This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Fully protected two weeks. Please try to reach agreement here about the outstanding issues. Consider opening up a
WP:Request for comment. If agreement is reached, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk
) 01:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Population drop by 11 percent?
Article is collection of the foolish claims - “between 1926 and 1939, the Ukrainian population dropped by 11%” – how 28 millions (1926) can be less then 30.9 millions (1939) by 11%??? What a 24 months Famine??? What you are doing with “historical articles”, guys ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.134.128.36 (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What are your references about 28 and 30.9 million? Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone inserted a Soviet census by ethnicity list - but not any actual census by region list, nor was any census undertaken each year, making the figures a tad valueless at best. Collect (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is (or was – now at archive.org) a Holodomor propaganda site that uses this 11% drop in "Ukrainians":
Pick up the Small Soviet Encyclopedia, 1940 edition, open it and under the letter "U" read what is written in the article "Ukrainian SSR".
It is a document and there you will see in black and white, although in fine print, that Soviet Ukraine according to the census of 1927 had a population of 32 million and in 1939 (twelve years later) — 28 million.
Only 28 million? What happened to 4 million people after 1927? Where is the natural increase which in 12 years should have been at least 6-7 million? That means more than 10 million! What happened to those 10 million of the Ukrainian population? What happened to them in the "land of flourishing socialism?"
Identifying the original source, Small Soviet Encyclopedia, 1940 is relevant, as this claim has been repeatedly used in Holodomor propaganda / hoaxery. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
In fact the article on the Ukrainian SSR says the population was 30,960,200 (or 30.960,2 thousand, as in the original). I do not know where the other numbers come from, or if whoever wrote this ever opened the book. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Recent edit war with reverts such as this demonstrated that this article is
WP:NPOV, and largely populate this article with factual errors, misinterpretation of the sources and selective source picking. Please discuss. (Igny (talk
) 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC))
Who do you consider a "radical nationalist"? I would suggest, in fact, than any such aspersions are ill cast. Collect (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you, Collect, and Galassi (but lets ignore he's Jewish) and of course Lothar (is he even Ukrainian?). Anyone who opposes Ingy is a radical nationalist, what nation? who knows--Львівське (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No, Lothar is German-American. Accusations of "Ukrainian nationalism" directed at me are awfully silly. ~~
talk
) 22:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I could just as equally say that you and your gang of neo-Soviet sovoks are trying to own the article, misrepresent sources, and skew facts. You are also engaging in edit warring and have broken the 3RR rule today alone, and countless other edits have been provocative. You have so far refused to use the talk page to discuss changes to the status quo / stable versions of the page and this current vexation of yours that those who are opposing your "neutral" edits are "a radical nationalist gang" show further your attempts to provoke--Львівське (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Igny, I think you are mistaken. Some may be, but the editors seem to have diverse backgrounds. TFD (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Lvivske, is it part of Ukrainian law that no Jew may be a Ukrainian? TFD (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Methinks the man was being a tad facetious. ~~
talk
) 12:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not care if Collect is an actual Ukrainian nationalist or is just their supporter, or whatever friendly relationship is between them. His actions speak for themselves. He came, and blindly reverted my version of the lede without any participation in discussion whatsoever. Any reasonable man would conclude that a
tag team of Ukrainian nationalists are at work here. (Igny (talk
) 00:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
I have not the remotest connection with Ukraine. Period. As for me not being present on this talk page - that is about as absurd as one can get. Collect (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The talk page is huge, I admit, so I may have missed your participation in the relevant discussion. Show me the diff where you discussed your recent revert before making one, and I will apologize. (Igny (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
Try looking at the FOURTEEN posts by me on this talk page not yet archived. My position has been fairly clear, and you are disingenuous in requiring that my edit which had a very clear summary did not meet your standards. To wit - Petri made an edit making a claim which was unsupported by the cite given. When a cite does not support a claim, the claim can be removed - which is what I did. Would you have us retain claims which cites do not support? Collect (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I rest my case. Your straw man arguments would not work on me. (Igny (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
Collect, As the next step, I was going to fix the wording to meet the sources. My 1RR policy and your revert of me only three minutes later prevented me from finishing my edits. I was permanently blocked by your disruptive edit warring that caused this article to be locked. It is hardly a week ago when a complaint was filed against you at WP:AE, after you caused an other article to be protected. It was noted that you have a disturbing habit of joining on-going edit wars. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Petri, keep your accusations to yourself. Collect had nothing to do with the article being locked. If you don't know what happened or what lead to this, please don't blame it on others in open forum.--Львівське (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec)IOW, you fully admit the claims were not in agreement with the cites. As for your delightful aspersions, I believe that you had a nice long layover in the past. The AE complaint was dismissed as not pertaining to any wrongful acts on my part, as you well ought to know. I would commend you to read
WP:NPA someday when you are at leisure. Collect (talk
) 02:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Stop doing disservice to the famine victims
As you may have noticed, I am not trying to whitewash Soviet regime in my edits here. A tragedy occurred, people died, and the regime was to blame whether it was intentional or not. However some of you here are just making a farce out all of this by pushing propaganda pieces rather than following a well established scholarly consensus. Following WP rules such as
Propaganda? You're citing the Party of Regions as a source, manipulating figures, and otherwise misrepresenting material (like ignoring scholarly consensus) to fit your narrow POV. How are you *not* trying to whitewash Soviet crimes?--Львівське (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that is a personal attack, more precisely making unproved accusations. Do you wish to get blocked once again for harassment? Artem Karimov (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You may be unaware that in English TRAGEDY refers to uncontrollable events. The Holodomor is technically an ATROCITY, not a tragedy, much like the Holocaust.--Galassi (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with you (that use of atrocity may be appropriate, not that I am unaware of meanings of English words, and btw, you are wrong about the "tragedies" being uncontrollable, but that is just semantics), if that famine was intentional (which it could be, I do not know). But that does not change anything in what I just said. (Igny (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC))
I can vouch for both the words "atrocity" and "tragedy" being appropriate terms for the Holodomor, and also for User:Igny's point. After all, the September 11 attacks were often referred to in the press as a "tragedy", and they were an artificial, at least partially controlled, event. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The far right call it "holodomor" because it sounds like "holocaust", even though the terms are not related. They want people to believe that 10 million people were killed in holodomor as opposed to 6 million in the holocaust (and they question that total). TFD (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
"The far right call it "holodomor" because it sounds like "holocaust"...oh my god, where do you come up with this stuff?--Львівське (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
See for example: "Competition among victims: Constructing a "Ukrainian Holocaust" (pp. 119-122).[1]TFD (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Says nothing of the sort.--Galassi (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
"The term tends to suggest that this crime is unique among Soviet crimes, and thus creates a Ukrainian match for the word Holocaust." "Nationalist intellectuals try to construct a "Ukrainian Holocaust" in order to maintain the prominent position of Ukrainians as a victimized people, and thus to preserve the image of a morally superior nation." TFD (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a long debate over Israel and Ukraine's victimization narratives, and while the Holocaust/Holodomor are central to them as the largest events, it is not limited to them. As two peoples whose diaspora's are at such odds with one another competitive literature is natural. There could be a whole article dedicated to Jewish and Ukrainian scholars bickering at eachother, but it doesnt mean that one source you found by one person ends this battle.--Львівське (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Galassi, I would suggest you stop commenting on editor, and start commenting on the content. I was never asking you to AGF my edits, as it is not required per se. However I strongly recommend you follow
Accepted death-toll and opponents of genocide claims in the lede
Do old claims about death toll of the famine deserve the same level of acceptance and coverage in the lede and infobox as the most recent scholarly sources? Do opponents of the genocide claims deserve any mention at all in the lede? (Igny (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
Now when the article is frozen in POV-d and factually incorrect state, I am asking for an outside opinion about the recent edit war here. After I made some effort to reduce POV in the lede and infobox, a group of editors kept blindly reverting all my edits (see, e.g., here). In a nutshell, a group of editors keep bringing up the sources from 1980s or earlier to insist that up to 8 million death rate is an accepted estimate NOW. Any debunking of the older estimates in the modern sources as well as by use of the common sense did not have any effect on that group of editors so far.
Another aspect of the edit-war is the low estimate of the death toll. The source (Valin, 2005) states that 2.6 million of total deaths minus 400k expected death toll (based on previous trends) results in 2.2 million death toll due to the famine. My opponents insist that 2.6 million should be the low estimate of the death toll of the famine based on that source.
And finally, the current version of the article's lede does not mention anything about opponents of the genocide claims. After some search, I found at least two prominent groups of the opposition to the genocide claims, it is the
WP:UNDUE
.
Another minor point is the dubious tag in the first sentence. Is the holodomor part of the wider
Soviet famine of 1932-1933
or it is somehow isolated from it?
In summary,
current scholar consensus on the death toll is it
2.6 million (Valin, 2005) to 7.5 million (Conquest, 1985) dead OR
2.2 million (Valin, 2005) to 4 million (government of Ukraine, 2009-10, Wheatcroft, 2010, etc)
Are outdated estimates of 4mil+ (some are 10mil+) worthy of inclusion in the infobox? They surely deserve a mention in the lede, but only as outdated and exaggerated which they are.
Opposition to genocide claims in the lede. Is it worthy of inclusion, or it is ok to leave the lede devoted to the genocide claims only?
dubious tag in the first sentence Is holodomor part of the
It is important to the far right in Eastern Europe that the number of deaths exceed that of the
Holocaust. However, we should stick to the facts and not re-write history. TFD (talk
) 05:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It is important for the Left to pretend the Holodomor didn't happen, so Soviet sympathizers can deny collective responsibility for Soviet crimes. We should use reliable sources, not engage in original research to downplay or ignore scholarly consensus.--Львівське (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the Left"? Do you think that Tony Blair is "pretend[ing] the Holodomor didn't happen"? TFD (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
L'vivske is merely lampooning Igny's ad hominems. Let's not get off track. ~~
talk
) 12:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, but coincidentally a good article stating as much just popped up 1--Львівське (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This was brought forth earlier: "Three to five million of this number died in Ukraine and in the heavily Ukrainian-populated northern Kuban, among the richest grain producing areas in Europe." [Norman M. Naimark. Stalin's Genocides Princeton University Press, 27 August 2010, p. 70]. ~~
talk
) 12:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: If I am not mistaken, the text in the image of the poster (presented by Petri above) from the Ukrainian Media Service (File:Голодомор 1932-1933 гг. на Украине.jpg) gives 4 to 7 million deaths. ~~
talk
) 18:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
We again face the same problem: do we discuss the famine within contemporary Ukrainian borders, or we are talking about the famine that affected "the richest grain producing areas in Europe"? In the latter case, Kuban should be definitely included, however, lower Don, lower Volga and other non-Ukrainian speaking regions should be included too. From other hand, if we discuss Holodomor as the famine affected ethnic Ukrainians, how will we deal with the fact that Donetsk oblast and Northern Ukraine were essentially non-affected, whereas Don and Volga were?
Obviously, all of that has a direct relation to the death toll figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The quote does not say that the famine "affected "the richest grain producing areas in Europe"", as you say, but rather that Ukraine and northern Kuban are "among the richest grain producing areas in Europe". There is a significant difference between the two. This point is just meant in context of the Naimark quote, not on any larger scale. Just a reminder to watch how things are quoted to avoid distortions. ~~
talk
) 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the lead should mention that Ukrainian nationalists (whatever we wish to call them) claim that 10 million died, but that their estimate is not accepted by academics. TFD (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
A claim of that type would be OR at best. Our job is to report what RS sources say - not to categorize some as "Ukrainian nationalist and not trustworthy" or "Argentine internationalist and thus really good value." "Old claims" are decidedly ones which are just as valid for an encyclopedia article as any others - sources are not judged by "age." Collect (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Collect, please read
WP:OR: "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." TFD (talk
) 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Re ""Old claims" are decidedly ones which are just as valid for an encyclopedia article as any others - sources are not judged by "age."" Correct. Old claim are absolutely acceptable, provided that they are not outdated. However, if newer and more reliable sources are available, old claims are useful only to describe the development of the historiography of Holodomor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
RFC question 1 - Current scholarly consensus on the death toll
With regard to the low (2.2 mill by Valinn et al) estimate - it's standard scholarly practice to specify excess deaths during famines [2]. Death happens under the best of circumstances. The Valinn et al article quite clearly addresses that and gives 2.2 million as excess. WRT to the high end - Canadian PM Stephen Harper spoke of 10 million in October 2010. [3] If we must have death tollls in the infobox, let's have the lowest and the highest and explain it later. Trusting our readers to read the whole article. We could organize the historians' and politicians' death toll section by date. The earlier historians' figures may or may not be disparaged someday, but till then, I think they belong both in the lead and in the infobox.
The issue with using the 2.2 mil "excess" number from Valinn et al seems to be that the other sources don't necessarily give "excess" numbers, so the 2.6mil number is better for comparison with other sources, which tend to give raw totals for deaths. ~~
talk
) 20:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, apples need to be compared to apples--Львівське (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Valinn et al are apparently being exceptionally precise. If other historians address excess deaths vs. expected deaths, or their figures reflect raw numbers, please present them. If they don't distinguish raw death totals from expected deaths - which is a standard part of scholarly analysis as shown above, but WP editors may not always be able to see where book authors get their numbers - I'd still consider their death tolls acceptable here. Novickas (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Just sort the above table by year, that would be quite a revelation to some on this page. Namely it would reveal the current scholarly consensus of under 4 million dead. All I was trying to do was dividing the estimates into old, outdated and largely exaggerated, and new ones, generally accepted by the scholars and even politicians. (Igny (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
Igny, would you be willing to take into account Naimark's upper estimate of 5 million? ~~
talk
) 03:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
With a reservation about Kuban (is it a part of the holodomor?), it may be acceptable to me. Does anyone know an estimate for number of deaths in Kuban, and actual proportion of Ukrainian population or deaths there? (Igny (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
Since the Holodomor as presented in the article refers specifically to Ukrainians, and since Kuban was part of the Ukrainian-language area and had a long history of
talk
) 03:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a reasonable man if not provoked into confrontations. I would support a compromise here, and am open to suggestions on how to actually formulate the sentence about the current scholar consensus. Keep in mind though that the population ratios could have changed significantly between 1926 and 1932. But given Naimark's words on this account, I will not argue any more at this moment, pending further published research. BUT the ridiculous figures of 7 or 8 or 10 million should go away from the lede/infobox or explicitly described as outdated and exaggerated. (Igny (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
Perhaps something like this?: Many scholars and authorities originally pegged the death toll to be between 4 and 12 million, however, recent estimates have been significantly lower, ranging from 2.6 [or 2.2] to 5 million. The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political rhetoric. ~~
talk
) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Possible variation
Various research and claims by authorities originally pegged the death toll to be between 1.6 and 12 million, however the estimates has been recently narrowed to be 2.2 - 5 million of ethnic Ukrainians perished during the famine. The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political rhetoric.
Or some such. 1.54 million was the Soviet claim mentioned somewhere in the article. By authorities you mean officials, or authorities in the historical field? (Igny (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC))
Another idea:
Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly; anywhere from 1.5 to 12 million ethnic Ukrainians were said to have been killed as a result of the famine. However, recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.2/2.6 and 5 million Ukrainians dead by famine. The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political rhetoric.
