subordinate. Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Xx236:"On 30th January 1930 the Politburo approved the liquidation of kulaks as a class. Vyacheslav Molotov was put in charge of the operation. According to Simon Sebag Montefiore, the author of Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (2003),"[10]
"In 1922 Cheka was replaced by the All-Union State Political Administration (OGPU). On the death of Dzerzhinsky in 1926, Vyacheslav Menzhinsky became the new head of the organization and Yagoda became his first deputy."[11]
"During 1930 this policy led to 2,200 rebellions involving more than 800,000 people. Lazar Kaganovich and Anastas Mikoyan led expeditions into the countryside with "brigades of OGPU troopers and armoured trains like warlords". Lavrenti Beria, who was involved in this operation, recalled: "When we Bolsheviks want to get something done, we close our eyes to everything else." ... "Yagoda's men were involved in this operation and according Raphael R. Abramovitch, the author of The Soviet Revolution: 1917-1939 (1962), Yagoda told Stalin that the "only way of dealing with the kulaks was with bullets. One OGPU official admitted: "We have executed some twenty or thirty thousand persons, perhaps fifty thousand."[12]
"KYIV -- President Viktor Yushchenko has praised a Ukrainian court ruling that finds former Soviet leaders culpable in the mass famine in Ukraine in 1932-33, RFE/RL's Ukrainian and Russian services report." ... "The list of leaders found guilty by the court of organizing "genocide of a Ukrainian ethnic group" and murdering millions of people included Soviet leader Josef Stalin, his close associates Vyacheslav Molotov and Lazar Kaganovich, Soviet Ukrainian Communist Party officials Pavel Postyshev and Stanislav Kosior, and Ukrainian politicians Vlas Chubar and Mendel Hataevich."[13][14]
The court verdict from 2010 is the most recent document regarding the responsibility for the Holodomor. The people found guilty, apart from Stalin, were all part of the PB as you have suggested. The OGPU were implementing the policies (doing the executions), but don't bear the final responsibility. So, your previous statement was correct. I stand corrected.
This verdict is already mentioned in the article, so there's probably no reason to further expand on this issue. -- EatsSweets (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Ukrainian Genocide

The Holodomor is more widely referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide. ( (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

Do you have reliable sources to back this up? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
A quick search online reveals multiple sources calling the Holodomor the Ukrainian Genocide and the Soviet Genocide of Ukraine. ( (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC))
A quick search online does not reflect how it is treated in subject-specific academic sources. Also, please read through the talk page archives. The WP:TITLE of this article has been discussed many, many times over... and no decisions as to the nomenclature for any Wikipedia article has ever been made on the basis of a 'quick search online'. "Holodomor" is the WP:COMMONNAME. As for 'Ukrainian Genocide', that's why we've got an article on the Holodomor genocide question. Whether it was genocide or not is heavily debated, therefore the WP:NPOV title should remain as the academic COMMONNAME. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The article on the Armenian Genocide uses that title, even though Turkey still denies it was a genocide. Therefore it doesn't matter if Russia still disputes that the Holodomor was a genocide. ( (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC))

