Talk:Holodomor denial/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Deletion of Douglas Tottle And Modern politics Sections

Douglas Tottle SHOULD have is own section in the Holodomor genocide question page, but not in this one. On page 2, in the introduction of "Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitter to Harvard" Tottle states that:

"However, while historians accept that famine occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933

— as well as in other areas of the USSR — they are still debating the causes, extent and results.

My examination of the campaign and its charges of "Ukrainian genocide”

does not attempt to study the famine in any detailed way.

His book advocates the thesis that the narrative surrounding the holodomor originates in nazi and anti-communist propaganda, that framing it as a genocide is based on false and fabricated evidence. But it isnt a "claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur" - as stated in the opening of this page. Being there a page about the denial of the ucranian famine, and another about its status as an genocide, Tottle book pertains only to the latter O mutlei (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The same aplies to the Modern politics sections. The Background section states that "the Holodomor has been a point of contention between Russia and Ukraine", and that "The Russian government does not recognize the famine as an act of genocide". So, again it pertains to the genocide question, not denial.

Same with Blinova articles in Sputnik News. She follows the same thesis as Tottle: although there was a famine, it was not a genocide and that the narrative around it was wildly exagerated propaganda. .

To Mironin is also not atributed a claim of denial: "Sigizmund Mironin's "Holodomor in the Rus" argued that the cause of the famine was not Stalin's policies, but rather the chaos engendered by the New Economic Policy". The same with Tkachenko and Mukhin. Yury Mukhin is a notorious supporter of conspiracy theories, but that seems insufficient to estabilish a issue of "Modern politics"

Every topic up until 2.2 Discusses the denial and cover up of the famine. Sections 2.3 and 3. do not.

If both of these belong in this article, "Denial of the Holodomor" should be better defined to encompass both topics. But since there are articles on the "genocide question" and "Holodomor in modern politics", the deletion of these topics (sections 2.3 to 3.2) Seems like thes best solution O mutlei (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The book attributed to Tottle is not a source on the Holodomor. It is an example of genocide propaganda, and part of the subject of this article. So is the above-linked article on Russian state website Sputnik International.

An authoritative secondary source on bibliographic classification, the Library of Congress, uses Tottle as a definitive example for the subject heading “Holodomor denial literature,” which contains “works that diminish the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or assert that it did not occur.” This is distinct from the subject of “Holodomor denial,” which is “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.” —Michael Z. 18:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac Its not relevant to my point wheter Tottle or Sputnik are credible sources or examples of propaganda. My point is that these are exemples of *denying the holodomor as a genocide* not a denial that it happened. And again this very article we are discussing defines *Denial of the Holodomor* as "the claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur". These are different things, as evident in the first parts of this article, which deals with soviet cover-ups and denial of the famine itself.

There is another wikipedia article about the claim that the holomodor isnt a genocide - the claim that Tottle and Sputnik make. So I dont see how these sections arent misplaced. If the claim that holomodor isnt a genocide is, in itsel, "holomodor denial" then there isnt an "Holodomor genocide question", just holomodor denial

Also “Holodomor denial literature" are works that comit “Holodomor denial" so I really dont get what your are trying to say with this distinction O mutlei (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Trying to be as clear as possible in explaining my issue:

there are two diferent things:

A= Denial and cover-up of the famine

B= Denial that the Holomodor was intentional, or genocidal in nature

This article defining claim that the Holodomor, a large-scale, man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932–1933, did not occur"

There is an wikipedia article that deals with A, this one, and another that deals with B, the Holodomor genocide question

This article up until section 2.2 gives exemples and discuss cases of A. Then, from section 2.3 onwards it give examples of B

If both A and B fall under the category of Holomodor Denial, and thus pertain to this article, or if Tottle is a fringe theorist and so a special case of B that constitute denialism, then that should be stated and explained, and so the latter parts and intro of this article should be extensively rewriten O mutlei (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I get what you’re saying. But a reliable secondary source classifies Tottle as Holodomor denial literature, because it comprises “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.” Your A’s and B’s are WP:original research. —Michael Z. 18:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Obvious POV Fork of Holodomor Genocide Question

I think its quite clear. No real need to argue the point. Whatever part of the article can be salvaged can be incorporated in Holodomor genocide question then just redirect. Qayqran (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. They are two different topics: an academic debate that went on from the 1990s to the 2010s on the one hand,[1] and historical negationist denial epitomized by a genre of Soviet and Russian propaganda on the other, for which the Library of Congress created specific separate subject headings.[2][3] There is no overlap in the article content. —Michael Z. 21:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The only thing correct in the OP is no real need to argue the point.  // Timothy :: talk  21:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

it's clear they're two different things—blindlynx 23:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

