Talk:Grigory Petrovsky

"Organizing the Holodomor"

How *exactly* did he "organize" the Holodomor? All we have is a bunch of short news articles about his statue, which assert parenthetically that he "organized" the famine. No historical specifics are offered. Is a scholarly source too much to ask here? until then, it's just WP:TE. The revised edit conforms more closely to NPOV. Petrovsky did play an important role in collectivization which was a major cause of the famine of 32-33 - but saying he organized the actual famine on the basis of frankly worthless sources is completely uncalled for. Readers can easily conclude for themselves that he was culpable in the famine, without being led on by POV-pushing language. If you have actual historical details about Petrovsky's role in collectivization and the famine, by all means add them. If you want to right great wrongs, consider this: facts are far more damning than assertions.Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The citations clearly say that his statues are removed for _his role in organization_ of Holodomor. There is no POV, as his role therein is undisputed.--Lute88 (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Since say his role is "undisputed", precisely how did he "organize" the actual famine (as opposed to the collectivization drive)? By repeatedly pleading for famine relief? Look, I am not suggesting that Petrovsky is in some way innocent. The point is that there is a difference between "organizing" a famine and carrying out policies that caused or contributed to a famine. The former is WP:TE, while the latter is uncontroversial. As for your insistence that we use the word "organize", you should examine your sources more closely. First, these are hardly authoritative accounts. If there were multiple scholarly accounts that documented Petrovsky's actions in "organizing" the famine, you'd have every right to use that word in the lede. But all we have here are a bunch of single-paragraph newspaper/web articles covering the demolition of his statue. Note that none of these sources are exactly NYT-quality, to put it mildly, so I would not count on them being scrupulous about wording. More importantly, they contain zero historical details, aside from labeling him an "organizer" of the famine. One can collect random news-clipping to justify putting virtually any turn of phrase into the lede. Second, take a look at the single Russian-language source, which uses "initiated" as opposed to "organized". To sum up: just stick to facts and neutral wording in the lede - these facts in no way absolve Petrovsky or any other Soviet leader. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We're not particularly interested in details, but them Reliable Sources call him so. Initiator doesn't contradict Organizer, in fact it makes him looks even worse.--Lute88 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your definition of a reliable source? Anything that you can find on the web or in print, regardless of topic, context, weight, bias or reputation? This is certainly NOT how the majority of historical articles are sourced here on wikipedia, especially in the LEDE. Furthermore, one could just as easily find sources (reliable or otherwise) that do NOT call him the "organizer" or "initiator". And this very article contains a reliably sourced fact that contradicts the "organizer" label. So I could just as easily insert info about how he "pleaded for famine relief" right into the lede. It's really more complex than you make it out to be. Is there any reason you insist on this particular wording? I've already given my reasons for wanting a more neutral description in the lede. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed that 'initiator' is an indictment, and that 'organiser' is the NPOV term. 'Organiser' is thoroughly qualified as 'one of the'. There is no term to ameliorate how he is described. It can't be said that he was 'involved', etc. This is an encyclopaedic resource, therefore trying to make up our own lexicon isn't appropriate. Please don't use WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments.

Nevertheless, aside from obvious copyediting issues, the article could do with improvement. I have it on my 'to do' list, and am going to try to balance it out a little more without having to resort to splitting hairs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: Yes, I'm sure we could find sources that aren't reliable calling him a whole spectrum of things from hero to mass murderer... which is why we use WP:RS for writing Wikipedia articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"initiator" is straight from the Russian-language Ukrainian source cited in the article. In any case, all of this lexicon is anything but well-sourced (unless you think these news clippings have the same weight as scholarly publications or even major reputable newspapers). My proposal was precisely to replace this problematic lexicon with uncontroversial facts, particularly in the lede. Also, should I insert the part about how "he repeatedly pleaded for famine relief" into the lede? seems relevant given how meticulously he organized the famine. It's not splitting hairs. It's about making sure that hot-button historical articles articles follow Wikipedia guidelines.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And take a look at my edit. I use the word "responsible", and explain exactly why he is seen that way in Ukraine today - linking the Holodomor to the collectivization which Petrovsky undoubtedly "organized". I qualify it with "seen" because the cited statue-articles are really about how Ukrainians are reacting to the Soviet past.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally here is the BBC source: "A statue of a politician considered to be one of the main instigators of the man-made famine that killed ". See the difference? The current version drops "considered" and replaces "instigator" with "organizer". Organizer implies that he somehow micromanaged the famine in order to kill the optimal number of Ukrainians Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