With "authorities" I had intended government officials, though historical authorities could certainly be construed by the word. I have made an effort to reduce ambiguity in this version. ~~
talk
) 04:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I think its a step in the right direction. To go one step further you could differentiate between estimates of historians and estimates from demographers, since they're different fields of study.--Львівське (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I think that there can be a not insignificant amount of overlap between the fields, and attempts to separate the estimates might prove difficult and confusing. ~~
talk
) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. Any number citing over 4 million deaths in Ukraine due to famine should be considered a a hoax and should be only mentioned when discussing the hoax aspects of Holodomor propaganda and the "Holodomor is genocide" campaign. This should follow the guidelines for articles in Category:Hoaxes. A clear indication of hoaxery is the use of hoax photographs, still present in most Holodomor propaganda. Any attempt to turn this article into a platform for hoaxers should be treated as any {{Hoax}} and should be deleted using the appropriate procedure – possibly even by deleting the whole article! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. - I do generally agree with Baron Richthofen's wording. If the figure 5 million is mentioned, it should be made clear that this also includes people outside Ukraine. Also, I do not know if we can simply describe Conquest and the North American community as "Many scholars" – without any other qualifier. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
What makes 4 million the "magic number" for hoaxery? ~~
talk
) 17:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion here is not about your pet photographs. Please don't distract from the topic at hand. ~~
talk
) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are two quick ways of identifying modern Holodomor hoax material:
Using known "forged" photographs.
Citing numbers in excess of what serious research can agree on.
It is more difficult to judge the motivations of pre-1991 authors in presenting large numbers. However, any connection to Nazi collaborators would make earlier sources suspicious.
As for the the number 4 million (in the Ukrainian SSR). The table above indicates, that modern research is stabilizing in numbers around or under 3 million with 4 million clearly outside the norm. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Petri, you are advocating that reliable sources be disregarded only to fit your narrow POV that the Holodomor is a "hoax". This talk page is sounding more and more like Stormfront if you ask me.--Львівське (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
PS: our list at the moment has it dead split on the over/under of 4m, so calling half of the historians listed perpetrators of a "hoax" is just a downright falsification of known sources.--Львівське (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I believe a large part of the "Holodomor is genocide" campaign is based on hoaxes. The "hoax" camp includes
Ukrainian Security Service and and former president Viktor Yushchenko. The only authority on the "genocide" side of the argument, who is basing his claims on anything verifiable seems to be Stanislav Kulchytsky
.
In the numbers table, the only one stating a number larger that 4 million for Ukraine after 1989 is Robert Paul Magocsi. Roman Serbyn is just summarizing other estimates. I find John Mosier totally irrelevant, besides, he was only added after I made my comment.
On other issues, I am sorry if my comments about hate speech have offended you. However understand this: During the last weeks I have visited multiple "Holodomor propaganda" sites. I find their content highly offensive and insulting. They are unlike Holocaust denial sites, as these would generally avoid showing piles of dead bodies. Instead, Holodomor propaganda has adapted a Holocaust narrative in their effort to equate Russians, Soviet people or Communists with Nazis. Exaggeration and use of graphic photographs of claimed victims results in the propaganda having an enormous emotional impact. The fact that the visual material is false – and the propagandists must be aware of this – makes the material vile hate speech. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
They are equated with Nazis because in this period, Russians/Soviets committed worse attrocities than the Nazis. The Soviet Union covers up this dark history, however, just as it denied the existence of the Jewish Holocaust until 1990. That you can defend a regime of Holocaust deniers is just deplorable. --Львівське (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I would state that most modern researchers estimate that famine caused 3.5...4 million excess deaths on the territory of modern Ukraine although significantly lower and higher were published. 2.2M and similar claims are made in assumption that Soviets officially registered all the deaths that is known to be not the case as the height of the famine. 5 millions include 0.9 ... 1.1 M excess deaths in Kuban, other works just repeating old estimations than Soviet archives were closed. If some editors would not accept the proposal then von Richthofen's solution seems to be the best Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong about the 2.2 million figure by Vallin et al. It is no based on some incomplete contemporary Soviet death records, but on a detailed – most detailed in fact – analysis of all available demographic data. What else could the reliable estimate be based on?-- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
RFC question 2 - Opposition to genocide claims in the lede. Is it worthy of inclusion, or it is ok to leave the lede devoted to the genocide claims only?
It's important to summarize all significant viewpoints in the lead. That the currently leading party in Ukraine opposes its description as genocide is significant. There isn't an overwhelming political or scholarly consensus for genocide, so I say we shoot for reasonably short and symmetric sentences in the lead. (Twelve countries have passed resolutions..but the current President of Ukraine..etc..)
Don't make me laugh. Wikipedia should not depend on the current political situation. Wikipedia != re-writing history. If we are to preserve NPOV, criticism of the genocide claims should be included as well. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's remember that the current president is a Kremlin puppet, he closed the soviet archives, appointed a communist as head of the archives, is anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian, has had historians arrested, and his own views literally break Ukrainian law. We shouldn't discuss the current rhetoric of the dysfunctional regime in the lede, and IF we do, context would have to be given to explain how Yanukovych's word is worthless.--Львівське (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Not so fast. Do you remember
WP:LIBEL? Or should someone remind you about that? Artem Karimov (talk
) 20:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
None of what I said was libelous, so...--Львівське (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead should discuss that the genocide claims are debated (they are after all, that's why this full-protect and RfC are in place right now). Janukovych can be mentioned, but it should also be made clear that his personal view does not reflect current Ukrainian law. ~~
talk
) 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite get it how Ukrainian law should affect article's contents. In case of Holodomor scholarly sources are the RS, not the law or politicians. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The genocide debate is political as well as scholarly. It is 100% relevant. ~~
talk
) 21:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a matter of IF Yanukovych's claims are mentioned, then that the claims break Ukrainian law are *kinda* important, dontcha think? I can already imagine that the phrasing would be biased, to the tune of "the genocide claims are refuted by the government of Ukraine and its glorious President, Viktor Fedorovcyh. Slava anukovia!"(emphasis added)--Львівське (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... could you please point at where Holodomor is covered in the Ukrainian law? Artem Karimov (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly! The "Holodomor" is state-mandated hate speech. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hate speech? Now you're REALLY pushing it with the POV:BS--Львівське (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long while. Do you also think the same way about similar laws regarding the Holocaust? Or do you limit your silliness to absolving the Soviet government of guilt for its crimes? Oh well, at least you're not pushing your useless bullsh*t about those goddamn photos at this particular moment. Could be worse... ~~
talk
) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the
non sequitur argument of Holocaust obfuscation. Holocaust denial is hate speech. Not every denial of every genocide claim is hate speech – even though the Ukrainian law tries to mandate so. On the contrary, making false claims of genocide is hate speech. -- Petri Krohn (talk
) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider the entire topic called "Holodomor" to be anti-Russian "hate speech"? Collect (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Petri- please read
talk
) 12:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we should first mention what scholars say and then mention political statements, but then only with attribution. Readers are interested both in knowing both how the events are described by informed sources and how politicians interpret them. TFD (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the opinion of Holodomor being genocide is significant enough to be included in the lede. It should not be presented as a fact but as a significant opinion Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that this opinion is underrepresented now in the lede. What I was saying is that the opinion of Holodomor not being genocide is totally absent. (Igny (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC))
And there are earlier "massacres" that may be genocides, too, like what happened during the Khmelnytsky Uprising. We need to develop a consistent typology of atrocities and tragedies, so people know what we're referring to when we call an event a "riot", a "pogrom", a "famine", a "massacre", or a "genocide". — Rickyrab | Talk 19:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
RFC question 3 - dubious tag in the first sentence. Is holodomor part of the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 or it is isolated from it?
I don't see how these famines can be separated. To me it seems intuitively obvious that whatever government policies or natural crop problems that contributed to the famine had USSR-wide impacts. A famine in Ukraine, from whatever causes, would affect the the rest of the country. Novickas (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
If you can collect some
talk
) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
From Challenging traditional views of Russian history, By S. G. Wheatcroft. Chapter co-authored by
Stephen Wheatcroft. "Many historians have concluded that the central reason for the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 was not the amount of grain available in these years but the distribution of grain. On this basis it is argued that this was an 'organized famine' in which Stalin deliberately withheld available grain from the population of Ukraine and elsewhere." (italics in original). Gbook link: [4]. I honestly don't see how WP editors, after reading this - its authors are two of the most cited historians in the field -could refuse the connection. Novickas (talk
) 23:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the other two questions, but this particular one is simply ill-phrased. Something can be a part of something and also it's own separate thing. For example, the Pacific Campaign was part of World War II, yet it was still its own separate thing. So yes, this article should mention the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933 to provide context, but it should also focus on what made the Holodomor different from other aspects of that famine. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It is said famines and not famine .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.27.156 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The only "other aspect" was the ethnicity of the victims. That is a rather artificial restriction created only recently as part of rising awareness of the Ukrainians as a nation. It is akin to claiming that Saratovcide (manifestation of the famine in Saratov region) or Twinicide (twins killed by the famine) are different by some aspects from that famine. (Igny (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC))
How do you get "recently"? Also, how do you get "artificial"? If the ethnicity was specifically targeted, which most sourced indicate it was, then it's not "artificial". Reliable sources do not discuss "Twinicide". They do discuss the targeting of Ukrainians specifically by Stalin. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I really don't get where Ingy is getting this "recent artificial" revisionist stuff from. Certainly not from any reliable sources. His comparisons to those from Saratov are just humorous, virtually nobody died in Russia, it wouldn't be an overstatement to say it was more of a Ukrainian-wide famine than a Soviet-wide famine. The Kazakh example predated the Ukrainian famine and its no coincidence that the areas in the RSFSR affected were those with national minorities (Krushchev's memoirs talks of a collective farm in Russia where the only ones suffering were the native Chuvash people).--Львівське (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I have already seen this
extreme claim of yours. That is why I asked for an outside opinion on this matter. (Igny (talk
) 01:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC))
We absolutely need to refer to the Soviet famine of 1932-1933. Almost all authors include famine on Kuban as critically important for understanding of the famine. Kuban is not a part of Ukraine and currently is excluded from the article. Crimean famine is important but I am not sure it is currently included as Crimea was not a part of Ukraine at the time. Famine on lower Volga and in south Siberia are very similar but at least some authors separate them (the ethnic claims as a genocide against Volga Germans, etc are present as well). Famine in Kazakhstan was more different (famine among nomadic animal rearing people rather than in grain producing regions, but forced collectivization as the main background is here as well). Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Given Kuban's Ukrainian past, I really do think it should be included in the scope of the Holodomor. The political boundaries of the UkSSR at the time do not correspond to modern-day Ukraine anyway. ~~
talk
) 12:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Kuban was never part of Ukraine although many of Kuban Cossacks are descendants of Zaporozhian Ukrainian Cossacks. Despite having local dialects somewhere between Ukrainian and Russian they usually self describe as Russians. Anyway if we talk about famine of Kuban Cossacks we have to talk about famine of Don Cossacks (read Sholokhov letters for example), about famine in the whole Kuban Region (there cossacks are minority), etc. I would rather have an article on famine in Kuban (or maybe all Cossacks) separately, but yes, it is strongly connected. Everything is connected here Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, at the time they self described as Ukrainians but stated their language was Russian, right?--Львівське (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikileaks on Holodomor
1 Medvedev cables out, he threatened Azerbaijan that they would never see the NKR again if they recognized the Holodomor, and similar threats were made to other post-Soviet republics if they recognized it. Oh boy...--Львівське (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the American cable leak is a very controversial source of information. We can hardly use it as a reliable source. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be added to the article, while mentioning it came from Wikileaks. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL, Kyrgyzstan indeed never saw and will never see the NKR (
I wrote Azerbaijan first, then edited my post once i re-read the article...knew something felt wrong--Львівське (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The Wikileaks cables are basically international-government drama. Gossip,
loshon hora, who's doing stupid stuff to who, who's panicking over who, speculation, etc. — Rickyrab | Talk
19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Just because something is said off the record, it ceases to be 'gossip' now that it is part of the record.--Львівське (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Wake up to the real world: this has not been about historical fact for a long time, it is about geopolitics! On the issue itself, I fully agree with president Medvedev; Holodomor propaganda – including the Holodomor is genocide campaign – amounts to racist hate speech. It is also a part of the Holocaust obfuscation movement and should therefore be opposed as vigorously as other forms of Holocaust denial. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
talk
) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I fully agree that this thread should be closed as irrelevant to the development of the article. I you want, I will archive it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Your disruptive editing of the talk page is really starting to get over the line. I had to request the article be locked to prevent further BS, but without it as your outlet you need to vent on the talk page?--Львівське (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Petri, this Wikileaks discussion deals with adding sourced information to the page. You are violating
WP:DIGWUREN. Please avoid incivilities, personal attacks, etc. or you can be sanctioned. I really do not want any participant in the discussion to be persecuted so please be cool Alex Bakharev (talk
) 02:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Table addition
That is such a nice table we got here. We ought to add it to the article somewhere. (Igny (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC))
"Our estimates suggest that total losses can be put at 4.6 million, 900,000 of which were due to forced migration, 1 million to a deficit in births, and 2.6 million to exceptional mortality.”
ISBN 966-02-3014-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help
)
^Rosefielde, Steven. "Excess Mortality in the Soviet Union: A Reconsideration of the Demographic Consequences of Forced Industrialization, 1929-1949." Soviet Studies 35 (July 1983): 385-409
^Anderson, Barbara A., and Brian D. Silver. "Demographic Analysis and Population Catastrophes in the USSR." Slavic Review (The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies), 1985: 517-536.
I have translated from Ukrainian pages 19 and 20 of the article by Stanislav Kulchytskiy, Версії післявоєнних дослідників. Much of the same material is however available in English in his article in The Day. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Translated source
In turn, Vladimir Grishko was only a popularizer of the numbers of processed Ukrainian economists T. Sosnovy. In the early 30's Sosnovy worked for the USSR State Planning Committee in Kharkov, and after the war was among displaced persons in Neu-Ulm (West Germany). His figure Sosnovy found no demographic sophistication, using the usual formula for compound interest: the 1926 census the population of Ukraine was 29 043 thousand, and in 1939 would have to be 38 426 thousand people. Since the census showed only 30 960 thousand, the lack of population identified in 7465 thousands of people. According to Sosnovy, the shortage was the result of starvation and famine caused by natural population growth reduction. (26) Later T. Sosnovy emigrated to the U.S. and published a monograph Famine as a Political Weapon under the pseudonym Petro Dolyna. This work is included as a separate section in the second volume of The Black Deeds of the Kremlin: A White Book, issued by the Democratic Organization of Ukrainians Formerly Persecuted by the Soviet Regime (DOBRUS) called the The Great Famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933. (27) It is clear that compound interest formula is completely unusable for demographic analysis.
The lexical part of the Ukrainian Encyclopaedia, published under the editorship of Professor. Vladimir Kubiiovych, The article on the famine of 1932–1933 was written by V. Markus. Submitted by various estimates of victims of famine in Ukraine of the maximum: 15 percent of the population in the range of 4 million people (Dmytro Solovey. The Golgotha of Ukraine: Moscow-Bolshevik terror in the USSR occupying the first and second world wars, Winnipeg, 1954) to the minimum, which covers the outstanding Ukrainian geographer and demographers V. Kubiyovych: 2,5 million people. (28)
Unfortunately we do not know how Kubiyovych came to its figures. In his article on changes in state population of Soviet Ukraine in the years 1927-1958, published in the Ukrainian Journal (in volume 16, Munich, 1959, p.13), mortality from starvation is estimated at 2-3 million people (V. Markus apparently took the average of the ratings). By the way, giving his assessment, V. Kubiyovych criticized others: “Most authors give the loss caused by hunger, much higher at 4-7 million. If you would take these numbers, one would consequently assume a very strong inflow of population from other republics of Ukraine, particularly to villages to equalize the tremendous loss. On such a massive influx of non-Ukrainian population to the villages of Ukraine do not have any data.”