They are not two different things. One article discusses different views on whether the Holodomor can be considered a genocide (most scholars think it wasn't, some argue it was even just the result of crop failure), the other one is a POV fork which aims to delegitimize any questioning of the genocide narrative equating it to Holocaust "denialism". Denialism is a deeply loaded word which implies the Holodomor as genocide is fact and those who scholars who argue against it (the majority) are borderline genocide apologists and are basically lying. This article is just a POV fork created for propaganda purposes. Delete and redirect. Qayqran (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael You are an administrator on Wikipedia. I see you hold strong views on the topic of Ukrainian history and Ukraine in general for which I would ask you to consider abstaining from this topic. Denial of the Holodomor as genocide is not "Soviet propaganda" or "Russian propaganda" it is a mainstream academic current held in the Western world, held by R. W. Davies, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, Michael Ellman, Hiroaki Kuromiya, Robert Conquest, Ronald Grigor Suny, Stephen Kotkin and of course Mark Tauger, among others. Qayqran (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you get blocked under another user name, that you show up here with just over a dozen edits to make such specific claims and personal accusations? I suggest we stick to writing about the topic and not about other editors. Denial of the Holodomor as genocide is not an article under discussion.  —Michael Z. 15:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael Z, no I didn't, but I admit that is a valid point you just made right now. I hadn't fully read the article. Qayqran (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The claim that 'most scholars think it wasn't [a genocide]' is patently false. This article is not about the scholarly debate of the Holodomor but about the wp:fringe position that it didn't happen at all—either that there wasn't a famine or it wasn't man made—as the article itself puts it 'Negationism of the Holodomor is distinct from the argument that it did not constitute a genocide'. You need to have a better argument that simply asserting your POV—blindlynx 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to supplement that for clarity. The Library of Congress Subject Heading gives perhaps the best concise definition of Holodomor denial, as “the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.”[4] Diminishment of its significance can include the denial that it is a genocide, especially in countries where the Holodomor is recognized as a genocide and where denial of atrocities such as genocides is illegal (e.g., Germany). But such denialism is distinct from the academic debates on what constitutes a genocide. As far as I can see there is little or no overlap between the two, and this proposal we’re discussing by someone that hasn’t bothered to read the articles is spurious.  —Michael Z. 15:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for not being as clear as i could be in my reply—blindlynx 16:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for and you were absolutely right. I just want to be clear and open on all of this, because some of these important facts related to the definitions of these subjects have been disputed previously.  —Michael Z. 16:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

One question I do have: What about academic positions such as those of Tauger which argue that it was predominantly caused by crop failure? The concept of "Holodomor denial" is certainly a slippery one, considering the definition given to the concept as a man-made and intentional starvation targeting a specific ethnic group. Even though this article excludes the academic debate on this issue, Tauger is technically engaging in Holodomor denial since he denies practically every element which defines the term. In this sense I still see this article as problematic. Wouldn't it just be better to have it as a free standing sub-section of another article?Qayqran (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• 2 cents: Wikipedia editors shouldn't be performing OR / SYNTH on academic positions (or anything else). If there is SIGCOV of a position in IS RS, then it can be considered for inclusion based on CONSENSUS and criteria such as WEIGHT, but it is important to consider what IS RS state, not what editors think. There can be grey areas, and in contentious subjects I think editors should be all the more careful to let sources speak for themselves, NPOV, and not presented/interpreted in Wikivoice. You have a half penny change coming.  // Timothy :: talk  11:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This article does not accuses Tauger of Holodomor denial. This is a question of WP:WEIGHT Tauger's position is a minor one in Holodomor scholarship and as such is wp:undue—blindlynx 15:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It is very important to point out that the fringe position is that the famine had natural causes. Tauger at no point talks about what caused the crop failure—other scholarship agrees it was caused by collectivization. It seems that you are misunderstanding what type of crop failure he is talking about—blindlynx 17:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the criticism of Tauger is more about his wilfully ignoring the confiscation, denial of seed grain, and forcible isolation that Stalin chose to impose on Ukrainians after a low harvest in fall of 1932, leading to a disaster the following year including the next harvest. Everyone could have been fed, but Stalin knowingly caused the deaths of millions in specific regions. See a letter to the editor by James Mace, esp. the paragraphs following “The work of Mark Tauger began . . . ”[5]  —Michael Z. 17:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In another email posted on the same page,[6] David R. Marples also distinguishes academic research from denialism: “Mark Tauger has focused on primary source materials in Ukraine and his opinions--whether or not one agrees with them--deserve respect. The same cannot be said of the writings of Coplon, Tottle, and others that are based more on Ukrainophobia and polemics than a quest for objective answers.”  —Michael Z. 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I know, but i'm just talking about that one '91 paper of his here not the responses to it. The key point is he never claims the crop failure or famine had natural causes—blindlynx 20:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources answer your question. Do they name Tauger’s arguments as Holodomor denial? I think no, but if you find other evidence, then we can update these articles.