'Spearheaded' strikes me as being even more loaded than the other suggestion. I'd also be wary of trying to squeeze anything about his pleas into the lead as WP:UNDUE. It strikes me as trying too hard to create a halo effect, ending up looking as if a point is being made.

I would suggest taking a look at the Encyclopedia of Ukraine for cues as to how to structure this bio. See:
a) Petrovsky, Hryhorii (far too short in itself)
and surrounding articles
b) Famine-Genocide of 1932–3
c) All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee
d) Committees of Poor Peasants
e) NKVD
f) Khvylovy, Mykola
for a better idea of how an encyclopaedic resource handles the subject matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Irina, what we need is factual information about Petrovsky from specialists.Looking at online encyclopedias is a start, but ultimately you can't use them for this article.
• As for the wording, I'd be happy to change "spearheaded" to something else. "Implemented" would be fine too. That crash collectivization was the single most important cause of the famine is also relatively uncontroversial. But what IS controversial is the statement that "he was one of the organizers the famine". It's based on worthless sources and it basically contradicts the only reputable source cited: BBC. I feel that my version is much closer to the BBC article. Of course I realize that that inserting his "pleas" into the lede would be undue, despite the fact that they are impeccably sourced. My point was that even reliably sourced information has to be given proper weight and presented in a neutral way. And there is a hierarchy of sources and claims: they are not all equally reliable regardless of context. Again, all this is standard wikipedia policy - I don't see why we are having such a hard time applying it to this article. Something to do with the famine being turned into political football between/within Russia and Ukraine perhaps?Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Guccisamsclub: Have you even bothered to look at the articles I've pointed you to? Not only are they written by academics, but provide citations. Please read them before you jump to conclusions. They will assist in informing you as to how the subject matter is handled neutrally and dispassionately. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Where should I start? The one about the NKVD, a topic which is covered in literally thousands of scholarly sources? What would it tell us about this this article? The only thing I see is does not rely on random news-clippings about the demolition of Dzerzhinsky's statue for historical fact or interpretation. Can't we just work out a compromise on the lede and go from there?Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What Guccisamsclub says is correct. This "organizer of famine" stuff is blatantly pushing a point of view. Everyking (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Iryna Harpy, Lute88, and Everyking: How about this: "Petrovsky was one of the senior officials responsible for implementing collectivization in the Ukrainian SSR {BBC_citation}, which caused the famine of 1932-33". I think the BBC ref is enough here, since it is the only reputable and reasonably detailed source out of the six. The other ones are of much poorer quality and largely irrelevant. As I've said before, we do not need 6 sources about his statue in the lede, because our passage has nothing to do with activists demolishing statues.Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that the bio needs work using solid academic sources, and that I don't know when I'll get around to accessing and reading them, the proposed change to the text strikes me as being a balanced compromise... Although 'caused' doesn't quite fit the bill. The famine wasn't an inadvertent by-product of the collectivisation drive: it was an anticipated and intended consequence. I know have a tendency to be pedantic, but it's an opportunity to get the intro as word perfect as possible. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is that there are few readily-accessible sources on this particular topic. I've looked in both languages. However, I think his political positions in the 1920's may be worth mentioning here: he was for 'Ukrainianization' but he was also against giving Ukraine any genuine autonomy from the centre. This was part of the famous debate between Lenin and the 'centralizers'. Of course we do not have to go into the whole debate, but Petrovsky's positions on Ukrainian nationalism and autonomy are quite important. These issues are outlined in Russian-language wiki entry on Petrovsky.
• you can argue that the famine was the intended (desired?) result of collectivization. But suppose you change it up a bit: "The impoverishment of the peasantry was the intended result of the Collectivization policy, the goal of which intended to squeeze the peasantry (control the agricultural surplus) in order to fund super-industrialization. The policy of squeezing the peasantry continued even as the food supply was dropping catastrophically in 1932. The famine could have been prevented or greatly reduced if different policies had been adopted in either 1929 or 1932. In this way, the regime consistently followed policies with caused and exacerbated the famine" The vast majority of academic sources would agree with the revised version. However if you leave the argument as is, only a few will. At the same time, many others won't - including the late Robert Conquest. To get an idea of the debate, consider [this] and [this] (you can get the latter from sci(dash)hib(dot)io). You can also look at Holodomor genocide question and this, on the genocide-intentionality question. All this is quite different from saying point-blank that collectivization was implemented in order to kill Ukrainians. In addition to being propagandistic, the statement is also callously insensitive to Kazakhs, Russians and others who perished in the famine. Similar concerns apply to colonial British and other famines: yes, they were largely man-made (crimes against humanity, potentially) but no, they were not necessarily desired or even expected by the perpetrators. Reliable sources offer varying interpretations and that's just have to live with.Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: Please take a look at my editing history before trying to convince me of your political position as to what did or didn't happen. You're pointing to a Wikipedia article I've worked on, and I've read sources in Ukrainian, Russian and English on the subject of the Holodomor... over many decades. I am not going to play at the new wave of the political footballing of the issue with you, but please try to accept that I'm not a novice dabbler into the complexities of the entire situation. I could, by the same token, point out to you that the UN have acknowledged that the famine, as manifested in Ukraine, has a distinctly different flavour to the other famines. I've also made it known that there should be separate articles about other areas that were affected. That does not mean that it is an 'insult' to other ethnic groups who died in that period... but it is you who are insulting the Ukrainian ethnicity by trying to pop it under an 'but other ethnic groups also suffered', ergo Holodomor is a neo-reactionary propaganda push on behalf of right wing, Nationalist card-waving Ukrainians.