Probably the most complete list of quantitative estimates of the tragedy is contained in the report the commission of the Ukrainian famine of the U.S. Congress, prepared by James E. Mace. Not counting them, note the following pattern: the higher the qualification of the author, the lower his score.
Specifically, in 1956 at a symposium in Munich Institute for the Study of the USSR broke discussion on interconnection between the national and agricultural policies of the Soviet government. V. Tymoshenko pointed out that the loss due to hunger in the years 1932–1933 in Ukraine reached 8 million people. In response, Filipov has advanced almost twice higher figures: 14–15 million. A prominent Ukrainian economist Holubnychy Vsevolod said in 1958 that the number of victims of hunger could not be more than 3 million people. (29)
S. Sosnovy
In response to Львівське, here is a translation of the relevant section from the article by Maria Chirkova of the Poltava State Archive:
In the analytical article agronomist and economist S. Sosnovy "The truth about the famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933", published June 3, 1943 in Mirgorodskaya Visti, based on official statistical data about the Soviet grain harvest in Ukraine in 1932 clearly established that hunger results from a ruthless policy of grain procurement. S. Sosnovy indicates the number of deaths in the years 1932–1933 as 4,8 million. And explains the method of deducting this figure, stressing that other data (6,5 million) are exaggerated.
I do not know from where S. Sosnovy picked up his one extra million between 1943 and 1953. This however seems to be an accurate description of his 1943 figures. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
John Mosier
I see Baron Richthofen has added
Simon and Schuster and not self published, but I would put little weight on his views. Besides – and most important – the book is off-topic. I ask that the book be removed from the list. -- Petri Krohn (talk
) 21:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Lies. I added no such thing. I merely changed a ? to a / in the cite tags and added colour. ~~
talk
) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry I did not have time to study the full edit history of this talk page. I saw you had also tweaked the John Mosier article, so I thought it was your addition. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Igny for correcting this. I think Mosier has now taken his rightful place among the Soviet era exaggeration. Someone might complain about you adding a link to the original 1986 source by Walter Sanning at the Institute for Historical Review, but as this is not the article I do not mind :-) Petri Krohn (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Petri, I found a wrong reference, I did not realize that numbering of the references in that book restart every chapter. The actual reference [21] is unavailable for preview for me. But I am going to presume that the reference is to one of the books by Dmitri Volkogonov. (Igny (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC))
Walter Duranty
I have added
New York Times
on August 24, 1933:
Death Rate Rose Sharply
For instance, the writer knows an industrial plant in the North Caucasus where the workers and their families number about 12,000. These workers receive daily bread rations of 800 grams (1.76 pounds). Yet the dearth rate rose during the Winter and early Spring to nearly four times the normal rate, which runs about 20 to 25 per 1,000 annually for the Soviet Union.
Among peasants and others not receiving bread rations conditions were certainly not better. So with a total population in the Ukraine, North Caucasus and Lower Volga of upward of 40,000,000 the normal death rate would have been about 1,000,000.
Lacking official figures, it is conservative to suppose that this was at least trebled last year in those provinces and considerably increased for the Soviet Union as a whole.
It is not easy to state what total number he is suggesting. He certainly seems to be saying that there were at least 2 million excessive deaths in the "Ukrainian" areas of UkSSR and the North Caucasus in 1933 alone. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In fact, the calculation of 2m+ based on Duranty's report was made by Dana Dalrymple in 1964:
As those two sources are anomalies in otherwise a clear trend, I would like to know if someone got access to these sources to provide us with the context in which their estimates are cited and the sources which these two historians rely on. Serbyn is also an anomaly, but he seems to be just summarising findings done before him. Are Mosier and Magosci like Serbyn in this case? (Igny (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC))
I don't see your point. If a reliable and renowned source states something, it should be disregarded because he's a historian and not a demographer?--Львівське (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with L'vivske. There is no reason why we should disregard these numbers merely beacuse they don't fit into some
talk
) 17:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not asking to disregard anything. All I want is the context in which these estimates were cited. (Igny (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC))
Let me clarify on what I want to know. It is one thing for Magosci to say in his 2nd edition book
After a thorough analysis of archives and statistical data I stand by my estimate of 4.8+million killed
And it is a completely different story if he said
Up to 10 million of Ukrainians have been reported dead by various scholars. I guess they could not exaggerate by more than a factor of 2, so a conservative estimate would be 4.8+ million dead.
Do you see the difference? What does he actually say? What sources does he cite? Did wording of the claim change in anyway in the second edition?.
Also what is the [21] reference in Mosier's book he is citing for the figure of 9 million "widely accepted today"? (Igny (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC))
Discussion
Total number of deaths in Ukraine 1927–1936
mark nutley has suggested, "Instead of people edit warring they really ought to use the newest sources. "Three to five million of this number died in Ukraine and in the heavily Ukrainian-populated northern Kuban, among the richest grain producing areas in Europe.""
[Norman M. Naimark. Stalin's Genocides Princeton University Press, 27 August 2010, p. 70][5] Seems reasonable to me. In any case, editors should discuss this on the talk page rather than edit war in the article. TFD (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There is already a discussion going on the numbers and a table to go with. I suggest you move it up there and add this source to the list so we can compare/compile.--Львівське (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It is actually better to continue the discussion here where editors are more likely to see it. I notice that the discussion had become inactive. TFD (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The table misrepresents the source Valin. 2.6 is the total number of death in 1933. Subtracting the average deaths gives 2.1–2.2 million. Anyway, here is an interesting "source": File:Голодомор 1932-1933 гг. на Украине.jpg. It contains a graph shoving the total number of deaths in Ukraine 1927–1936. I do not know from where the Ukrainian Media Service got its numbers from, but the graph shows less that 2 million deaths for 1933. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Using the 2.2 figure in of itself is a false representation as all the other figures are net death tolls, not net deaths less expected deaths. There needs to be a constant among all the figures to keep them in perspective.--Львівське (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Petri, I don't know what is up with that graph in the image which you provided, but the text says this: Голодомор в Украине продолжался 17 месяцев (с апреля 1932 по ноябрь 1933 г.). По разным данным, погибли от 4 до 7 мил. чел. My Russian is rudimentary at best, but I'm pretty sure that this gives an estimate of 4 to 7 mil based on various sources. ~~
talk
) 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Confession of not being neutral?
Doesn't this statement : On the issue itself, I fully agree with president Medvedev; Holodomor propaganda – including the Holodomor is genocide campaign – amounts to racist hate speech. It is also a part of the Holocaust obfuscation movement and should therefore be opposed as vigorously as other forms of Holocaust denial. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) basically mean that the edior making it is not nuetral and that, therefore, his opinions on here should be viewed quite cautiously (to say the least)? There are scholars on various sides of this issue - this editor is taking a side and therefore not being an objectove reporter which is what wikipedia editors should be; instead he is admitting to being something else.Faustian (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It's one thing to come at an article from a certain side of the debate, we're all guilty of it in some shade, but he's not picking a side from the same options but something off in the total fringes of space.--Львівське (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Lvivske, I did not come to this article "from a certain side of the debate". In fact I had very little knowledge on the topic before I came here. It is the thorough study of the sources, that has led me to see many of them as hoaxes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you're not keeping up on your studies if this is the case...--Львівське (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Please point to a specific source that is being used in the article which is a "hoax". Preferably one that you did not insert yourself. If you can't, then what are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality does not mean accepting hate speech and hoaxes. However, the "neutrality" of the personal opinions of editors is irrelevant on Wikipedia. The only thing that matters is reliable sources – and being able to write for the opponent. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Your characterization of the idea of Holodomor being genocide as "hate speech" means a very high level of partisanship on this issue by you. If someone were to say that anyone claiming that, say, the idea that Ukrainians committed genocide against Poles in Volhynia was "hate speech" wouldn't you say that having such an opinion would render the speaker so biased that he probably shouldn't be contributing to articles on that subject? One may disagree or agree with whether or not the Holodomor was a "genocide" and scholars obviously differ but to go so far as to believe that one opinion or another equals "racist hate speech", in your words, and that also in your words this conceptualization of the Holodomor as a genocide must "be opposed as vigorously as other forms of Holocaust denial" seems to be a clear indicator that the editor is not showing any good faith in terms of objectively presenting the story. We are supposed to be here to provide information in a nuetral way, not to push agendas. If the latter is your goal perhaps you should step back. And bringing reliable sources to the battleground does not make the situation any less of a battle.Faustian (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Petri, you are walking a very fine line : 8) All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee.. IMO, your behaviour on this page probably should warrant a block at this point. ~~
talk
) 12:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Your behavior warrants one as well. Artem Karimov (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
What in the world did LvR do? Nothing I can see. Petri's been at it at this and other article for months now. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Treating Wikipedia as a battleground and personal attacks. Artem Karimov (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Uhh, evidence? Diffs? Anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The difference here is that I have shown myself to be reasonable here and have made great efforts to resolve differences- look under RfC question 1. I will admit that I have been uncivil to Petri, but his behaviour is absolutely deplorable. He has frequently tried to provoke conflict and disrupt consensus-building by using inflammatory language and soapboxing, heedless of previous warnings and blocks. See
talk
) 17:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the "Holodomor genocide" question emerged after Ukrainian nationalists came to power. That is why I have to agree with Petri's words. Artem Karimov (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a poor argument. Obviously such matters could never gain traction while the Soviets still occupied Ukraine.--Львівське (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Did the Soviets "occupy" Ukraine from 1991 to 2004? Artem Karimov (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a source including the Ukrainian Famine as a Genocide, written in 1999, the Encyclopedia of Genocide: [6]. Apparently, for including a chapter about the Ukrainian Famine Genocide (the term Holodomor was not yet widely used, I guess) in their work, Petri Krohn would characterize Desmond Tutu, Simon Wiesenthal and Israel Chandler (the editors of this book) as promoting "racist hate speech" and "Holocaust denial."Faustian (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, in all fairness, Simon Wiesenthal is a notorious Holocaust denier--Львівське (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for divulging a secret de polichinelle, but a neutral editor, as well as an ideal husband or ideal gas, is a quite abstract thing. A neutral editor, in the event if it will be identified, should be sent to the
Sevres) to keep him in between the standard of kilogram and the standard of metre. We all are non-neutral, the problem is that some of us acknowledge this fact and try to be as neutral as possible, whereas the others refuse to recognise their non-neutrality (and continue to push their POVs). With regard to the Petri's statement, in my opinion, it is good that he openly proclaimed his views, although the fact that he sees no problems with his non-neutrality is somewhat disappointing.--Paul Siebert (talk
) 19:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The big issue isn't some bias that everyone has, it's the extent of the bias. Believing that: "the Holodomor is genocide campaign – amounts to racist hate speech. It is also a part of the Holocaust obfuscation movement and should therefore be opposed as vigorously as other forms of Holocaust denial" is pretty extreme for someone editing on thsi topic, indeed probably too extreme for an editor on this topic.Faustian (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, nobody is really denying that they are non-neutral. We all have POVs: me, you, Petri, everybody. However, editors should try to not allow their POVs to overcome them. Most everybody here tries their best to do so (on both sides), but there are those who prove to be a constant disruption due to their inability to demonstrate self-control in such matters. ~~
talk
) 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Illustration
Just noticed that the front picture named "Child victim of Holodomor" points to the file from other famine of 1921-1922. This kinda supports statement made in Russian Wikipedia article [Голод в Поволжье 1921—1922] that pictures of this earlier famine are often misused to illustrate Holodomor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.84.155 (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice try Jo0doe, I'll be reporting you. 1--Львівське (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, sock or not, Jo0doe is indeed back at his old tricks, so all interested parties should take a gander at the file's talk page--Львівське (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Before we present a photograph as legitimate, we should establish that it has been published in a reliable source (e.g., a newpaper, book or museum website) that identifies it as legitimate. I read through the discussion. The picture was first published by Cardinal Innitzer and placed on the Ukraine State Archives website by a Toronto Ukrainian group. TFD (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Published in Toronto, not 'placed on the website by'--Львівське (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Published by the Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre in Toronto. Do you know if any reliable source has published the photograph and identified it as legitimate? It is hard to believe that the picture remained unpublished between 1932 and today. Since you live in Toronto perhaps you could ring them up and ask. TFD (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how relevant it is to track down other uses of the photo. The book that published it in this case is reliable, unless you don't count the authors George S. N. Luckyj, Roman Serbyn, and Wsevolod Isajiw as reliable?--Львівське (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
People are not reliable sources, publications are. Otherwise the Liberal Party of Canada website would be a reliable source because its leader is a leading academic. In any case could you please provide a link to a source showing that any of these scholars claim that the pictures are real or do they just say that they are taken from the Innitzer collection? TFD (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
They are the joint authors of the published book that has this photo in it. What are you talking about?--Львівське (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Independently of the origin of this photo, do you really think that that is a good illustration? For me, this is simply a poor quality b/w photo of some child. I personally see no traits that would allow me to conclude that this concrete child was a famine victim. Please, do not interpret these my words as an attempt to remove the material that blames "evil Bolsheviks/Moskals" in their crimes: I personally have no objection against this image. However, try to do the following experiment: print this photo (along with few other b/w high contrast photos of healthy, but slim children) and show them to a paediatrician. I doubt s/he will be able to identify this particular child as a famine victim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually there are a number of signs which tell that the child is not well, and very possibly malnutritioned. I do not think that a professional doctor would not be able to recognize those signs. (Igny (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC))
Well, this is a purely aesthetic question which means that Wikipedia guidelines provide no guidance whatsoever (nor should they). What are the alternatives? Some kind of photo should obviously be included. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a poor argument. The photo is cited to be a child during the Holodomor, clearly malnourished from the famine. It illustrates the subject very clearly.--Львівське (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I know. What I'm saying is that if some people think this photo is less than perfect (not sure why), then they should start by proposing some kind of an alternative. And yes, this potential alternative needs to be as illustrative as the present photo is. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you show that in the last 75 years any reliable source (The Times, The New York Times, Time Magazine, Life, etc.) has ever published this photo? Do you realize how embarrassing it would be if it turned out to be a fake, especially when verified pictures are available? TFD (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Like I asked above, do you find the above acclaimed scholars to be unreliable as sources in their publication? Are they hoax mongers? I think they are more suited to judge the photo's reliability than anyone on this wiki through original research--Львівське (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe that has already been discussed adequately. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
People are not reliable sources, publications are. I have looked into it further however and the CIUS Press is a reliable source. I never claimed btw that they were "hoax mongers". Now, could you please tell me what the book actually says about the photograph. TFD (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
According to Williams [[7]] 95% of photographs allegedly showing Holodomor are actually from 1921 "Russian" famine (that hitted quite hard Ukraine as well as Volga region). Obviously, the reason is not that the 1921 famine was worse but that Soviet authorities decided to widely publicize 1921 Famine 9to obtain foreign aid, to whitewash confiscations and repressions agains the orthodox Church, etc.). Best world photographers having the maximum possible support from the authorities made quite striking photos. On the other hand, Soviet decided to hide the 1932 famine. Making, printing even keeping such photos would spell a certain death warrant for the Soviet citizens and a lot of troubles for foreigners. There were very few photo-cameras in 1930ies and most of them were bulky and quite visible. Thus, I would not trust any photo to be representing Holodomor unless there is a story of a hero who made the photo and how he has escaped the persecution. Meanwhile I would use a work of art for the lede. It might be either a photograph of a Holodomor memorial, e.g. Kiev memorial (we might need a better photo): File:Kiev-MonumentVictimsHolodomor1932-33 02.jpgKiev memorial or Malevich 1934 painting Running manAlex Bakharev (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If a reliable source claims that a picture is accurate then we accept that unless a better source challenges it. My concern is that the sources for the picture may not claim the photo is genuine. The Ukraine archives for example makes no claim. the picture was taken from Theodor Innitzer, but no one has said whether the reliable source has claimed that the picture is genuine. TFD (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
edit request
Per growing consensus on this talk, I am going to request for an edit protection override for the following edit. Change the 2nd paragraph of the lede to something like
Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly; anywhere from 1.5[1] to 12 million [2] ethnic Ukrainians were said to have been killed as a result of the famine. However, recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.2[3] and 5 million (including about 1 million deaths in heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban).[4][5][6] Furthermore, the demographic deficit caused by unborn or unrecorded births is said to be as high as 6 million.[4] The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political rhetoric.[7]
The infobox should just say 2.2-5 million, with no mention of 10 million altogether.