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The most common name in reliable sources is Ukrainian famine. The Holodomor name is used because it implies genocide. Most reliable sources do not use the term genocide because it is normally used to imply that the motivation was the elimination of an ethnic group. And of course it is irrelevant how the state responsible or any state for that matter choses to call it. TFD (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Holodomor is almost universally called the Ukrainian Genocide. As the Armenian Genocide is called by its correct title on this site the Holodomor should be too. ( (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC))
This is not a Wikipedia policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Many sources call it the Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-33. ( (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC))
@Iryna Harpy: A court ruling from 2010 regarding the responsibility for the Holodomor supports the statement that Holodomor is classified as a genocide:
"Judge of the Chamber of Criminal Appeal Court of Kyiv Skavronik VM, the Secretary Bondarenko MS, with the participation of the Prosecutor of Kyiv Prosecutor's Office Department Dotsenko AM made a preliminary review of the criminal case number 1-33 / 2010 instituted the Security Service of Ukraine on the fact of committing genocide in Ukraine in 1932-1933 for the crime under Part. 1, Art. 442 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding ..."[1] -- EatsSweets (talk)
It may be classified as a genocide in Ukrainian jursiprudence. What is important however is how it is considered in academic writing that is generally accepted. Most experts do not believe that "extermination of the Ukrainian nation" was a motivation for the famine. TFD (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Which experts?
Any sources?
Ukraine didn't have the obshchina tradition, so the collectivization was probably more difficult there. BTW - many Germans created fictional kolkhoses instead to resist. I don't know how long did the fictional ones survived.Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In Stalin's Genocides, Norman M. Naimark writes, "Some scholars isolate the Ukrainian killer famine of 1932-33 to support a claim of genocide against Stalin." (p. 3)[8] He later writes, "The question of whether the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 can be considered genocide has been a source of considerable historiographical contention...." (p. 70) We cannot say that the famine was genocide unless we can show that there is academic consensus for the claim, as is the case for example with the Holocaust. And the claim is made by a minority ("some," not "most"). Where the claim is most vocally expressed is in the political rather than academic field. So that there is no question, the dispute is not whether Stalin committed mass killings but whether their objection was the destruction of the Ukrainian people, rather than other political reasons. was it more comparable to Hitler's murder of the Jews or to Stalin's murder of Russian citizens of the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You write Stalin's murder of Russian citizens. Stalin orderd to murder Soviet citizens, especially minorities - Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937–38), Operation Lentil (Caucasus) rather than Russian citizens.
Please prove that Ukrainians weren't victims of the genocide. Kasakh people were also vicitims, unfortunately there are only few sources in English.Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Naimark is one of many authors. Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
To start with, this is your responsibility to prove that it was a genocide, or, to be precise, that there is a consensus in the academic world (not just in Ukraine) that it was. So far, we have seen zero evidence of this consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Soviet citizens of all nationalities. Indeed Naimark sees at least some of these murders as genocide. He also says that most scholars do not. I do not have to prove that the murders of Ukrainians were not genocide, I do not even have to believe that, and in fact I do not know the answer. What you and I must do is follow content policy, which is to ensure that the article gives due weight to different opinions in secondary sources according to the weight they have there. Our opinions are irrelevant. Our arguments and proofs are irrelevant. TFD (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


It was genocide

Why is the article pretending it wasn't deliberate? Is the site controlled by Putin fanatics? ( (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC))

Did you actually read the article? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This IP is a sock of User:HarveyCarter, trolling as usual. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
What does Putin have to do with the holodomor? Can you explain? Santamoly (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Putin is a vocal supporter of Stalin's actions in Unkraine. ( (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC))
As far as anyone can tell, Putin has consistently and openly criticised Stalin; although he has said occasionally said that Stalin wasn't worse than Hitler: [9]. The trend today in Russia is to not paper over the tyrants and butchers of the past, but to learn where they came from and why they existed. Santamoly (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Putin is an unelected dictator like Stalin, and he has regularly defended his genocides and his illegal invasions of sovereign countries. ( (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC))
My source contradicts you. You don't offer a source. Santamoly (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple sources online of Putin defending his hero Stalin's genocide. Try typing putin stalin into google. ( (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC))
My sources are listed in my edits; you're just spouting hot air. Less kind-hearted people would call it "foaming at the mouth". Regardless, it's called "trolling" and doesn't belong in Wikipedia Santamoly (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Santamoly, stop using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. The 'rehabilitation' of Stalin as the brainchild of Putin and his administration is well documented in reliable sources: For Putin, For Stalin; Stalin, Russia's New Hero; Putin Denounces Lenin, Says Stalin Got it Right; Putin, once critical of Stalin, now embraces Soviet dictator's tactics; Russia's Vladimir Putin resurrects 'our saviour' Joseph Stalin; Don't be fooled by the lovable, new-look hipster Stalin. That's barely the tip of the iceberg, so try keeping up with the news... and don't respond to trolling as an opportunity to push your own POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is very clear on this issue. Nearly every talk page on wiki that I know of includes a note at the top that says "assume good faith" and "avoid personal attacks". Saying "Is the site controlled by Putin fanatics?" is not good faith, it is not avoiidng personal attacks, and above all it is not constructive. Office worm (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Figures for the genocide

I had always heard that up to 20 million people were deliberately murdered in the Soviet starvation of the Ukrainians. (JimPurvis (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC))