Your “technically” is an example of WP:original research, and, I think it’s wrong. Holodomor denialism is denial despite the evidence, not good-faith attempts, sound or unsound, to interpret the evidence with academic grounding.  —Michael Z. 15:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the LOC definition I quoted above, Tauger is not trying to diminish the scale of the Holodomor, he’s trying to determine its scale. That said, there’s a point where academics can be criticized by others for ignoring facts and taking a POV or WP:fringe position. I think Tauger may be near the borderline in this way.  —Michael Z. 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael Z Thank you for your response. I am still troubled by it however since we could turn your argument around in its head to further highlight the problems with this article. You have provided me with a reasonable "definition" of Holodomor denial which excludes academia: Denial is in "bad faith" and is not good faith academic research into the topic. You consider Tauger does not engage in denialism due to him being a good faith bona fide academic even though he concludes there was effectively no "Holodomor" but simply a Soviet famine caused by crop failure. My follow.up question is as follows: Is not your definition of "Holodomor denial" WP:original research and WP:SYNTH created ad hoc for this article? Where are the sources on the basis of which you establish these criteria for inclusion and exclusion?Qayqran (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I was relating and summarizing what the reliable sources say, the ones you can follow because I cited them directly and the ones cited in these articles. I don’t have anything to add.  —Michael Z. 19:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

So do we have a single coherent definition of Holodomor denial? Or do we have various sourced definitions? If it involves "diminishing the scale" of the Holodomor, diminishing it from what? From a predefined number of dead? Is an academic questioning intentionality of the Holodomor, as so many do, "denialism"? Is Holodomor Denial a defineable tangible fact or is it something more diffuse anyone can be accused of? I find all this very difficult to hold together from a policy perspective. Qayqran (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What we have is no consensus to merge these articles.

I think its quite clear. No real need to argue the point.  —Michael Z. 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say, the Library of Congress Subject Heading gives arguably the only definition of "Holodomor denial". This term is ["Holodomor denial" extremely rarely] found in scholarly literature (just compare it with this.

Most sources use "Holodomor denial" not as some specific term, they use it to describe a trivial denial of the fact that Holodomor had ever occurred (the POV that is shared by a negligible minority).

As I already explained previously, the difference between "Holocaust denial" and "Holodomor denial" is immense: the Holocaust is a pretty well studied topic, which means we perfectly know the following:

• Who were the victims;
• How many people were victims;
• What was the cause;
• That it was a genocide;
• Who was a perpetrator.

That means any attempt to question the fact that:

• the Holocaust had ever occurred (e.g. that gas chambers were just intended for anti-lice treatment), or,
• the number of victims was significantly different from universally accepted figures (e.g., "only" 2 million), or
• the causes of the Holocaust were different from what is universally accepted (e.g. Jews were murdered because they were Communist collaborators);
• the Holocaust was not a genocide;
• some of known perpetrators (e.g. the member of UPA) never participated in the Holocaust,

fit the definition of the Holocaust denial (which includes trivialization or obfuscation).

In contrast, we still have no consensus about Holodomor. Thus, there is still no consensus on:

• Who were the victims (some sources say only Ukrainians, other sources include other ethnic groups)
• How many people should be considered the victims (the estimates vary significantly, because the figures are imprecise, and because there is no agreement on who is considered a victim),
• The cause (some authors claim that was a planned genocide, others believe it was a result of strategic blunders, etc)
• if Holodomor was a genocide
• who was a main culprit.

That means if we introduce the term "Holodomor denial" that mirrors "Holocaust denial", than any normal scholarly debates about Holodomor would become impossible.

Imagine you are living in 1947, when little was known about the Holocaust. If the "holocaust denial" term (in its modern form) had been introduced in 1947, that would make any Holocaust study impossible. Only after the Holocaust had become a well studied topic, the introduction of the Holocaust denial term became possible.