Any objections? Corrections?(Igny (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
A perfectly reasonable proposal, in my opinion. I second this request. ~~
talk
) 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
One addendum- there should be a note regarding the differentiated nature of the Vallin number (i.e. 2.6 total deaths, 2.2 excess). ~~
talk
) 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Honestly I do not understand this fixation on 2.6 million figure. I would accept it if the Ukrainians were immortal and the famine was the only cause of death during this year. 2.2 million dead as a result of the famine sounds reasonable to me. And even if you do not want to accept this figure there is also estimate of 2.4 million by Snyder (see the table). (Igny (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
I agree with the proposal but due to its potentially controversial nature I would wait a day or two to see if there are reasonable objections Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with the proposal. I don't thik the 2.6 million figure is that relevent, if it is total vs. excess deaths. I don't see why 400,000 deaths from old age, normal diseases, accidents etc. (non-excess deaths) need to be added to the figure.Faustian (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
One important clarification: refering to Kuban, it should read "the latter number including about 1 million deaths in heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban. The 5 million figure includes Kuban, not the 2.2 million figure. (otherwise it would read as if there were 1.2 million deaths in the Ukrainian SSR, 1 million in Kuban).Faustian (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am just sorry : you are talking about victims here : What about the Holocaust ? Do you remove from all the victims the average death which occurred before the start of the nazi policy??? NO of course : the victims are all that died during the terror policy! Not more, not less. Excess death is just excess death and not the number of victims!
My only issue with the above is that the highly cited figures from Mace/Conquest to the tune of 7.5m get thrown right out the door with this proposal. Also, can someone explain how Vallin goes from 2.6 excess deaths in his actual report but lowers it to 2.2 in some pamphlet? --Львівське (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is thrown out. The last time I checked, 7.5 million was less than 12 million, so it is still included here. (Igny (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Also, I'll just quote from one of my own papers here, but I think this line helps soften things:
"All of these things considered, it is unlikely that we will ever know the precise number of deaths caused by the famine outright will ever be known. With the life expectancy for females at 11 years and males at 7 years (Vallin, et al., (2002) p. 263), and the impossible task of accounting for all of the unregistered births and deaths that occurred in the gap between censuses, a conclusive end to this debate is not reasonably unattainable." --Львівське (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That is correct, and surely belongs to the article, but you forget that the lede is to be a concise summary, rather than a collection of opinions (Igny (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Made some minor wording edits (strikethrough and bold) to make it more encyclopaedic ("we" is generally not to be used, in my experience). Feel free to remove them if you think my assessments are in error. ~~
talk
) 17:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
A possible variation
Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly; anywhere from 1.5[1] to 12 million [2] ethnic Ukrainians were said to have been killed as a result of the famine. However, recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.2[3] and 4 million[4][5] deaths inside Ukraine, and up to 5 million if about 1 million deaths in heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban are included.[6] Furthermore, the demographic deficit caused by unborn or unrecorded births is said to be as high as 6 million.[4] The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political rhetoric.[7]
An OR minefield. WP does not define "early," , "however" is a weasel word, "recent research" is not defined, 'furthermore" is another weasel word, and the specific catenation of all this is clear SYNTH to boot. And not to mention the final sentence, for which no imaginable RS exists. Collect (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
All we needed for the consensus was an opponent or two with laughable counter-arguments. Thank you for volunteering, we can now safely proclaim that we have got ourselves a consensus. (Igny (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
All we need is one more example of a personal attack. This talk page has seen more than enopugh of such, and it is past time for it to stop. OR is OR is OR, and the suggested lede is replete with it. Collect (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Re:All we need is one more example of a personal attack. That is a rather pathetic threat, considering that you are not likely able to recognize what a personal attack is and what it is not. So I am really looking forward to seeing the version of the lede you would be reverting to and your rationale behind such reverts. In particular I am waiting to see your explanations how the OR which you like is better than the "OR" which you don't. (Igny (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
quit it, you're all being very petty. However, Collect seems to have some points here. The proposal is very poorly worded with language that is at best vague and at worst weaselly. --
Then what exactly stops both of you to suggest a better version? All I see on this page is stonewalling against any improvement, and practically any change to the current version of the article is an improvement.(Igny (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
You were too quick replying :) I have noted below where improvements need to be made with the proposed text. --
I would put recent esimates before earlier ones. Otherwise it seems fine. TFD (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Reverse chronological order is more confusing and less effective in conveying changes than normal chronological order, IMO. ~~
talk
) 02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It is worth explaining why this proposal is poorly written.
Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly; anywhere from 1.5
it is challenged
enough to require a source). Also, "were said to have been" should be avoided. Figures ranged from 1.5 to 12 million ethnic Ukranians is absolutely fine.
However, recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.2[3] and 5 million (including about 1 million deaths in heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban).[4][5][6] - However is a word to avoid like the plague. It introduces doubt on the previous sentence and we are not able to make that call. Just drop however and you have an un-pointy sentence :)
Furthermore, the demographic deficit caused by unborn or unrecorded births is said to be as high as 6 million.[4] - same issue with furthermore. That needs to go. "is said to be" is also very dubious and is crying out for a {{by whom}} tag. There is no concern in being specific.
The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political rhetoric.[7] - this, as sourced, is complete nonsense. The source is about Wheatcroft disputing Harpers figures and saying that "There is absolutely no basis for accepting a figure of 10 million Ukrainians dying as a result of the famine of 1932-33. No reputable demographer accepts this". How that can be turned into a general point about how the higher estimates are often cited in political rhetoric is sorta beyond me ;) At the very least you need to be more specific and attribute it to Wheatcroft.
Hopefully these tips will help you form a better paragraph. --
I would agree with your analysis in general, although not completely. In particular, what is questionable in the the first sentence? That there were estimates? That they varied, or varied greatly? The boundaries of their variation? I do not think it would require any additional source other than for the estimates themselves. One can say that this is a paraphrased conclusion of many scholars, even though there, may be, was no such exact sentence in publications, there were numerous sources which came to a similar conclusion (e.g., Serbyn from the table comes to mind). And I stand by the last sentence as verifiable, although I may need additional time to find more sources, for now one source shall suffice. Relevant quote from the source provided
"I find it regrettable that Stephen Harper and other leading Western politicians are continuing to use such exaggerated figures for Ukrainian famine mortality," by Wheatcroft, and also
The true victims of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's brutal policies, should be "unsullied by falsehood" and inflated figures not be used as a "political tool," Mr. Himka argued. "I find it disrespectful to the dead that people use their deaths in a ploy to gain the moral capital of victimhood. To this end, they inflate the numbers.
So without further ado, a corrected version.
Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly; anywhere from 1.5[1] to 12 million [2] ethnic Ukrainians were said to have been killed as a result of the famine. Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.2[3] and 4 million[4][5] deaths inside Ukraine, and up to 5 million if about 1 million deaths in heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban are included.[6] The demographic deficit caused by unborn or unrecorded births is said to be as high as 6 million.[4] The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political rhetoric.[7]
Sound perfect to me! Nice job.Faustian (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this is good too. The only thing that gives me pause is the word "rhetoric" which tends to carry (sometimes undeservingly) a bit of pov. How about "discourse" or "commentary" instead. The general point that "political discourse" or "political commentary" still uses the old high numbers would still be in the text so ... Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have put this variant to the article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you change "rhetoric" to "commentary" or "discourse"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe just "texts"? Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have changed to "texts" as nobody seems to object Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Though I'm fine with the wording, why are we cherry picking numbers here? 2.2-4m? It should be 2.6-5m. Btw, did Conquest ever publish numbers again more recently? Because it seems such monumental works are being disregarded as dated here in favor of a handful of recent studies, which although recent, are by no means conclusive. Also, 2.2 is still cherry picking by excluding those who died who "were gonna die anyway". IMO, Vallin's 400k "expected" figure should be stated separately (just as the 'unborn' figure is stated separately), both because other figures don't factor expected deaths in/out, but also because such a figure puts the excess deaths into perspective (and helping the paragraph as a whole)--Львівське (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I had earlier suggested that we could at least put a note after the figure mentioning this differentiation, which may be the best way to reconcile this. ~~
talk
) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Still not very neutral or off hand. Try:
Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly, from 1.5[1] to 12 million [2] killed. Recent research has narrowed the estimates to between 2.2[3] and 4 million[4][5] deaths inside Ukraine, and up to 5 million including estimates of 1 million deaths in heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban.[6] The demographic deficit caused by unborn or unrecorded births is estimated at 6 million.[4] Academics such as Wheatcroft and Himka have criticised use of the older, higher figures in political commentary.[7]
Note the last sentence; what you have conflates quotes from two people into one short and direct conclusion - which is tenuous at best and probably
I can't quite put my finger on exactly why, but the first two sentences sound a bit off... ~~
talk
) 17:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Please let me know when there will be a new consensus version and I will be happy to insert the edit. I am personally have problem with the phrase. According to what I consider credible the best estimation is 3.5..4 millions excess deaths on Ukraine. It is based on the analysis of censuses and on an impressive direct count of victims by Ukrainian Government. Valin's calculations are based on assumption that Soviets registered every death in 1932 and 1934 that is not true (many deaths were unregistered during the peak of famine). The range of 2.2...4 millions is formally correct but somehow gives an impression of lower mortality than in reality. I would like to somehow balance the range but do not know how. This is my own IMHO of course Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The word "Holodomor" is misspelled
The word "holod" actually means cold temperature, and when it is combined with the ending "mor", it says something like "induced slow death by means of a cold temperature", which actually does not make any sense because there's no such word in Russian or Ukrainian, both languages I speak. What you actually want the word to say is "induced slow death by mean of starvation". To do this you will need to spell the word correctly. The word is supposed to be "Golodomor" from the word "golod", meaning hunger or starvation. If you will look at the first letter of the Slavic word you have displayed on this page, you will see that this is how the word is actually pronounced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.55.123 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
WP here uses spelling as found in English language sources. English uses spelling which varies from some other language spellings at times, but WP defaults to English as the customary language on en-Wiki. Other language wikis may use different spellings, according to their own bas languages. Collect (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
False-o. Please read
talk
) 16:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
References
Does anybody have the "Rosefielde 1986" work that is cited in the lead? The current citation is broken, and it'd be nice if someone who has it could fix it. ~~
talk
) 22:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
New changes are edits, not deletions
Soviet policies dealing with the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 took a heavy toll on Ukrainian communes
American Historian Timothy Snyder describes these policies and what followed.[8]
The Soviet government[
Soviet famine of 1932–1933
, spread over much of Southwestern Europe, by overextending Ukrainian communes to produce up to a third of the grain collection of the Soviet Union,
day one
issued a quota, on the eighteenth of November 1932, mandating Ukrainian communes to return excess grain,
day three
passed a law, two days later, to send state police and party brigades to seize fifteen times this amount from communes that did not meet this grain quota,
day eleven
seized government-owned property, eight days after that, from these communes,
blacklisted these communes from further trade,
month two
sealed Ukrainian borders, in January 1933, to prevent criminals from fleeing the country,
month three
returned approximately 190 thousand fleeing Ukrainians, by the end of February 1933, to their homelands,
Per scholars Wheatcroft et al data, I believe the % of deaths during the famine were similar in most of Russia, not just the Ukraine. IE if Stalin was out to kill Ukrainians then he was out to kill the whole damn country. Not a wise political move. 159.105.80.220 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The government passed a law on August 7, 1932 socializing food.
Odessa region
alone to prevent employees from taking home grain and other property from the government-owned communes.
They lived off the land, and used confiscated goods for personal use. They humiliated starving workers, coerced them to box or to act like dogs, and raped, under the pretext of grain confiscation, females who lived alone.[17]
The changes I recently posted were only edits of what was already there, not complete deletions of materials. The purpose was to make the article easier to read. This appears to be a popular article that reads poorly. Vote. Erudecorp?* 03:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I personally thought the exact opposite. Your edits made the article less readable to me. ~~
talk
) 12:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
How so? What exactly do you want to discuss? Both edit summaries demanded discussion before editing:
Galassi: "undiscussed changes rv."
Lothar von Richthofen: "please discuss such changes. rv."
The information was clearly delineated in both complete-sentence and bullet form, which would have run on otherwise, because it was a summary of government policy. Redundant information and ambiguities were eliminated, such as the number of quotas. Even headings were improved and made more precise. Erudecorp?* 16:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Your headings are unnecessarily detailed and seem almost conversational. The lists disrupt encyclopaedic prose in favour of stripped-down bulleted phrases. This just looks like you are taking lecture notes. In addition, if you are to make claims of ambiguity and redundancy, please enumerate precisely the instances thereof. If you are to make such large edits to such a controversial article, you really should lay out what you want to do and provide specific reasons for your version and against the old. This article recently came off of a period of several weeks of full-protection because of disagreements over a few words and sentences (largely stemming from lack of discussion), so don't be suprised when other editors object to abrupt style overhauls. ~~
talk
) 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
First sentences
How about the following version of the beginning of the article?(Igny (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
The Holodomor (
Soviet famine of 1932–1933. The term Holodomor is sometimes extended to refer to the massive mortality inflicted by all Ukrainians during the Soviet famine, most notably in Kuban
.
Looks good, but needs a few changes. A suggestion:
The Holodomor (
Soviet famine of 1932–1933. The term Holodomor is sometimes extended to refer to the massive mortality inflicted on all Ukrainians during the Soviet famine, including those in Kuban
.
~~
talk
) 16:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, "by" vs. "on" was a rather silly mistake. However, Kuban was mentioned only because of a significant portion of Ukrainian victims there. So if the "notability" is dropped, Kuban may be dropped as well, for the whole USSR is included. (Igny (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
Okay, I see your point there. ~~
talk
) 22:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Alternative wording. I will wait for which one gets less complaints. (Igny (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC))
The Holodomor (
Soviet famine of 1932–1933 in the Ukrainian SSR, although the term is sometimes extended to refer to the massive mortality inflicted on all Ukrainians during the Soviet famine, most notably in Ukraine, Kuban, and Crimea
.