See the cited sources in the article that place the figure anywhere from 2.4 to 7.5 million. General Ization Talk 19:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The figure of 20 million is mentioned in the article and may well be the figure used in some sources. But reliable sources put the actual figure much lower. TFD (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The figures change all the time. Sometimes it is made higher by politicians which want votes and support or by historians and writers who want to get famous or are under a secret service paycheck. I remember when Stephen Harper landed in deep water for claiming that 10 million people died in Ukraine due to the famine. Robert Conquest was famous for coming up with huge death statistics in Soviet history , however it was later exposed by the British newspaper the Guardian that Robert Conquest was working for a wing of the British secret service called the Information Research Department (IRD). The purpose of the IRD was psychological warfare by intentionally spreading subvertive rumours across the world to make Communist organisation in the third world more difficult. Office worm (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Conquest and Hearst

Is it the source ? Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Much of IRD works was later published in the Soviet Studies Series Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert Conquest

Robert Conquest should be taken with a pinch of salt when he is used on Soviet related wiki pages. Conquest a member of a branch of the British secret service called the Information Research Department which was developed to spread subvertive rumours and lies across the globe to sabotage Communist attempts to organise in the third world. Not only this but his books use Thomas Walker and Dr Ammende photographs, many of which were actually taken in Russian in the 1920s during the civil war and he relabelled as Ukraine in the 1930s. If a Japanese historian took photographs of Pearl Harbour and relabelled them as Hiroshima, we would rightfully label this historian as a fraud, so why don't we apply the same standards to historians who are highly critical of the Soviet Union? His book The Harvest of Sorrow contains excerpts from the Chicago American, a newspaper owned by fascist media giant William Randolph Hearst (a personal friend of Hitler) which was infamous for spreading open lies about the Soviet Union. It may be difficult but if we believe that frauds should not be tolerated than we should think twice before citing him. Office worm (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Office worm (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

in Russian - probably in Russia, to be exact in Soviet Russia.
Yes, there are little pictures of Holodomor victims, not because there weren't any victims, but because the Soviets controlled the area. Ukrainian peasants didn't have cameras.
It's impossible to spread lies about the Soviet Union, because the Soviet implemented any idiocy themselves.
The SU was very friendly 1939-1941, exported to Nazi Germany prisoners, including Jews. Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Conquest's scholarship around the Holodomor is still considered mainstream. The issue of the photographs have been discussed thoroughly if you care to read through the talk archives.
Please stop using the talk page of the article as a forum for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments regarding sources. More importantly, stop using the article for your agenda pushing: here, here, here, and your WP:POINTy op-ed pieces on Ukrainian nationalists and Western historians here, and here.
Also, don't remove links just because there may be WP:LINKROT (not to mention that this one you removed works). Many articles have dead links which weren't archived, or can't be substituted. It is assumed that they were cite checked for verifiability (especially articles like this one where there has been serious edit warring and high traffic for year). Please read WP:KDL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
While personal interest or prejudice may affect one's scholarship, it is not a reason to reject scholarship unless there is a question whether facts were falsified. That's why academic sources are preferable to popular writing. They are peer reviewed, other scholars comment on them and in a worst case the publisher can retract them. The process imposes a discipline which does not exist for example in an op-ed. The one reservation I would have is that since Conquest wrote, a lot of new sources have become available, leading to more informed estimates. There is no reason not to mention him, although we should say when his estimate was made. TFD (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that the pre-Soviet dissolution breakdowns are already prefaced in the article adequately by "The estimate prior to the opening of the former Soviet archives varied widely..." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert Conquest has been proven a fraud who worked for an organisation built to spread lies about the USSR, and he was caught using fraudalant photographs. This is very important and needs pointing out. So why am I being arbitrarily spammed with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT for pointing out the truth? Office worm (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Other names

It's also known as the Ukrainian Holocaust, the Soviet Starvation of Ukraine, and Stalin's Mass Starvation of Ukraine. ( (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC))

If you want to talk like a Ukrainian nationalist, a Nazi, or a CIA planted journalist, then you call it the "forced famine" or the "genocide". If you want to talk like a historian, you call it the Soviet famine of 1932–33. Office worm (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

kulak sabotaging of collectivisation, nationalist sabotage

Please don't use Stalinist language. Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