Holodomor studies, in contrast to the Holocaust, are at the early stage, and introducuon of the "Holodomor denial" term would have a detrimental effect.

That is why it has not been used by majority of scholarly sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Except in 1947 genocide studies wasn’t a subject with decades of scholarship and I suspect the modern concept of historical negationism was yet to be formulated. I agree the Holodomor has been under-studied during these decades, but that is changing. Variations on Holodomor denial return 12 pages of results in scholar.[7]  —Michael Z. 21:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

LOC definition (the only definition I am aware of) says that HD inluudes:

• the diminution of the scale of H. That means a discussion of the scale fits a definition of HD. However, the scale of Holodomor is sill a subject of debates. Does in mean participants of these discussions are deniers?
• the diminution significance of H. There if still no agreement about its significance. How can we speak about "diminution" of something which has no commonly accepted significance?
• the assertion that it did not occur. This assertion is currently being made only by a small group of fringe Russian government sponsored sources, which are obviously fringe. Nobody else shares these views, which hardly fit notability criteria.

Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In connection to that, the second sentence is the lede ("Negationism of the Holodomor is distinct from the argument that it did not constitute a genocide, a claim which has been put forward by many prominent historians of the famine, such as Stephen G. Wheatcroft, Michael Ellman, and Hiroaki Kuromiya.") is a pure OR. This statement is not found in any sources cited in the article.

In connection to that, I would like to see the sources that discuss applicability of the LOC definition ("that discuss the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.") to the works of prominent Holodomor scholars (Wheatcroft, Graziosi, Ellman etc). If no sources will be provided, I am going to delete this sentence per WP:NOR. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit. I vote to undo it immediately.  —Michael Z. 21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It think this edit should be removed, along with teh major part of the article's content. The rest should be merged with Holodomor, H. genocide question and H in modern politics article.

Besides Russian sponsored mass-media and some ultranationalist SPS, noone shares a view that H never occurred. These views deserve no separate article, just a small section in already existing articles. And, "diminution" of the scale of something for which no commonly accepted scale is known is a nonsense. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If you disagree with me, please, name a figure similar to Irwing who claimed that H never occurred. These claims come exclusively from Russia, and exclusively from a very specific category of government-sponsored sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the only analog of Irwing is Douglas Tottle, but his book is too old, and iot has mostly a historical value. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can rename the article to "Denial of Holodomor in the Soviet Union and Russia", because it is not about some "Holodomor denial" as a separate phenomenon, but just a denial of some concrete fact by some concrete people or institutions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I support this. Would make much more sense. Paul SiebertQayqran (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qayqran Agreed. 84.252.112.3 (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Not NPOV

This article is about historical negation of the famines in the Ukraine, a well supported fact that they occured, correctly listing the USSR's denial of famine as an example. However opening paragraph defines it as also including diminishing its significance or denial that it is a genocide. However, as is shown on the Holodomor Question article, this is a point of serious academic debate.

Therefore, I do not think this is NPOV given the scholarly plurity from reliable sources on the subject. AevumNova (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The issues is 'genocide' tends to mean 'crimes against humanity' in general in non-technical contexts and be a very specific crime against humanity in technical ones. It's not often clear which on is meant in this article.

The academic debate is entirely focused on the question of soviet leaders intention and therefor meeting the technical definition of genocide the actual events are agreed upon—blindlynx 14:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree as as shown I nthe relevant article a strong position among many scholars is that it does not constitute genocide. And please note that something may be crimes against humanity while not being genocide.

I would argue there is scholarly consensus for crimes against humanity but not for genocide. AevumNova (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

sorry for not being clear but it seems we are in agreement—blindlynx 13:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Denial has included a large range of kinds of statements, and has changed over time as information has come to light. For example, credible denial of the existence of the famine became impossible in the 1980s, and denial of its man-made nature shortly thereafter. Denial also includes the labelling of the Holodomor as a Nazi/CIA/Harvard University plot (e.g., Tottle). It has included denial that Ukraine and Ukrainian-inhabited regions were treated differently than the rest of the USSR, which is not credible to anyone with access to the facts about Stalin’s orders, restrictions on movement, confiscation of food and grain, selective famine relief, and the concurrent attacks on Ukrainian nationality. The latter is intended to sway any remaining debates and prevent acknowledgment of the Holodomor as genocide. And of course, in conspiratorial circles and under the influence of Russian war propaganda, every silly and incredible argument is still circulated today.  —Michael Z. 14:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you are mixing true and untrue things here. Please provide citations that Stalin provided orders that specifically targeted the Ukraine with hunger.