You're missing an article ("the"), if the holodomor is plural (manifestations), it were, but it ain't so it "was the manifestations of the". The clauses aren't dependent on a common verb, but on a common subject, a semi-colon should be before "although the term". Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on the semicolon bit; the final clause does not work as a separate sentence. If one were to drop the "although", a semicolon would work. ~~
talk
) 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Scope and duration
These are two rather crucial paragraphs from the point of view that they actually list Soviet sources of data. A lot of the western data on the subject is discredited as Nazi and fascist propaganda, and this is why it is extremely important to get citations on these Soviet sources, so that the whole holodomor is verifiable. Currently, there is wide-spread holodomor-denial around the world, especially in circles that are sympathetic to communism. Thus it is of extreme importance to have links to communist documentation on this matter. So far, these two crucial paragraphs, since they do not contain citations, could have been just made up. There is nothing to back it up. --
talk
) 11:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
While the idea is reasonable, it must be corrected: Communist documentation would be
talk
) 21:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
We must rely on the opinions of scholars who are able to weigh the various sources of data. We then use scholarly sources that indicate the degree of acceptance scholars have for various estimates. It may be that they are wrong, but we cannot second guess them. TFD (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Leave to one side "fascist propaganda." What about anti-communist/pro-capitalist propaganda?
Cold War backdrop makes scholarly opinions biased
Soapboxing, on both sides. Talk pages are for article improvement, not a forum for discussing the subject of the article.
It is of the opinion of most of the media and university system of the NATO countries that communists are bloodsucking monsters and did basically any crime you want think they did. Obviously the Soviet government also has its propaganda. It makes these things hard to verify and objectivity very important. I found it ironic that it was pointed out less Ukrainians are not believing in the Holdomor now. The event is not that distant in the past Ukrainians would know if a genocide happened to them. Obviously the younger generations are being taught this as it fits the new ideology of Ukrainian nationalism. Part of the conflict has to do with whether or not one considers Ukraine and the Ukrainians to really be separate from Russia. If it is not separate from Russia it would be hard to call the events that transpired a genocide. Its obviously politically charged. Many natural distasters and famines have happened in history and most are not categorized as a genocide
How can't you understand that people were left without any food? It was not a natural disaster it was a decision to take all the food stock to exterminate a nation by starvation made by a small group of people. Indeed it is hard to objectify all this information, because in Soviet Union there were no free press. Only the memory of those lucky who managed to survive could speak the truth in recent years. And if you are good at math, calculate their age right now and you will understand that there are no so many direct witnesses. Many ancestors of those who survived Holodomor live outside of Ukraine, e.g. in Canada. Also over 75 years after Holodomor, many-many people now live here who didn't have families in Ukraine back then. Their families never heard of this tragedies from the perspective of the real witnesses (who couldn't talk about it in Soviet regime), only from Soviet brainwashing propaganda. That's why many of them think it is another political trick. It gets worse with many politicians using this tragedy to make people vote for them on both sides.
In my family this information was passed through generations. My great grandfather, who fought in GPW in Red army, said that according to his recordings more people died from starvation during Holodomor, then through the whole GPW in his village in Andriyashivka, in Odesskaya oblast', near Balta. He lost two of his daughters and he said that there were cases of cannibalism in his village, because some people gone mad out of starvation. He had to go over 15 km to the woods each night with his dad to get only a handful (literally) of grain hidden there, so his family can survive one more day. They counted each grain one by one to give to each family member. He was lucky to manage to hid few sacks of grain, though if he was revealed he would be executed immediately.
It is our national tragedy and we need to keep speaking so the truth is finally written in the history books as it was.
Please don't be disrespectful to the lives of millions of innocent Ukrainians murdered by Soviet tyrants in order to increase their power. Try to learn more before you come up to any conclusion, I hope that I could give you some food for thought to reconsider your opinion. Poimal (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Cannibalism
Would there be any objections to the addition of the story of Petrus? It is an horrific accounting and I am unsure if it ought to be added. See Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin page 51 for details. Tentontunic (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Cannibalism is already mentioned in the article. However I see no reason to provide details about any individual event, unless it has attained notability. TFD (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't an individual event, though.--Львівське (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like you're trying to cite a primary source: a witnesses' story or personal narrative. Doing so in relation to historical articles except where they immediately and trivially illustrate by quotation a point made in high quality reliable sources, is original research. The HQRS ought to substantiate exactly and entirely the substance of the quotation, and the quotation should be used for the illustrative colour or expressive turn of phrase. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not from a primary source, it is from bloodlands, I have finished reading it recently and believe a great deal can be used from the book in this article. The story of petrus has achieved notability. In that a child was cannibalizing himself at the same time as as he was being cannibalized by other children. I have seen this mentioned in quite a few sources regarding the Holodomor. I would recommend Bloodlands to all here, it is an astonishing book. Tentontunic (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
(Snyder sourced the story to Robert Kusnierz's Ukrainia (2005), p. 157.[8]) Can you show that the story has achieved any notability, since Snyder's book was published in 2010? TFD (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I really am unable to remember were I have read this before, I fail to see why notability is an issue? The story pertains to the article, I shall add it as it will serve as a graphic reminder of the horrors these people lived through. Tentontunic (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Tables
In the section Death Toll, the tables should provide the scale of the numbers presented ( x100, 1 = 1,000; per million, etc.) Boneyard90 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Image is not from the famine 1932/33 but from 1921-23
The starving child image is not from the time of Holodomor but apparently (according to the image description) taken during the
Russian famine of 1921-22. The image description should thus be changed (from "A child victim of Holodomor."). --Furfur (talk
) 21:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The image description was changed by the now indef-blocked
talk
) 11:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely a legit pic from the Holodomor from what I understand. Jo0doe was up to his old tricks of intentionally misusing sources to obfuscate the material and have it removed.--Львівське (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
POV
Newly added information is a rehash of old POV claims. Feel free to discuss. I will revert them wholesale unless someone provides necessary RS and proves these claims are legit. (Igny (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC))
POV
Newly added information is a rehash of old POV claims. Feel free to discuss. I will revert them wholesale unless someone provides necessary RS and proves these claims are legit. (Igny (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC))
Hello,
Thanks for doing this. I am new to Wikipedia and hope this will finally allow us to find a consensus on this matter.
I see how people talk here and will try to keep it in a similar manner, short and to the point.
So, a little preambula:
1) People turn to Wikipedia not because it takes a side, but because, as much as possible, it gives the information as it is. I often come here when looking at historical articles, simply because I know it will give both sides of the story.
2) For some reason, most people who claim Holodomor was a genocide (and indeed, those who claim :otherwise), talk only about "Ukraine" as a country. This is the wrong approach, as the original :claims about Holodomor as a genocide talked about a "genocide against Ukrainians", not "... of :Ukraine". In our age, this is hard to understand and often people get confused: when you say :"genocide against Ukrainians", people often think it means against the country of Ukraine, but :that is not true, and it is not where the number of dead come from.
...
Thus, when talking about Holodomor, it is important to keep in mind both point one and point two. :Point one is important so the claims of those who think it was a genocide are not the only ones :heard, for example; and point two is important when talking about the magnitude of the actual :event. Because, don't forget, the number of dead has nothing to do with it actually being a :genocide.
In regards to point one, then whether or not it was a genocide is relatively well attended to on :the page. Both arguements are given. But I sincerely feel there was a problem in regards to the :number of deaths.
Writing something such as "scholarly claims" list the dead at around 2, or 3 million, where as :"some claims" or "outdated claims" list the number of dead at 7 or 10 million does not give a :neutral bystander the same view on all numbers. They will naturally see "scholarly claims" and :think they are the only correct numbers.
So, now, some sources regarding the "higher" versions of the numbers and the (clearly overlooked) :view most people who claim it as a genocide have that it was not only in Ukraine, but against :Ukrainians.
I apologize if I don't source it correctly, I think the point will be clear, though.
^ Here, researchers who claim it to be a genocide write, regarding the number of dead, that "... :(based on the information), around 6-7 million dead seems to be the most propable (search "Цифра :6—7 млн. чоловік мабуть найбільше достовірна" in http://www.history.vn.ua/book/history3/37.html).
They also write that "... starvation did not only affect Ukraine, but also highly Ukrainian :populated areas in Kazakhstan, lower Povolzha (written as Нижнє Поволжя, I'm not sure what that :is in English?), the northern Caucuses, Crimea, and Kurschyna (English?).
From this source, it is written that in many regions of these are outside of Ukraine, during :the time, Ukrainians were the majority. That out of those killed here during Holodomor, :Ukrainians were approximately 70% of those killed. In some areas, they even constituted 87% of :the population(http://www.kavkaz center.com/ukr/content/2011/01/09/17142.shtml, look up "87% :(Темрюцький район)...", and also "...а загалом у сільській місцевості, яка була найбільше :охоплена Голодомором, українці становили 66,6%, то і відсоток українців серед жертв досягав :близько 70%". They state that as a whole, Ukrainians were 66.6% of the population in this area, :and 70% of the dead.
Keep in mind, of course, that the numbers regaring 3 or 4 million, from Kulhytsky or Snyder :mention that number being killed in Ukraine as a country, not Ukrainians overall.
Thus, the beginning of the article could look better if it said something like "... against :Ukrainians, primarily in the Ukrainian SSR and Ukrainian inhabited areas of the USSR", as writing :"in the Ukrainian SSR" can impliy, again, that it was against Ukraine, not Ukrainians, no?
Don't forget also, from the early 1900s, Ukrainian women had an average of 8 children :(eprints.zu.edu.ua/4189/1/демогр2009.pdf), with there being a very high infant mortality rate, :which made up to 2 of every 8 children die). Families of 12 children were also not uncommon. :Combine this with the population of Ukraine getting smaller by over 5 million from the late 1920s :untill the mid 1930s, and you see why even claims of 7 million inside of Ukraine are not exactly :"not scholarly".
It says as a whole, Ukrainians in the USSR were 81.1 million. That would mean they were the :majority in the USSR, with Russians being 77.7 million, and Belarussians being 4.7 million. :Again, this in itself does not proove anything, but it is a subjective factor that adds :credibility to similar claims and, would be interesting to include in the article. Here is :another source for that same information: http://ukranews.com/uk/news/ukraine/2011/05/19/43847. :By the end of Holodomor, Ukrainians were around 39 million. This doesn't mean that mant were :killed, but it could mean that because of Ukrainianization by the Soviet government that stopped, :less people considered themselves Ukrainian.
Thus, I think, to finally solve any debate that exists, it is important to give claims from both :sides of the spectrum (low, and high death numbers) an equal position (i.e. either write :something such as "it is hard to determine due to a lack of records, but somewhere between 4 and :7 million) or just leaving it as it is now, but giving both views in a manner people will look at :as exactly that: two views that are both relatively credible, not one credible and one uncredible. I.e., it isn't exactly the "flat earth" example here. There are lower numbers which have credability, and higher numbers which have credability. As for the 2.4 million, I cannot :find any sources for it, and most things I do find on the lower spectrum seem to be around 3 :million (in Ukraine). Most sources I have listed also say not 7.5, but 7 million.
This way, wikipedia maintains it's function as being the place people look when they are :introduced to a topic, before further researching it. It's fair to list both high and low :estimates, in otherwords, but not only high estimates, or only low estimates.
^ About the death toll.
Regarding the 20 million killed in Holodomor, the problem is that it is not possible to find this :source anywhere else: it is only available through an archive, and every other version of his :speech in Congress does not mention that. It very well could have been a mistranslation. He might :have been talking about repressions, and then mentioned Holodomor, and said 20 million. Or, he :meant Holodomor as not only 32-33, but also the other, smaller "Holodomors", after WW2 for :example. Again, no where, do any sources say 20 million people were killed in Holodomor. They say :as a whole, during the USSR (20-30 million is a common number there, for example, here :http://www.galinfo.com.ua/news/87888.html). I just don't think one mistranslated (possibly) quote :that does not exist anywhere else is enough to write something in wikipedia...
WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". That means giving greatest weight to the views most commonly held by scholars. If you disagree with that policy then you are welcome to try and change it, but in the meantime, it must be followed here. TFD (talk
) 04:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Very well said. That there are views most commonly held by scholars must be represented, even if scholars differ in their views.
Also, I, again, am not experienced at this: I would ask anyone who can to include this in the :article. It's very interesting, I'm surprised it's not here already: http://h.ua/story/153952/. :It is a document from 1933, during the Holodomor, where it is written: "cause of death: :Ukrainian" about a boy who died from hunger. Here is a photo: http://fotohost.jampo.com.ua/images/ed14f978e23ce59f5929a2537c551cc9.jpg (the "cause of death: Ukrainian" thing is at the bottom, the :final thing written).Ljudyna (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC) --User:Ljudyna
As 4.5 million is included in 5 million ( together with Kuban) and 7.5 million is included in "up to 10 million (some claims)" I have removed the unsubstantiated edits by Ljudyna. (Igny (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC))
As 7.5 million is a claim that is a scholarly estimate, it has been included. It is, indeed, very important to include all modern and scholarly estimates. Unsubstantiated edits by Igny have been removed. Ljudyna (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna
Re "7.5 million". From the source you cited
1932-33 років у цілому завдав шкоди – 7,5 мільйонів жертв
That is 7.5 million total victims from
Soviet famine of 1932–1933. Where do they claim 7.5 from Holodomor?? Besides, Drobovich's claims do not recent research or scholarly estimate make. (Igny (talk
) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC))
Some comments.
Let me remind you that per our
policy
, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, if English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.", therefore, numerous references to Ukrainian newspapers or to some questionable web sites are hardly appropriate here.
The sources cited by Ljudyna do not create an impression that they have
"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
, so, in addition to the fact that they are not English language sources, they are poorer quality sources, so they should not be used in this article.
I have been surprised to see that the attempts were made to downplay really reliable sources. Thus, the numbers presented by Wheatcroft have been described as "early estimates", although in actuality in his new works he did not reconsider his earlier figures. Interestingly, in his recent work he came to a conclusion that during the Soviet period the mortality was steadily and pronouncedly decreasing, so despite of few short surges of mortality, the overall effect of the Communist rule on the life expectancy was positive. (Stephen G. Wheatcroft. The Great Leap Upwards: Anthropometric Data and Indicators of Crises and Secular Change in Soviet Welfare Levels, 1880-1960. Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 27-60)
Re Kuban. We must be consistent. If we want to write about Holodomor as the action directed against the Ukrainians as the nation, then the article should be re-written, because this theory is a minority views, or the Ukrainian nationalist POV, and should be represented as such. However, if we write about Holodomor as a part of Soviet Famine that took place within the borders of the Ukrainian SSR, Kuban figures must be excluded.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
My two cents:
There are certain issues at hand, and I will give them in detail. Because not everyone has time to read substantially large amounts of information, I will list them, then explain them, and then provide a brief summary.
As a bystander, and keeping in mind the large amount of people that hold each respective view, the following discrepencies in this article seem rather ambiguous:
1)The entering of "2.4 - 5 million (scholarly estimates), up to 10 million (some claims)" in the table on the left;
2)The view that "recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million" on the main page;
3) Writing that "...older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary".
and;
4) Writing that "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches".
It is these four areas where the primary issues lie, and in that, the last remaining major disagreements in this articole.
Note, of course, that due to the partiality that exists between the questions of whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide, and the way both views are provided, editing of the article for such purposes is no longer an issue. A significant number of people held, and hold both of those views, and, rightfully so, both are represented.
All historical events should be able to be freely researched, and no one should be forbidden to ask questions regarding any historical event. Restrictions on the information flow regarding historical events takes away much of their credibility.