But that is what happened. The wealthy upper class of peasant landowners known as kulaks did sabotage agricultural production in protest to collectivisation. I am not aware of any historian who questions this. I think it's ironic how people are fighting agianst "stalinist language" when nearly this entire article follows the American/Nazi/Ukrainina nationalist version of history which claims the Soviet famine of 1932–33 was a "forced famine" for the Ukrainians. Office worm (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
According to your logic the Jews sabotaged the Holocaust.
upper class of peasant landowners known as kulaks - known to whom? The same Americans are known as imperialist and exterminators.
This page is about Ukraine, where the magic word was kurkul'. Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


How can there be any doubt that it was genocide? It was demonstrably a deliberate attempt to starve the entire population of Ukraine to death. I am asking because I don't see why this is disputed in the lede. ( (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

Because the entire question of Holodomor as being 'genocide' is disputed. Please read through the archived talk pages and related articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no doubt that Stalin deliberately starved Ukraine, therefore it is undeniably a genocide. ( (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC))
Please read the top of this article talk page as I've already asked of you on your own talk page: this is an article talk page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a dispute over whether Stalin targeted Ukrainians specifically. Most reliable sources say he did not. TFD (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Which are the most reliable ? Xx236 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no doubt the starvation was deliberately aimed at Ukraine, and it is offensive to pretend otherwise. Only Russian nationalists try to deny that this was a genocide. ( (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC))
Of course there is plenty of doubt. Read the article. Look at the maps. Russia was also affected. The grain confiscation in Ukraine was administered by Ukrainians. Lazar Kaganovich, Stanislav Kosior, Mendel Khataievich, Pavel Postyshev, Stanislav Redens, Vsevolod Balytsky, all Ukrainians, were some of the leading perpetrators of the disaster. Grain confiscation in Russia was administered by Russians. If the Ukrainian Holodomor was a genocide, it was a genocide by Soviet Ukrainians against Ukrainian peasants. Commenters also tend to overlook the fact that the Soviet Union was beset by repeated famines after WWI because of the primitive state of agriculture in the Soviet Union. Activist academics like Nikolai Starikov suggest that it didn't help that the west demanded payment for machinery in grain and timber only at a time when the Soviets were desperate for farm machinery to jump-start Soviet agriculture. In other words, the main Holodomor villains were actually the Brits. I'm just suggesting here that this topic is far below a minimum academic standard, and could use a great deal more diligent research and a great deal LESS name-calling and finger-pointing. It's got the makings of a great spy novel, for sure. Santamoly (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:SOAP applies to everyone. This isn't a page for speeches (as you've implied yourself below)... and reiterating your own PPOV picked up from your own preferred blogs and forums serves no purpose but to promote a POV. Please save the oversimplification for the blogs and forums you visit. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Basic knowledge is useful - Kosior and Redens were born Polish.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Then without getting bogged down in "oversimplification", how do we explain the presence of Polish-Ukrainians at the helm of a Ukrainian "genocide"? Santamoly (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Santamoly - Lazar Kaganovich and Mendel Khataievich were Jews, not Ukrainian [like many of the Old Bolsheviks] and the others were Poles — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

So, according to you, there was no such thing as a Ukrainian Jew? "Santamoly - Lazar Kaganovich and Mendel Khataievich were Jews, not Ukrainian"- That statement is every bit as stupid as one claiming "Einstein was Jewish, not German." (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

" In other words, the main Holodomor villains were actually the Brits". Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, yeah, sure they were. The MAIN villains"? Yeah, that comment isn't completely asinine. Not at all. Just when you thought Wikipedia couldn't get any more ridiculous. One can always expect ideologically sound entries from people who, in seeming seriousness, claim the "main villains" aren't the people who, you know, actually planned and perpetrated the particular atrocity in question. No one who claims the British are the primary culprits most responsible for the Ukrainian famine, you know the one deliberately engineered by former British Prime Minister Joseph Stalin, should be allowed anywhere near this entry, ever. Now I think I'm going to head on over to, oh, I don't know, the "Rape of Nanking" talk page so I can read which Western country is the "main villain" really responsible for that atrocity. (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