I think you are mixing true and untrue things here. Please provide citations that Stalin provided orders that specifically targeted the Ukraine with hunger. Restrictions on movement was widespresd and grain confiscation was the USSR's policy.

I agree with most of what you said but I have not seen any evidence from the archives regarding that specific claim. AevumNova (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

More of SYNTH.

The first sentence is also SYNTH. It is the LOC definition, where additional references are added, which support some aspects taken separately, but not the sentence as a whole. Actually, the LOC definition is the only source that contains this definition. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What part of it is unsupported?  —Michael Z. 22:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources cited in the sentence (except LOC) are not using the term "Holodomor denial" at all. They say that Holodomor did take place, and that Soviet authorities attempted to suppress information about it (which is absolutely correct). However, they do not add nothing to the LOC "definition", and they do not support it. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I undid, as it’s under discussion here and you hadn’t even described the problem yet. Please give us time to take this in.  —Michael Z. 00:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re out of line, removing sources from the defining lead sentence. The first, Dolot, is used to define what the Holodomor was, and on the cited page specifically describes Holodomor denial: “some ‘experts’ on the Soviet Union (‘Sovietologists’) here in the United States persistently adhere to the original Soviet denial of its existence.” Yet you indiscriminately wipe it out because it doesn’t use the exact phrase “Holodomor denial.” Please stop.  —Michael Z. 00:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael Z regardless of who is right on this specific topic raised by Paul Siebert, that is twice you try to shut down discussion in a manner which smacks of WP:OWN. It is not befitting of a Wikipedia admin discussing with good faith editors on how to improve an article according to policy. Qayqran (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I reverted a change that doesn’t have consensus, and now we are discussing it per WP:BRD. According to policy.  —Michael Z. 02:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Endorse Michael Z revert. They reverted a change that doesn’t have consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  03:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

read WP:BRD —blindlynx 02:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m willing to discuss this in good faith. The lead sentence may not need all of those references, but they look like potentially useful references for the article. I’m sorry I don’t have time to review them all immediately, but hopefully soon as they appear to be available on Open Library.

I am opposed to what looks like an indiscriminate wipe-out of them, with the explanation that they don’t name the subject with a single specific exact phrasing. Sorry, this is not a dictionary entry about a particular term with a single correct spelling: it’s an article about a complex subject, and that edit with that rationale, performed mere minutes after proposing it in talk, doesn’t appear reasonable.  —Michael Z. 03:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

First, per WP:LEDECITE, citations should be avoided in the lede. Even worse, they are used inappropriately. Dolot says nothing about a definition of the term "Holodomr denial", he even doesn't mention it (and none of other sources does). He says that Soviet authorities denied Holodomor, but he doesn't say that was called "Holocaust denial". The same can be said about Werth, Pipes, and others.

Even worse, as I already explained, LOC's definition (the only true definition of "HD" doesn't mention genocide, and Serbyn doesn't mention HD. That is a classical WP:SYNTH. In other words, my edit removed an obvious synthesis, and your revert restored SYNTH. I don't need consensus to fix policy violations, and you are attempting to cover your policy violation by references to WP:CON. That is not productive. Please, undo your revert. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Paul Siebert but how does your edit, which was reverted by Michael, improve the article though? Qayqran (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Also Paul Siebert perhaps a better way to go about it would be to tag the sources failing verification rather than delete them. At least at this stage. Michael Z I think I thought of a solution which you might agree with and avoid SYNTH issues. Rather than pretend there is a tangible and workeable definition of Holodomor Denialism, you can simply explain what this article covers in the lede and refer to the article on Genocide Question for what it doesn't cover. I don't think there is any policy against this and I have seen this done in a number of articles. Qayqran (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qayqran: It seems you are not familiar with our policy yet, so this is a good opportunity to learn.

Our core content policy says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. The sentence added by this edit says:

"Holodomor denial is the claim that the Holodomor, a 1932–33 man-made famine that killed millions in Soviet Ukraine, did not occur, or (especially since evidence of its existence became public in the 1980s) the diminishment of its scale and significance, including the claim that it was not a genocide."

Which source says that? The sentence cites seven sources, but none of them says this. First five sources do not discuss a definition of Holodomor denial at all. They present absolutely non-controversial fact about Holodomor and about its denial by Soviet authorities. The only definition of "Holodoor denial" is found in the source #6 (LOC), and this definition is as follows:

" (HD is) the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur."