It was very correctly noted by Paul Siebert that those who view the Holodomor as a genocide do not view the events in Ukraine, and the deaths exclusively from starvation as that which the genocide is limited to. As such, and wary that many bystanders will come to this page searching for information regarding the genocidal view, it seems of cardinal importance to include the number of dead both for the (often) non-genocidal view (taking hunger deaths from Ukraine), and the genocidal view (taking all Ukrainian deaths from the entire USSR). It is precisely here where a key descrepency lies in interpretation of the Holodomor.
In the same sense, it could also be misleading to write the "Ukrainian SSR" as the place the events took place. By any standard, perhaps, if an agreement cannot be found, it could be more accurate to make two articles all together: regarding the genocidal view, and the non-genocidal views respectively.
Important also, of course, is that in this same article Kulchytsky himself writes, regarding the data from censuses, that "... the demographic data were opened only in late 1980s". As such, it is not wise to completely ignore the conclusions reached by international commissions in both 1988, and 1990.
So, to address the issues mentioned above:
1)The entering of "2.4 - 5 million (scholarly estimates), up to 10 million (some claims)" in the table on the left;
- The primary problem here is that it gives an impression that all scholars think it is only 2.4-5 million (thus, taking into account only the deaths in Ukraine, and thus, not viewing it as a genocide), where as many scholars, such as Mr. Serhiychuk, or Mr. Borysenko - who both have PHDs in history - view it as being 7-10 million. So while technically, some scholars do estimate it to be 2.4 - 5 million, and some claims to estimate it to be 10 million, by this logic it is also true that "7-10 million is a scholarly estimate, where as 2.4 - 5 million are just 'some claims'".
2, and 3): "...Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million" (2), and "... The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary." (3).
- Again, while some older estimates, that are higher than some lower estimates that exist today are sometimes cited in political commentary, much the same, older estimates, that are lower than higher estimates that exist today are also cited in political commentary. In as such, it is not possible to call this statement partial, unless it were to read something similar to "...the older, lower estimates are still often cited in political commentary, and the lower, higher estimates are also still citied in political commentary". Older numbers of 2 million, for example, are sometimes mentioned in place of higher numbers such as 3.3 million that are given by professor Snyder.
What I mean is that the way this is written gives an impression that only old, 50 year old inquiries believe up to 7-10 million died, and today, all scholars believe this to be false.
This in itself is not entirely true, either, because professor Komarnytsky, at his lecture at the University of Cambridge in Britain, also (with sources) agrees with the 7-10 million claim, saying that "... up to 8 or 9 million were killed in Ukraine and Kuban", and that "... there were more victims in Kuban than in Russia as a whole, because Kuban was more population dense". That scholar, contrary to what is written in this article by scholar Kulchytsky, says that Ukraine's population did not decrease a few hundre thousand, but by over 6 million. And when you keep in mind, as mentioned above, that the Ukrainian woman had an average of 8 children during the early 20th century, such a decline speaks for quite a bit.
In the same sense, and for the same reasons, it is not possible to say that "recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million", because recent research has also shown that it there could have been up to 9 million deaths in Ukraine itself.
4) Writing that "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches".
- Our policy is that "...If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority...", it "...does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not...", and "regardless of whether you can prove it or not".
Keep in mind, that Yuschenko, who was who is claimed to have said this, does not speak English, and his original speech was in Ukrainian. It is not possible to find any source that confirms he said this, and it could very well have been a mistranslation. In fact, there is not even a source that shows 20 million Ukrainian dead in Holodomor anywhere on the internet, in any language. I would say, then, that such a view constitutes a viewpoint "...held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority...". Or, in any case, the wording should be more accurate, and reflect the one source that does exist, and read not "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches", but rather "...even twenty million was once cited in a political speech".
Brief summary:
1) It is not wise to write "2.4 - 5 million (scholarly estimates), up to 10 million (some claims)" in the table on the left, because, in just the same sense, you could write 10 million (scholarly estimates) 2.4 - 5 million (some claims);
2, 3) It is incorrect to write that "recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million" and that "...older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary", because recent research also shows the estimates can be as high as 7-10 million, and, in the same sense, "older, lower estimates are still often citied in political commentary";
and,
4) It is not in practice with our referencing policies to write that "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches", because it is an incredibly fringe view, that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet - on a translated and archived page, that itself is no longer available.
What I propose, then, is simply to include the works of all scholars, and all views that are held by massive amounts of people. Again, not everyone going to this page views the Holodomor as a genocide, which is why they will find more substantiality in claims like 2.4, or 4.5 million. In the same manner, not everyone going to this page agrees that Holodomor is not a genocide, and as such, it is important to include the numbers from not only other parts of the USSR, but first and formost by historians and scholars who believe it to be a genocide. The article, because there are differing opinions, must be written from a neutral view, as only claiming that 7-10 million Ukrainians were killed in a genocide will be just as wrong to many people as claiming that 2-4 million Ukrainians were killed due to economic policies.
Finally, do not forget that an exact number will never be reached, because there is simply a lack of documentation. This means that absolutely every claim regarding Holodomor deaths will be based largely on assumption. This means that the views of every scholar, provided that a large mass actually believe what they say, have an equal right to be mentioned. (Ljudyna (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
We do not provide equal
weight to all scholarship but "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". You might want to read about why some scholars have come up with the higher numbers. TFD (talk
) 05:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments made after the talk page got blanked and no one noticed
Not sure how to do this properly and preserve everyone's comments, so here are the comments made after the talk page was blanked:
POV
I found an interesting article dated June 15, 2009 from the Jewish Telegraph Agency newspaper website titled "Jewish group objects to ‘Great Famine’ case". Referring to the Ukraine, the article says "The nation's security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish." This has never been discussed in the west. Although you occasioanally see the expression Jewish- Bolshevik, its usually ascribed to NAZIS or anti-semites. But now the country the Ukraine wants to conduct a criminal case against the perpetrators of this atrocity and the charge is that the perpetrators were Jewish. Should it be pointed out that the perpetrators of this atrocity against Ukrainians were Jewish in the Wikipedia article. Since Jews made up a small percentage of the Ukraimian population this appears to be a significant fact. The article says Ukrainian Jews oppose the trial. Here is the Article.
I think this material belongs to Holodomor in modern politics. There is quite a lot of different interests group trying to use the human catastrophe to their advantage or protesting the others using it, etc. All those discussions are interesting but unless it is absolutely important it should not go to the main article Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Newly added information is a rehash of old POV claims. Feel free to discuss. I will revert them wholesale unless someone provides necessary RS and proves these claims are legit. (Igny (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC))
Hello,
Thanks for doing this. I am new to Wikipedia and hope this will finally allow us to find a consensus on this matter.
I see how people talk here and will try to keep it in a similar manner, short and to the point.
So, a little preambula:
1) People turn to Wikipedia not because it takes a side, but because, as much as possible, it gives the information as it is. I often come here when looking at historical articles, simply because I know it will give both sides of the story.
2) For some reason, most people who claim Holodomor was a genocide (and indeed, those who claim :otherwise), talk only about "Ukraine" as a country. This is the wrong approach, as the original :claims about Holodomor as a genocide talked about a "genocide against Ukrainians", not "... of :Ukraine". In our age, this is hard to understand and often people get confused: when you say :"genocide against Ukrainians", people often think it means against the country of Ukraine, but :that is not true, and it is not where the number of dead come from.
...
Thus, when talking about Holodomor, it is important to keep in mind both point one and point two. :Point one is important so the claims of those who think it was a genocide are not the only ones :heard, for example; and point two is important when talking about the magnitude of the actual :event. Because, don't forget, the number of dead has nothing to do with it actually being a :genocide.
In regards to point one, then whether or not it was a genocide is relatively well attended to on :the page. Both arguements are given. But I sincerely feel there was a problem in regards to the :number of deaths.
Writing something such as "scholarly claims" list the dead at around 2, or 3 million, where as :"some claims" or "outdated claims" list the number of dead at 7 or 10 million does not give a :neutral bystander the same view on all numbers. They will naturally see "scholarly claims" and :think they are the only correct numbers.
So, now, some sources regarding the "higher" versions of the numbers and the (clearly overlooked) :view most people who claim it as a genocide have that it was not only in Ukraine, but against :Ukrainians.
I apologize if I don't source it correctly, I think the point will be clear, though.
^ Here, researchers who claim it to be a genocide write, regarding the number of dead, that "... :(based on the information), around 6-7 million dead seems to be the most propable (search "Цифра :6—7 млн. чоловік мабуть найбільше достовірна" in http://www.history.vn.ua/book/history3/37.html).
They also write that "... starvation did not only affect Ukraine, but also highly Ukrainian :populated areas in Kazakhstan, lower Povolzha (written as Нижнє Поволжя, I'm not sure what that :is in English?), the northern Caucuses, Crimea, and Kurschyna (English?).
From this source, it is written that in many regions of these are outside of Ukraine, during :the time, Ukrainians were the majority. That out of those killed here during Holodomor, :Ukrainians were approximately 70% of those killed. In some areas, they even constituted 87% of :the population(http://www.kavkaz center.com/ukr/content/2011/01/09/17142.shtml, look up "87% :(Темрюцький район)...", and also "...а загалом у сільській місцевості, яка була найбільше :охоплена Голодомором, українці становили 66,6%, то і відсоток українців серед жертв досягав :близько 70%". They state that as a whole, Ukrainians were 66.6% of the population in this area, :and 70% of the dead.
Keep in mind, of course, that the numbers regaring 3 or 4 million, from Kulhytsky or Snyder :mention that number being killed in Ukraine as a country, not Ukrainians overall.
Thus, the beginning of the article could look better if it said something like "... against :Ukrainians, primarily in the Ukrainian SSR and Ukrainian inhabited areas of the USSR", as writing :"in the Ukrainian SSR" can impliy, again, that it was against Ukraine, not Ukrainians, no?
Don't forget also, from the early 1900s, Ukrainian women had an average of 8 children :(eprints.zu.edu.ua/4189/1/демогр2009.pdf), with there being a very high infant mortality rate, :which made up to 2 of every 8 children die). Families of 12 children were also not uncommon. :Combine this with the population of Ukraine getting smaller by over 5 million from the late 1920s :untill the mid 1930s, and you see why even claims of 7 million inside of Ukraine are not exactly :"not scholarly".
It says as a whole, Ukrainians in the USSR were 81.1 million. That would mean they were the :majority in the USSR, with Russians being 77.7 million, and Belarussians being 4.7 million. :Again, this in itself does not proove anything, but it is a subjective factor that adds :credibility to similar claims and, would be interesting to include in the article. Here is :another source for that same information: http://ukranews.com/uk/news/ukraine/2011/05/19/43847. :By the end of Holodomor, Ukrainians were around 39 million. This doesn't mean that mant were :killed, but it could mean that because of Ukrainianization by the Soviet government that stopped, :less people considered themselves Ukrainian.
Thus, I think, to finally solve any debate that exists, it is important to give claims from both :sides of the spectrum (low, and high death numbers) an equal position (i.e. either write :something such as "it is hard to determine due to a lack of records, but somewhere between 4 and :7 million) or just leaving it as it is now, but giving both views in a manner people will look at :as exactly that: two views that are both relatively credible, not one credible and one uncredible. I.e., it isn't exactly the "flat earth" example here. There are lower numbers which have credability, and higher numbers which have credability. As for the 2.4 million, I cannot :find any sources for it, and most things I do find on the lower spectrum seem to be around 3 :million (in Ukraine). Most sources I have listed also say not 7.5, but 7 million.
This way, wikipedia maintains it's function as being the place people look when they are :introduced to a topic, before further researching it. It's fair to list both high and low :estimates, in otherwords, but not only high estimates, or only low estimates.
^ About the death toll.
Regarding the 20 million killed in Holodomor, the problem is that it is not possible to find this :source anywhere else: it is only available through an archive, and every other version of his :speech in Congress does not mention that. It very well could have been a mistranslation. He might :have been talking about repressions, and then mentioned Holodomor, and said 20 million. Or, he :meant Holodomor as not only 32-33, but also the other, smaller "Holodomors", after WW2 for :example. Again, no where, do any sources say 20 million people were killed in Holodomor. They say :as a whole, during the USSR (20-30 million is a common number there, for example, here :http://www.galinfo.com.ua/news/87888.html). I just don't think one mistranslated (possibly) quote :that does not exist anywhere else is enough to write something in wikipedia...
WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". That means giving greatest weight to the views most commonly held by scholars. If you disagree with that policy then you are welcome to try and change it, but in the meantime, it must be followed here. TFD (talk
) 04:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Very well said. That there are views most commonly held by scholars must be represented, even if scholars differ in their views.
Also, I, again, am not experienced at this: I would ask anyone who can to include this in the :article. It's very interesting, I'm surprised it's not here already: http://h.ua/story/153952/. :It is a document from 1933, during the Holodomor, where it is written: "cause of death: :Ukrainian" about a boy who died from hunger. Here is a photo: http://fotohost.jampo.com.ua/images/ed14f978e23ce59f5929a2537c551cc9.jpg (the "cause of death: Ukrainian" thing is at the bottom, the :final thing written).Ljudyna (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC) --User:Ljudyna
As 4.5 million is included in 5 million ( together with Kuban) and 7.5 million is included in "up to 10 million (some claims)" I have removed the unsubstantiated edits by Ljudyna. (Igny (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC))
As 7.5 million is a claim that is a scholarly estimate, it has been included. It is, indeed, very important to include all modern and scholarly estimates. Unsubstantiated edits by Igny have been removed. Ljudyna (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna
Re "7.5 million". From the source you cited
1932-33 років у цілому завдав шкоди – 7,5 мільйонів жертв
That is 7.5 million total victims from
Soviet famine of 1932–1933. Where do they claim 7.5 from Holodomor?? Besides, Drobovich's claims do not recent research or scholarly estimate make. (Igny (talk
) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC))
Some comments.
Let me remind you that per our
policy
, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, if English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.", therefore, numerous references to Ukrainian newspapers or to some questionable web sites are hardly appropriate here.
The sources cited by Ljudyna do not create an impression that they have
"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
, so, in addition to the fact that they are not English language sources, they are poorer quality sources, so they should not be used in this article.
I have been surprised to see that the attempts were made to downplay really reliable sources. Thus, the numbers presented by Wheatcroft have been described as "early estimates", although in actuality in his new works he did not reconsider his earlier figures. Interestingly, in his recent work he came to a conclusion that during the Soviet period the mortality was steadily and pronouncedly decreasing, so despite of few short surges of mortality, the overall effect of the Communist rule on the life expectancy was positive. (Stephen G. Wheatcroft. The Great Leap Upwards: Anthropometric Data and Indicators of Crises and Secular Change in Soviet Welfare Levels, 1880-1960. Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 27-60)
Re Kuban. We must be consistent. If we want to write about Holodomor as the action directed against the Ukrainians as the nation, then the article should be re-written, because this theory is a minority views, or the Ukrainian nationalist POV, and should be represented as such. However, if we write about Holodomor as a part of Soviet Famine that took place within the borders of the Ukrainian SSR, Kuban figures must be excluded.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
My two cents:
There are certain issues at hand, and I will give them in detail. Because not everyone has time to read substantially large amounts of information, I will list them, then explain them, and then provide a brief summary.
As a bystander, and keeping in mind the large amount of people that hold each respective view, the following instances in the article seem rather ambiguous:
1)The entering of "2.4 - 5 million (scholarly estimates), up to 10 million (some claims)" in the table on the left;
2)The view that "recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million" on the main page;
3) Writing that "...older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary".
and;
4) Writing that "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches".