IP and IP read the section below and understand that it applies to you both. Enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The person who wrote that utterly ludicrous claim about the British seems to believe he is the ultimate arbiter for this entry. It will be ENOUGH when someone who peddles such abject silliness isn't allowed anywhere near this entry. (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
No it has not been "demonstrably" demonstrated that there was a holodmor which was a deliberate genocide against Ukrainians. This theory was actually war propaganda used by William Randolph Hearst in his newspapers after his visit to Nazi Germany. He used photographs taken from Russia in the 1920s and relabelled them as Ukraine in the 1930s. This was a move by him to convince the American public that there was a conspiracy by the Soviets to deliberatly starve all Ukrainians to death for no reason what so ever. It is one of the most genius and effective war propaganda campaigns to date. Claimin that the USSR was intentionally trying to stare Ukrainians and claiming that the USSR committed genocide in Ukraine, is as ludicrous as claiming that Iraqi soldiers threw babies out of incubators. Office worm (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The Soviets deliberately starved Ukrainians to death in order to destroy Ukrainian nationalism. The genocide was not done "for no reason whatsoever". Most countries around the world recognize the Holodomor as the second genocide of the 20th century. ( (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC))

Ukrainian Genocide of 1932-33

This is the most widely-used name for the genocide today. (AlexanderShatolv (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC))

A statement by a band new account without a proper analysis of references is not really credible.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not a common phrasing, highly POV. "Holodomor" has a nationalist flavor; "Famine of 1932-33 in the Ukraine" would be a truly NPOV phrasing. Nearly 1 million people died in Kazakhstan and more in other parts of Russia. "Genocide" does not describe this event. Carrite (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That reflects nothing other than your opinion. RS treat it as a serious genocide topic, whether you like it or not. It doesn't seem that you've cultivated your sense of taste beyond your personal taste. Given that you've been around Wikipedia for a long time, you know that talk pages are not for your political advocacy. Given, also, that you've neither been involved with the editing of this article, nor any form of discussion of this article's content on this talk page, I suggest that you familiarise yourself as to why this, and surrounding articles, are on the ARBEE sanctions list... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The Holodomor is officially recognised as a genocide. Stalin murdered more people than anyone in history. (AlexanderShatolv (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC))
It is recognized by a handful of countries and not recognized by other countries.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Please read the article, familiarise yourself with the scholarly debate, and read through the talk page archives before making such proclamations. It is an area of dispute as to whether it was genocide or not. No editor's personal opinion is of consequence, and you're using this talk page as a soapbox. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Only Russia denies that the genocide in Ukraine was intentional. (AlexanderShatolv (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC))
This is bullshit. Stop soapboxing and do something useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Russia cant deny a genocide which did not take place. There was no Genocide and actually Russia is not the only country that rejects the Thesis that this was a genocide. Israel for example take the line that this was only a Famine which was ait and abet by the Soviet Government just like the Government of Great Britain did that during the Famine in Ireland in 1845-1852.--SBC Guy (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Sources please.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It was a crime against humanity but not a genocide of Ukrainians. Israel reject the Thesis that the Soviet Famine of 1932/1933 which killed not only ethnic Ukrainians was a genocide.--SBC Guy (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Enough WP:SOAP, SBC Guy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I promote nothing there is no consensus that the Holodomor was a genocide.--SBC Guy (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean, "I promote nothing"? You don't seem to be aware of the fact that you've countered your own argument, as "There is no consensus that the Holodomor was a genocide" can just as well be met with "there is no consensus that the Holodomor was not a genocide." There is serious debate over the issue as attested to by high profile historians, and damning evidence. Prior perestroika, this famine was not even acknowledged as having taken place by the Soviet Union... so, yes, you're not only promoting your POV, but are pushing it with edits such as this. You also appear keen to tell an entirely different version of other events than what is attested to by reliable sources when you try to refactor content like this. Every editor is entitled to have their own opinion on any given subject, but we are WP:HERE to ensure as best we can that articles reflect what reliable sources have to say (whether we personally agree or not). Wikipedia is not your vehicle for promoting what you believe to be the "Truth". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Largest genocide?

Was the Holodomor the largest single genocide in history? (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:D543:BE5C:72B6:62DE (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

See List of genocides by death toll. It is currently second, with estimated casualties of between 1,800,000 and 7,500,000 people. The first is the Holocaust, with estimated casualties of between 4,200,000 and 11,000,000 people.