I'm not interested in debating the question with you or Everyking, who also made his position clear after I'd noted on his talk page that a more balanced article is desirable, whose position was made clear in part of his response, being that "It could be stated that it is claimed by Ukrainian nationalists that it was a genocide, or something like that, but it shouldn't be unequivocally stated." I understand that Everyking is an excellent, good faith editor, and that he may have redacted his response in a manner he did not intent it to come across as being: but you both appear to be arguing that extremely complex circumstances can be conveniently reduced to some form of Ukrainian nationalist hysteria without having even considered that the NKVD, alone, had decades in which to 'clean house' before anyone outside of the Soviet Regime was in a position to access records from that period. Hence, I understand that you are, equally, someone who I have no doubt is contributing in good faith.

The fact stands that there are compelling reasons not to dismiss the famine as it manifested in Ukraine as being the contemporary 'it can't be proven' position promoted by various 'left-wingers' who are no less knee-jerk reactionaries than right-wing opportunists. It's not a question that will ever be answered within such simplistic parameters. To try to do so is nothing less than a disservice to those who suffered and perished because this isn't a simple deductive (or, should I say, reductive) exercise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Since we appear to agree on the wording, there is nothing debate really. I'll only say that my point was that the lede should not say the Ukrainian famine was the intended result of collectivization, nor should any language be inserted to push this theory into lede, because I feel that it is clearly not an accurate summary of existing scholarship. The reason for the whole "organizer" dispute was not tone but verifiability. As for "political football" about the famine, it is no longer being played between Left and Right. That basically ended in 1991, when the Right won. Now the game is dominated by two primitive brands of nationalism, who exploit history to advance their domestic and foreign policy agendas. If you look Russian famine denial, you'll see mostly chauvinist-"traditionalists" who like Stalin for the same reason they like the Czar. This will go on until Russia leaves Ukraine alone for good. In the meantime, the best we can do is prevent these nationalist narratives from seeping into wikipedia.Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)