It is these four areas where the primary issues lie, and in that, the last remaining major disagreements in this articole.
Note, of course, that due to the partiality that exists between the questions of whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide, and the way both views are provided, editing of the article for such purposes is no longer an issue. A significant number of people held, and hold both of those views, and, rightfully so, both are represented.
All historical events should be able to be freely researched, and no one should be forbidden to ask questions regarding any historical event. Restrictions on the information flow regarding historical events takes away much of their credibility.
It was very correctly noted by Paul Siebert that those who view the Holodomor as a genocide do not view the events in Ukraine, and the deaths exclusively from starvation as that which the genocide is limited to. As such, and wary that many bystanders will come to this page searching for information regarding the genocidal view, it seems of cardinal importance to include the number of dead both for the (often) non-genocidal view (taking hunger deaths from Ukraine), and the genocidal view (taking all Ukrainian deaths from the entire USSR). It is precisely here where a key difference lies in the interpretation of the Holodomor.
In the same sense, it could also be misleading to write the "Ukrainian SSR" as the place the events took place. By any standard, perhaps, if an agreement cannot be found, it could be more accurate to make two articles all together: regarding the genocidal view, and the non-genocidal views respectively.
Important also, of course, is that in this same article Kulchytsky himself writes, regarding the data from censuses, that "... the demographic data were opened only in late 1980s". As such, it is not wise to completely ignore the conclusions reached by international commissions in both 1988, and 1990.
So, to address the issues mentioned above:
1)The entering of "2.4 - 5 million (scholarly estimates), up to 10 million (some claims)" in the table on the left;
- The primary problem here is that it gives an impression that all scholars think it is only 2.4-5 million (thus, taking into account only the deaths in Ukraine, and thus, not viewing it as a genocide), where as many scholars, such as Mr. Serhiychuk, or Mr. Borysenko - who both have PHDs in history - view it as being 7-10 million. So while technically, some scholars do estimate it to be 2.4 - 5 million, and some claims to estimate it to be 10 million, by this logic it is also true that "7-10 million is a scholarly estimate, where as 2.4 - 5 million are just 'some claims'".
2, and 3): "...Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million" (2), and "... The older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary." (3).
- Again, while some older estimates, that are higher than some lower estimates that exist today are sometimes cited in political commentary, much the same, older estimates, that are lower than higher estimates that exist today are also cited in political commentary. In as such, it is not possible to call this statement partial, unless it were to read something similar to "...the older, lower estimates are still often cited in political commentary, and the lower, higher estimates are also still citied in political commentary". Older numbers of 2 million, for example, are sometimes mentioned in place of higher numbers such as 3.3 million that are given by professor Snyder.
What I mean is that the way this is written gives an impression that only old, 50 year old inquiries believe up to 7-10 million died, and today, all scholars believe this to be false.
This in itself is not entirely true, either, because professor Komarnytsky, at his lecture at the University of Cambridge in Britain, also (with sources) agrees with the 7-10 million claim, saying that "... up to 8 or 9 million were killed in Ukraine and Kuban", and that "... there were more victims in Kuban than in Russia as a whole, because Kuban was more population dense". That scholar, contrary to what is written in this article by scholar Kulchytsky, says that Ukraine's population did not decrease a few hundre thousand, but by over 6 million. And when you keep in mind, as mentioned above, that the Ukrainian woman had an average of 8 children during the early 20th century, such a decline speaks for quite a bit.
In the same sense, and for the same reasons, it is not possible to say that "recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million", because recent research has also shown that it there could have been up to 9 million deaths in Ukraine itself.
4) Writing that "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches".
- Our policy is that "...If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority...", it "...does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not...", and "regardless of whether you can prove it or not".
Keep in mind, that Yuschenko, who was who is claimed to have said this, does not speak English, and his original speech was in Ukrainian. It is not possible to find any source that confirms he said this, and it could very well have been a mistranslation. In fact, there is not even a source that shows 20 million Ukrainian dead in Holodomor anywhere on the internet, in any language. I would say, then, that such a view constitutes a viewpoint "...held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority...". Or, in any case, the wording should be more accurate, and reflect the one source that does exist, and read not "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches", but rather "...even twenty million was once cited in a political speech".
Brief summary:
1) It is not wise to write "2.4 - 5 million (scholarly estimates), up to 10 million (some claims)" in the table on the left, because, in just the same sense, you could write 10 million (scholarly estimates) 2.4 - 5 million (some claims);
2, 3) It is incorrect to write that "recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 4 million" and that "...older, higher estimates are still often cited in political commentary", because recent research also shows the estimates can be as high as 7-10 million, and, in the same sense, "older, lower estimates are still often citied in political commentary";
and,
4) It is not in practice with our referencing policies to write that "...even twenty million is sometimes cited in political speeches", because it is an incredibly fringe view, that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet - on a translated and archived page, that itself is no longer available.
What I propose, then, is simply to include the works of all scholars, and all views that are held by massive amounts of people. Again, not everyone going to this page views the Holodomor as a genocide, which is why they will find more substantiality in claims like 2.4, or 4.5 million. In the same manner, not everyone going to this page agrees that Holodomor is not a genocide, and as such, it is important to include the numbers from not only other parts of the USSR, but first and formost by historians and scholars who believe it to be a genocide. The article, because there are differing opinions, must be written from a neutral view, as only claiming that 7-10 million Ukrainians were killed in a genocide will be just as wrong to many people as claiming that 2-4 million Ukrainians were killed due to economic policies.
Finally, do not forget that an exact number will never be reached, because there is simply a lack of documentation. This means that absolutely every claim regarding Holodomor deaths will be based largely on assumption. This means that the views of every scholar, provided that a large mass actually believe what they say, have an equal right to be mentioned.
...
PS: To Igny: Govorju na velykom i moguchom, esli nado, mozhna pysat' na nom. I tak mne kazhetsja, shcho pochti nikto, krome nas, etovo chytat ne budet'. Davajte vmeste nakonets reshat etu problemu.Ljudyna (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna
We do not provide equal
weight to all scholarship but "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". You might want to read about why some scholars have come up with the higher numbers. TFD (talk
) 05:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
We have a very clear policy regarding this, namely to be cautious, regarding sources, where "...proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOENG#Non-English_sources. I'm sure there exist many presumptions as to why some scholars have higher numbers, but on the same grounds, I'm sure there also exists presumptions as to why some scholars have come up with lower numbers. In addition, I agree with everything you've said, especially regarding the principle to "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". As I was saying to Igny (and I do apoligize for not writing in English), I think it's time we finally solve this, similarly to how we solved the genocidal question in this same article. Ljudyna (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna
We prefer English sources because they are more accessible to readers, and for no other reason. In some cases foreign language sources are preferable. But in order to provide more weight to these sources you would have to show that scholars give them that weight. TFD (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Citing numbers from 1988/1990 findings by some unnamed commissions is exactly what "citing older higher estimates in political rhetoric" means. That does not constitute recent research in no meaningful way. While we all value scholarly achievements by the historians you cite, their remarks do not contain any of the analysis of the figures or sources and could be summed up by "some historians are also citing older estimates". What you are engaged here is an OR and attributing too much weight to a particular POV. (Igny (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
It is not up to us whether or not these commissions are trustworthy, it is up to scholars, who study this material. I was under the impression that you understood Russian (and Ukrainian), and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
It is indeed a shame you have not answered the gross majority of what I wrote, and such behaviour is disappointing in a circle of discussion like this.
I am merely a neutral bystander, and I think my distrust of claims regaring 20 million Ukrainians being killed can attest to that. I am still waiting for credible sources regarding that, by the way, sources that do not constitute a "strong minority".
The biggest of these international commissions can be read about here: bibl.kma.mk.ua/pdf/istgolod/26/11.pdf. It was lead by an international team of lawyers, including, but not limited to, Dr. D. Draper - former judge during the Nurnberg trials; John Humphries - professor from Canada, also a former director of the UN Human Rights division, and many others. It was officially presented in 1992 in Kyiv. In short, their conclusions were that between 7 and 10 million Ukrainians were killed. Using, of course, democratic data - democratic data no less trustworthy then the democratic data used by historians who do not feel the Holodomor was a genocide.
Some scholars today agree with their findings, and some scholars do not.
There are also some major, major discrepencies. Kulchytsky claimed the population declined by less than 500 000, yet in the same sources listed above, and as noted by professor Komarnytsky at the University of Cambridge (in 2009, I should note), other sources (and again, demographic sources, that are official, and no less trustworthy than any other sources used) appear to show it declined by up to 5 million. And again, I repeat, that the average Ukrainian woman back then had 8 children. They had 8 children, yet it declined by 5 million. I don't think I need to comment.
It is fine to feel that some sources are more credible, but I am confident that the sources provided by scholars who view Holodomor as a genocide, and thus take the number of dead not only for Ukraine, but for Ukrainians as a whole, are most certainly credible enough to if not be presented equally, then to at least be presented in a greater manner than before.
I also await your answer towards my proposition of including this: http://h.ua/story/153952/. I have hopes that you too are a neutral bystander, and as someone more experienced with Wikipedia, you could explain that that photo is the death certificate of a little boy killed during the time of Holodomor, it is written "cause of death: Ukrainian". This, of course, does not prove anything about numbers killed or genocide, as he could have been attacked by a racist neighbour, for example. But I think it does have enough to do with the Holodomor to be included.
Again, I hope we can find a diplomatic style solution for this, and include all credible sources. If not equally, then most certainly in a more objective manner than before. Surely, this is fair. We must, in all costs, avoid any reflection of POVs in the article. Ljudyna (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna
You are referring to the
International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine (1983) which concluded that there were between 4.5 and 7 million victims, which is already reflected in the article. However, we would need later scholarship to confirm whether these conclusions have stood the test of time. TFD (talk
) 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we don't. If someone has an RS contesting the figures, that source can be added, but the idea that every source one does not like must be reconfirmed is not found in any WP policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about, Collect? We need to establish the degree of acceptance of opinions added to the article. It is not a case of "one does not like". I have no idea how accepted the views of a report written before the archives were available to scholars is, and expect that it should be determined. Subsequent scholarship may have revised the figures upwards or downwards. TFD (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Conquest's opinion on the genocidal nature of Holodomor.
The section devoted to the genocide question starts with the following statement:
"[Robert Conquest]] believed that the famine of 1932–33 was a deliberate act of
collectivization program in the Soviet Union
. "
This statement is false, because it contradicts to the present position of this scholar on that issue. His position has been explained by Davies and Wheatcroft on the page 441 of their book (Davies, R.W. & Wheatcroft, S.G. (2004) The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931 – 1933). They refer to the personal letter from Robert Conquest. They repeated their explanation in their more recent work (Davies, R. W. and Wheatcroft, Stephen G.(2006) 'Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 - 33: A reply to Ellman ', Europe-Asia Studies, 58: 4, 625 — 633), where they describe the position of Conquest (as well as their own position) as follows:
"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 purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put ‘‘Soviet interest’’ other than feeding the starving first—thus consciously abetting it’"
It is necessary to note, that the same ideas can be found in recent interviews obtained from Conquest himself, however, the peer-reviewed publication where the views of this scholar have been described is a more reliable source. Based on that, I do not see why do we need to start the section with the opinion Conquest had in past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What Davies and Wheatcroft state of Conquest's opinion is insufficient in my view. It would be better to source something directly published by Conquest himself, do you have such a cite. Otherwise the best that can be made is something along the lines of:
"Robert Conquest believed that the famine of 1932–33 was a deliberate act of mass murder, if not genocide committed as part of Joseph Stalin's collectivization program in the Soviet Union. Davies and Wheatcroft allege Conquest clarified his view in 2003... (etc.). "
--
talk
) 21:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No. D&W are not journalists but reputable scholars, and they transmitted the Conquest's views quite carefully. Moreover, they provided the quote from the Conquest's letter, so we have no reason to doubt in the correctness of these words, and to claim they "allege" something is simply insulting. In scientific community, people cannot distort other's point of view, otherwise that would be an end of their own carrier.
Moreover, I recall I read some Conquest's interview where he expressed the same ideas, however, D&W seem to be more reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes.
Especially, again, when there are modern scholars who do agree with the findings of that international commission.
Also, it is not only their findings, but other modern findings that contradict the findings of scholars with lower death tolls, findings that appear to support a higher death toll. Such as the population decreasing not by 500 000, but by almost 6 million - and again, this is despite the average Ukrainian woman having 8 (!) children. And while this does not prove anything 100% (and, finally, because there is no hard evidence for even one person being killed, it is all speculation and how you judge demographics, no other theories prove anything, either).
By the way, Paul, I would ask you to include the death certificate photo, as I do not know how to do that. I see the additions you have made have been objective, and I think it will make the article more interesting. The photo itself is not in English, but anyone who knows Ukrainian, or can read cyrllic knows what it says.
I really think it is necessairy that we prepare our own propositions, as if we are writing a "resolution", thus if someone edits the article again, we'll all be able to stop it and put it back. Again, I repeat: because both credible views (regarding if or if it is not a genocide) are there, there is no more editing for that.
Finally, do not forget that Conquest was not the only person who thought it was genocide in the early days. I think this quote would also be very good to include, especially because it is English:
This is a quote from a communist leader speaking in the Kharkiv region in 1934:
"Famine in Ukraine was brought on to decrease the number of Ukrainians, replace the dead with people from other parts of the USSR, and thereby to kill the slightest thought of any Ukrainian independence."
- V. Danilov et al., Sovetskaia derevnia glazami OGPU_NKVD. T. 3, kn. 2. Moscow 2004. P. 572
Sovetskaia derevnia glazami OGPU_NKVD means something like "Soviet history through the eyes of OGPU_NKVD".
Sadly, I do not know how to include quotes and add new references. But from a neutral point of view, it would seem to be better to include both such quotes, and also the works of historians such as Snyder and Wheatcroft.
By the way, this is nothing to do even with Communism, because Ukrainians lived much better, especially during the later years of the USSR, than they have during 19 years of independence (and corruption). Ljudyna (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Ljudyna
(
non-free media policy
. Moreover, the web site you took it from does not seem to be a reliable source, so I do not think we need to add it.
You also have to separate the figures from interpretations, so there sources that give high estimates for demographic losses do not necessarily support the idea that Holodomor was genocide, and vise versa.
Regarding the modification of this section, the section is a complete mess, so we need to re-organise the material at least (I tried to fix it, however, more work is needed).
And, finally, you totally ignore the fact that, despite short-term welfare and mortality crises, the overall welfare improvement (and a sharp decreas of mortality) during 1920-60 is a well established fact, and that tendency, which was a world trend in XX century was especially prominent in the USSR. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I apologize sincerely, as I thought simply listing the source as an example would suffice.
The source is from the official website of the Sumy State Archive, from Ukraine. If it matters, Sumy region is run by the pro-Russian Party of the Regions, and the Communist Party of Ukraine has over 5%, which is among it's best results in Ukraine. The site I listed prior was simply one of the hundreds with the photo. Searching "причина смерті: українець" on Google images gives many similar photos, maybe, you could find one of better quality.
The photo itself can be found by typing "причина смерті: українець" on google images. Normally, dozens of results appear (of different quality).
It, of course, does not prove anything regarding genocide or casualties. But seeing as the article is about the Holodomor of 1932-33, which some people claim was targeting Ukrainians, and this 1933 death certificate shows the cause of death of a boy in a region that was highly affected by these policies or genocide (depending how you look at it) as being Ukrainian, it would appear it could have a place in the article.