Both are relatively small in comparison to the World War II casualties. Estimated to between 65,000,000 and 85,000,000 million people. Dimadick (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of the Davies & Wheatcroft source for POV

Currently in the article, the "Genocide question" section kicks off by using an early Conquest claim that he believed the famine to be a "deliberate act of mass murder" and then uses a quote by Davies and Wheatcroft to seemingly confirm this assessment since they believed rapid industrialization to be an underlying cause of the famine. However, in the same article Davies and Wheatcroft make it clear that they do not support the idea that the famine was "deliberate":

"However, we have found no evidence, either direct or indirect, that Stalin sought deliberately to starve the peasants. The top-secret decisions of the Politburo, endorsed by Stalin, never hint at a policy of deliberate starvation." [1]

Additionally, the same article points out that Conquest himself no longer holds the view that the famine was intentionally caused or "genocidal", but rather policy decisions contributed to exasperating it:

"Our view of Stalin and the famine is close to that of Robert Conquest, who would earlier have been considered the champion of the argument that Stalin had intentionally caused the famine and had acted in a genocidal manner. In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that 'Stalin purposefully inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with the resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first - thus consciously abetting it'."

To use both of these people to make the claim that the famine was a "deliberate act of mass murder" seems dishonest. In light of the content of the source actually used, perhaps it would be appropriate to clean the section up to make the ideas of the scholars quoted clearer? Aerdil (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


That view still supports the idea that the Holodomor was a genocide. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:45E5:4437:80D3:D2CF (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

Alternate names

It is not usually known as the Holodomor in the Western world. (Marrsly (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC))

It's usually referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide or the Soviet Genocide in Ukraine. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:45E5:4437:80D3:D2CF (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC))
If you live in a part of the western world where the Holodomor is discussed you'll find it is called the Holodomor. Although I'm British, I live in Winnipeg, Canada, home to a huge number of ethnic Ukrainians. It is called the Holodomor here. And it is called the Holodomor specifically because it was not a natural famine, and none of the survivors want Russian propagandists implying it was a natural famine. Holodomor means an artificial famine, which is what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
While that may be the common term among some in the Ukrainian diaspora, it is not the common term in English. It was chosen because of its similarity (in English) to the term "Holocaust," which is why it is controversial. TFD (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of the Davies & Wheatcroft source for POV

Currently in the article, the "Genocide question" section kicks off by using an early Conquest claim that he believed the famine to be a "deliberate act of mass murder" and then uses a quote by Davies and Wheatcroft to seemingly confirm this assessment since they believed rapid industrialization to be an underlying cause of the famine. However, in the same article Davies and Wheatcroft make it clear that they do not support the idea that the famine was "deliberate":

"However, we have found no evidence, either direct or indirect, that Stalin sought deliberately to starve the peasants. The top-secret decisions of the Politburo, endorsed by Stalin, never hint at a policy of deliberate starvation." [1]

Additionally, the same article points out that Conquest himself no longer holds the view that the famine was intentionally caused or "genocidal", but rather policy decisions contributed to exasperating it:

"Our view of Stalin and the famine is close to that of Robert Conquest, who would earlier have been considered the champion of the argument that Stalin had intentionally caused the famine and had acted in a genocidal manner. In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that 'Stalin purposefully inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with the resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first - thus consciously abetting it'."

To use both of these people to make the claim that the famine was a "deliberate act of mass murder" seems dishonest. In light of the content of the source actually used, perhaps it would be appropriate to clean the section up to make the ideas of the scholars quoted clearer? Aerdil (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


That view still supports the idea that the Holodomor was a genocide. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:45E5:4437:80D3:D2CF (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

Alternate names

It is not usually known as the Holodomor in the Western world. (Marrsly (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC))

It's usually referred to as the Ukrainian Genocide or the Soviet Genocide in Ukraine. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:45E5:4437:80D3:D2CF (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC))
If you live in a part of the western world where the Holodomor is discussed you'll find it is called the Holodomor. Although I'm British, I live in Winnipeg, Canada, home to a huge number of ethnic Ukrainians. It is called the Holodomor here. And it is called the Holodomor specifically because it was not a natural famine, and none of the survivors want Russian propagandists implying it was a natural famine. Holodomor means an artificial famine, which is what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
While that may be the common term among some in the Ukrainian diaspora, it is not the common term in English. It was chosen because of its similarity (in English) to the term "Holocaust," which is why it is controversial. TFD (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)