In addition, the last source (Serbyn) say about "famine-genocide deniers", but he does not say anything about the term "Holodomor denial" (and he doesn't use it in the article).

In other words, the sentence (before I fixed it) said:

"Holodomor denial is A (ref 1) and B (ref 1)"

That is a pure and classical example of synthesis, which is explicitly prohibited by our policy. The user who restored this synthesis is an admin, which implies he is familiar with our core policies. That means he knows about WP:SYNTH (and I explained that in my edit summary).

Second, it was Michael who pointed my attention at MOS, which says that editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. (He did that during the talk page discussion about Arkhip Kuindzhi). The only challengeable material in the lede is the definition of "Holodomor denial". The facts presented in the sources cited in that sentence are not challengeable: they say some basic and non-controversial information about Holodomor and its denial by Soviet authorities, but not about the term "Holodomor denial". They are added with a purpose of giving an undue weight to the LOC definition, and they must be removed, because a reader gets a wrong impression of a broad academic support of the LOC definition.

I think I was clear enough, and I am respectfully requesting Michael to self-revert, because his edit directly violated our policy and is inconsistent with MOS. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Paul Siebert I understand your point and I agree with you that there are SYNTH issues. My point is that there may be a better solution. I.e. avoid citations altogether in the lead regarding definitions and just explain what the article covers based on an internal logic to the article obtained by consensus. Doesn't this avoid SYNTH? I also think that the lead of Holodomor genocide question itself is far more problematic than this one. I opened a discussion on it in the talk page. Qayqran (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait a second. Am I reading correctly? Does the current definition of Holodomor denialism INCLUDE the claim that it was not a genocide??? I thought it EXCLUDED it? This is seriously problematic, then. Qayqran (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re completely ignoring my point, indicating that this discussion isn’t likely to go anywhere. I’ll try to get it through to you one more time: this article is not about the term “Holodomor denial.” It is about the subject of denial of the Holodomor, however sources refer to it.  —Michael Z. 15:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, do not derail the discussion. We are NOT discussing the article. We are discussing the opening sentence, which contains s "definition". As I convincingly demonstrated, it contains an obvious example of SYNTH, which I removed, but you restored (which means the responsibility for introduction of this policy violation is on you.

I am not proposing to remove the references completely: they may be relevant to the resat of the article. However, in this concrete sentence, they were combined in such a way that they imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

I think I could not have been more clear.

You are more than welcome to demonstrate that I am wrong, but if you fail to prove that the policy is not violated here, I'll revert you. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No, the lead is not merely the definition of a term. It introduces the article’s subject and summarizes the article.

Telling us you’re convincing is not convincing.  —Michael Z. 23:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I also respectfully suggest that “I don't need consensus to fix [self-designated] policy violations” is not likely to serve you well on a project whose WP:PILLARS say “seek consensus” and “no firm rules.”  —Michael Z. 15:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So we have an article which says Holodomor Denial includes the denial of its status as a genocide, mentioning it is a crime in various states. It omits, however, that the majority of academics who specialize in this event deny its status as a genocide and are presumably not just liars but criminals. Do you think this is normal for a Wikipedia article, Z? I mean, regardless of your own personal views on the matter. Do you not see this is a rather elaborate attempt to deceive readers? Because I can't see any other possible conclusion looking at this rationally. Again, I'm assuming good faith with everyone here, especially from someone who has been an admin since 2005 and I'm sure values this project enormously. But what happened with the lead of Holodomor genocide question is seriously concerning. I'm dismayed at how all of this could happen under the watch of such a veteran admin. Perhaps we should all take some time for this all to sink in and try to find a solution together. Qayqran (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

“Are presumably not just liars but criminals” is your contribution. I thought previous discussion and sources cited had clarified this question by example for anyone paying attention.  —Michael Z. 16:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac Both Qayqran and Siebert raise important points and I support their positions. Please consider your potential biases. You'll need to provide more substance if you want to continue to dismiss their comments. You were not clear enough and yes, we are paying attention. 84.252.112.3 (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Well, PS cited above one of the sources as follows: "(HD is) the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur.". OK. This is exactly what we say on this page; we only make a rephrase. Should it be closer to the source? If so, everyone is welcome to fix it to make a closer to the source. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Sources for this article are being discussed here:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a source linked from infoukes.com reliable?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is the Library of Congress Subject Headings a reliable source on defining “Holodomor denial”

 —Michael Z. 16:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)