Similar is the quote from the Soviet leader from 1934. Again, a quote of one leader means absolutely nothing, and in the same sense, a quote from one scholar about Conquest means no more: but they are interesting side-details that are well-known to many, and surely they have a place in any neutral article regarding these events.
Regarding what you wrote about the USSR, then it appears from your English you are from the west. As such, I suspect you have been fed propaganda regarding Communism and the USSR for a long time. I don't know you, or any of your political views, but let me tell you, that a strong amount of what you have been taught is not true. The living conditions in the USSR, in many cases, were even superior to that of western countries. The crime rate was almost non-existant, absolutely everyone played sports, there was almost no fast-food, police were even largely unarmed (this tradition has remained, to some extent, in Ukraine and Russia to this day. You know, when "democracy" came, and many police started to become armed, the people called the belts they began wearing around their waists "democratizators". To this day, that slang-word is wide spread. "They used their democratizators to calm the crowd", etc. There are many sources for this, if you want to enter it anywhere). The Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, for example, in the 1980s was the 10th most developed country in the world! People helped each other, no one locked their doors, all the star atheletes lived not in a seperate world but walked the same streets and wore similar clothes to the other people, literacy was practically universal, and the USSR had the most hospital beds available of any country in the world. In fact, Ukrainian Communists during 1932-33 heavily protested what is claimed Stalin was doing. There were, of course, many problems with the USSR. Many problems. But the Holodomor should not be used for politcal purposes by any side. The key is an objective article. Ljudyna (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Ljudyna
I regret that "The living conditions in the USSR, in many cases, were even superior to that of western countries" swings the propaganda pendulum a bit too far the other way. I am personally familiar with cases of Soviet doctors, etc. visiting the U.S. and genuinely believing, upon seeing a fully stocked supermarket, that it was a capitalist lie staged solely for their benefit. And I am personally familiar with the quality (not) of Soviet era construction. But to the crux of the issue: until official Russia officially acknowledges the crimes against humanity wrought by the Soviet Union instead of glorifying the post WWII Soviet oppression of 100,000,000 as "liberation", among other less than stellar moments, the Holodomor and other tragedies will remain "political." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
why a different label?
why is this not called a Holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
No need in this phrase
I reverted this edits, because the lede already devotes a separate paragraph to the discussion of the causes of Holodomor. In my opinion, the people who continue to re-add this statement simply haven't read the lede in full. We cannot say "as a result of Soviet policy" in the first paragraph and simultaneously to say that "scholars continue to disagree over the relative contribution ..." in the last para. That undermines a credibility of Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe I've addressed this concern by more properly indicating that there is a range of scholarly opinion on Stalin and the famine, that is, to the degree (his) policies were causative, and the degree to which (his) policies were reactive to circumstances and worsened conditions (e.g., restricting mobility, not requesting foreign aid as in the prior famine). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK
In my opinion, these edits are neutral and non-controversial. I support them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, Vecrumba's edits could be/are neutral and non-controversial, but the same could be/is true for Galassi's edits - they concern different things and were made in different places in the article.
I thought we already went over this (it's somewhere in the archives of the archives - probably need an index to find the index to find the actual discussion). It's basically the same as the argument over whether it was "man-made". Mainstream sources DO agree that it was "man-made" - the controversy is about whether it was purposefully man made. You can have a famine which is caused by man, or men (or more generally speaking, "policies") but which was not the intention of this man, men or policies. Or you can have policy which was specifically designed to cause starvation for political reasons. That's what the debate is about. The fact that "man-made" "Soviet policies" were responsible for the famine or for its severity is NOT controversial. Going by that, Galasassi's edit is perfectly fine.
And I just wanted to note, for the sake of the record, and to establish my own neutrality here on this topic, that personally I hold the view - based on, for example, the work of folks like Amartya Sen - that virtually all modern (in the sense of "post Industrial Revolution") famines were/are "man made" (Sen makes the argument in detail why this is so). So the same thing applies to the Bengal famine of 1943 (that article is pretty bad, based on way way outdated research) and even something like the Irish Potato famine, although of course each one had its own particular set of circumstances. This by itself (the fact that it was man made and government policies were responsible) isn't something special about the Holodomor, and again, should be non-controversial. So it shouldn't be excluded. Volunteer Marek 04:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
If most famines were man-made (the thesis I fully agree with), then why do we need to stress this fact in this particular case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
And this "part of" business - I know that has been discussed to death previously (here's two instances [12], [13]) - I know there's more because another one I participated in), so why is this still being dragged around? I thought the consensus was established here. It's like some editors just wait for others to loose interest and then go and try to put back their preferred version back in. Over and over and over again... Anyway, sure, fine, let's go through it again. The Holodomor happened contemporaneously with a more general famine in the Soviet Union as a whole. But there was some unique aspects to it, which is why it is seperated out in the literature. Pretending that it was just a localized version of a greater famine is most definitely POV pushing - by privileging a pretty minority, not to say, fringe, view of things right there in the first sentence of the lede.
So how about instead of saying "...is the name for a part[2] of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 that took place..." the article says "...was the famine on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR in..." and then the fact that there was a general Soviet famine is mentioned later on, either in the article or in the lede. OBVIOUSLY this topic is different, and notable (despite all the attempts at deleting, merging, turning it into a redirect that have been made) from that of the general Soviet famine. We can't have a separate article on it and then just say, "oh it was just part of something else". Volunteer Marek 05:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow - thanks for articulating so well, what I had meant to write.Faustian (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I am absolutely transfixed at Volunteer Marke's post above as well his post at another article on my watchilst. I can't speak to the details here on Wikipedia but I have a treasure-trove of sources on this from a near-
GA article (might make good general reading for those interested in famines, some sources can be used in this article). Please let me know here or on my talk page if you would like to receive the list of sources by e-mail. Zuggernaut (talk
) 13:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Well said, Marek! The problem is that Russia sees itself as the successor state to the USSR, and the pro-Russian wikifactions are sensitive to the perceived potential of the "USSR guilt" being transferred onto Russia. Hence we have all this rehashing...--Galassi (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course we can have a separate article on it and can say that it was a part of something else. Wikipedia has many articles on something that is part of something, like for example the Eastern Front (World War II) was a part of World War II. Also, we should avoid ambiguity of the term "man-made", which could mean both intentional action or unintentional consequences of earlier actions. GreyHoodTalk 17:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I get that the term "man-made" can be interpreted in an ambiguous fashion here, as "intentional". Now, it might have been in fact "intentional" but that's subject of discourse. So if you can think of a better way to put it, then please help us out. I suspect however that any wording which admits that human-driven-policies played a large role in this famine, will be "ambigous" in this way to some extent. "Man-made" is probably about as neutral as we can get. Volunteer Marek 22:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"Man-made" is better than nothing at all. With no clarification, an imlication could be that it was simply a bad harvest and that human actions had nothing to do with it.Faustian (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
All needed clarifications are made in the third paragraph.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
But, IMO, the fact that it was manmade seems notable enough to warrant a brief word or two in the beginning of the article. That should be clear from the beginning.Faustian (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should reflect how topics are normally described, not the judgments of individual editors. We may as well talk about the "man-made depression of 1939", the "man-made war in Iraq", the "man-made AIDS epidemic". TFD (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
If the whether the Great Depression or the Iraq war (I have no idea what your reference to the AIDS epidemic is supposed to imply) were man-made was discussed in sources than yeah, we should include that. But it's generally not - unlike here. Like I said before, I happen to think that all modern famines are "man-made". But the sources still find this aspect important enough to emphasize in the case of this particular famine - perhaps because the "man-made" part was such a big part of it. If the sources emphasize it, then so do we on Wikipedia. If the sources on the Great Depression don't emphasize it then neither do we.
You're very obviously trying to move the goal post here by trying to compare the subject of this article to just ... random topics (like GD). Of course the relevant standard of comparison is other famines. Now, Wikipedia being the imperfect piece of crap that it often is, other famines' articles suffer from similar problems (and I just tagged the Bengali one for this very reason). But that would be the essence of
WP:OTHERSTUFF
.
So let me sum up here: it was "man-made" and that is not controversial in mainstream sources. But "not-controversial" does not imply "not-discussed", which it is. And yeah, we need to reflect these sources. Get over it. Volunteer Marek 22:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As we have seen, most authors describe the Famine as having been man-made in some way (where they differ, is whether or not the starvation was intentional). Unlike economic problems or war which are always man-made (vs. natural disasters), making clarification unnecessary, some famines are manmade (i.e., all crops unharvested, lost to floods or blight), others are not (harvested grain sent out of from a starving region), so a brief clarification is a good thing, right?Faustian (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Part of the difficulty here is that something like war is always "man-made". Famines ... it's a bit trickier. Like I mentioned above, there is a strand of thought - fairly well accepted - that says that basically any post-industrial society (and yes, that would include 1930's Soviet Union or late-colonial rule India, and even 19th century Ireland) has the means to prevent or address famines and so if you see a famine occurring it's because someone either wanted it or allowed it to happen. But historically (pre-1800's, which is, like 99% of human history), famines could have been "natural" and not "man-made". Essentially TFD is playing games here by equivocating between things which are completely different phenomenon (wars and famine). Yes, I know it's an annoying tactic. Volunteer Marek 22:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
From what I understand, the Bengal famine involved the entire crop being destroyed by a flood and then by fungus. Neither of these factors were mandmade. The"manmade" part of the Bengal famine involved not exporting to Bengal from nearby India, which is something that could have been done but wasn't. In Ukraine, there actually were crops (the harvest was worse, but not so bad that the people would have starved had their grain not been taken away). Taking the grain away from the people caused the starvation; Soviet polcieis contributed to the worse harvest. Both manmade factors. Thus the Ukraine famine seems to have been more manmade, notably so.Faustian (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Wrt to Bengali famine, not quite (for a quick comment see [14] this] which leaves out a lot of important details but does say it was more than just crop failure/failure to import. Even within Bengal itself, the total amount of food available was slightly greater or only slightly less than in previous years throughout the years of the famine (I could go and dig up the original Sen paper(s) but I'm pretty sure of it because I remember it made quite an impression on me when I first read it a bunch of years ago). Also, if I remember correctly, similar thing was true for the mid 80's
Ethiopian famine - despite the low rainfall, total food production was actually higher or only slightly lower in many of the months that people were starving. We shouldn't get into a "competition of the famines" here, but basically, all three of these cases had to do with 1) food distribution rather than food production and 2) the fact they were happened under authoritarian (or worse) regimes. In that respect they were all "man-made" (though the initial "shock" that initiated them might have been "natural"). Anyway, like I said, the "man-made" aspect in this particular case is both emphasized in the sources and non-controversial. Volunteer Marek
13:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I wrote, "Wikipedia articles should reflect how topics are normally described, not the judgments of individual editors." If I want to read personal opinions, I can go to a blog. Please stick with what reliable sources say and avoid comments on other editors. TFD (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you wrote THAT, and I have no problem with THAT, and obviously THAT is not the part I'm disagreeing with. But you followed up with We may as well talk about the "man-made depression of 1939", the "man-made war in Iraq", the "man-made AIDS epidemic". - which is clearly a personal opinion of yours (you have a blog?), and THIS was the part I was disagreeing with. My "comments about other editors" were clearly a response to their claims - that's called a "discussion". Volunteer Marek 12:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
My point was that it is not up to us to examine the evidence and determine whether the famine was "man-made" but to reflect what sources say. If there is consensus in academic writing, that it was "man-made", then we call it man-made. If that is a majority opinion we say that too. We should not read into sources that it was man-made. Obviously we could determine that many catastrophes were man-made, but it would be tendentious editing to add that description to their articles unless we could show that that was the normal description. TFD (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and as I said, this discussion of the sources has already been had several times, and it was shown that sources (Snyder, Browning, etc.) do refer to it as "man-made". You were pretending that these discussions never took place and implying that sources do not describe this phenomenon as "man-made". Volunteer Marek 15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
(out)As TFD says, if majority of sources say it was man made then that is what the article ought reflect, and as majority of sources say it was man made then he will have no issue with this fact being mentioned in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The main reason these conversations go on so long is that editors ignore or misrepresent what other editors have said, inviting them to reply. You may not agree with my understanding of
WP:WEIGHT, which is fine, but please do not misrepresent my writing. Okay, here we go. Some sources indeed say the famine was "man-made". Now we have to determine the prominence of that viewpoint. How do we do that? The best way is to consult a reliable source that explains the prominence of different viewpoints. I have continually asked for sources and they have not been provided. Saying that the majority of sources say it is manmade is original research. What we should not do is engage in discussion of the facts and make our own determination whether it was man-made. That is original research. Also, you should avoid the assumption that I am asking for sources because I have a particular view on the subject. TFD (talk
) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
That Holodomor (i.e. the famine among peasants of Ukraine) was a result of the government policy (at least, partially) is undoubtful. However, as we agreed, all recent famines were man-made, so the question is of how exceptional Holodomor is. Does it stay apart from the Bengal or Irish famines, according to majority scholars? Until the evidences have been provided, I see no reason to stress this fact in the first sentence of the lede. Moreover, not only TLAM added the statement "man-made famine"[15], he also removed the statement that it was a part of the Soviet famine. Talk page contains nothing even remotely resembling a consensus about removal of these words, therefore, the TLAM's edit summary is misleading. That is should not be repeated again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
A- It was undoubtedly man made due to the actions if Stalin and his ilk. B- It is entirely exceptional from other famines as other famines were not a result of government policy (such as the potato famine) to compare them is ludicrous. It is exceptional also in the fact that people were turned back at the border or shot if trying to leave the affected area, I am quite certain the british never did that in either Ireland or Bengal. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so it seems we all agree that it was indeed "man-made". The question then is whether sources stress that it was "man-made", or is that left unsaid. The very fact that there exist some fringe sources which deny that it was man made is a reason for why mainstream sources could stress the fact. And indeed that is what happens. I already mentioned Snyder and Browning above. There are of course others. What TFD is asking for is a source which says "most sources say that it was man-made" - this is more of moving of goal posts. What next, asking for a source which says that "most sources say that most sources say that it was man-made"? You have prominent historians stressing that it was man made. That's enough. Volunteer Marek 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not unreasonable to ask for a source for the weight that should be assigned to various opinions. Your opinion about what most sources say may be right, but it is OR. Whether or not I believe the famine was manmade is irrelevant. And your comment about asking for sources about what most sources say is absurd. A statement about what most sources say is a statement of fact which may safely be sourced to a reliable source, if you can find one. Surely this subject is sufficiently notable that there are sources that explain how it is perceived. It would be surprising if you were the first person in history to actually look into that issue. TFD (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this kind of standard - that you need not just a source, or even multiple sources, to say something before it can be included in the article, but you need a specific source which says "most sources say this" - is not policy and I've never seen it applied on any other Wikipedia article. Well, I've seen people try, as a way of justifying their IDON'TLIKEIT obtuseness in regard to something, but never (or at least rarely) successfully. Like I said, you're moving the goal posts and trying to establish a very high burden of proof on others, without having yourself bothered to provide a single, reliable source, which disagrees with the opinion that it was "man-made". Volunteer Marek 16:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
^ abcdeCite error: The named reference DW415 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abcdeCite error: The named reference Rosefielde1986 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abcdeCite error: The named reference Vallin2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abcdefghijCite error: The named reference nalivajchenko2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abcdeCite error: The named reference timoshenko2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abcdeCite error: The named reference Naimark2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abcdeCite error: The named reference postmedia was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Timothy Snyder. (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books, pp42-46
