Jump to content

Talk:Holodomor/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Vandalism

An editor is engaging in persistent vandalism my littering the article with spelling or grammar errors. Some examples [1]:

"All further deportations" changed to "All farther deportations" "Sugar beet farming" changed to "Sugar beet cropping" "total collectivization " changed to "all over collectivization" multiple times "sowing and forage " changed to "sawing and forage" etc. etc. (I don't have time to outline every single case). The result is that it significantly detracts from readibility. I hope that this particular editor will limit his edits to factual information rather than add numerous spelling or grammar mistakes into the article.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • and especially drought power caused by poor treatment, absence of forage, stables/farms and due the "kulaks sabotage".

changed into

livestock due to the "kulak sabotage".
  • clarified the “all-over collectivization” term changed into
period for “total collectivization
  • According to the same decree “all-over collectivization” accomplished at Northern Caucasus
According to the same decree “total collectivization” in the Northern Caucasus (Kuban) reached 88% of households and 92% of arable lands that were “collectivized
  • This second "forced-voluntary" collectivization campaign also invoke

into

This campaign meant a delay of sowing which resulted in the cereal crops being heavily

Vary strange fixing of spelling or grammar errorsJo0doe (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

However such claims are not surprised from editor repeatedly translate “Stepnyak” as “Klyachkivskiy and Shukhevich” and “September” as “July”. Moreover if we look at source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#2-nd_Short_history_lesson so we can see what actually mentioned in source. While term “сплошная» is not “total” but “all-over”. Term “Total” more prefered to used at Nazi camp – “total mobilization” “total extermination”, “total lie” etc. while at Soviet not becouse it's not russian word. Jo0doe (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"All-over" makes is improper in the English language in that context. Morevoer you did not address the other numerous spelling and language errors. Repeatedly changing "farming" to "cropping" and "sowing" to "sawing" strongly suggests that you are not really editing in order to improve the article.Faustian (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I kindly ask to check more preciselly your calsims - there no "sawing" in my edits as also cops but not "cropping". etc As regards your English - see mentioned above and look at [2]Jo0doe (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Check here: [3]. You changed "This included not only a rise in Sugar beet farming" to "This included not only a rise in Sugar beet cropping" under the heading "Line 67" (among numerous other grammar and spelling errors you chose to place into the article). I'm happy you think so highly of your English - is it analogous to your history? There is nothing wrong with poor grasp of English, unless one keeps inserting poor English into articles gratuitously.Faustian (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As usual - there no differnce for "crops" and cropping - as for July and September - isn`t?Jo0doe (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Four demographers about one historian estimation

At Chapitre 1 La crise des anées 1930 prepared by J.Vallin, F. Mesle, S.Adamets and S. Pyrozhkov noted

  • Stanislav Kulchitskyj (1995) s pour sa part estimeé à 3,5 millions les pertes de la période 1933-36. Cependant, reposant sur une extrapolation aux anées 1930 du taux de croissance des années 1920, ces estimations sont sujettes à caution.

Should we apdate article chapter accordingly ? Jo0doe (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Causes and outcomes

This section which primarily deals with collectivization is longer the the Ukraine section of Collectivization in the USSR. Should this be merged with that article? Bobanni (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine section in Collectivization in the USSR - it's look like story about nothing - so would be good to update it from this article data. However it not off-topic - becouse it's directly related to situation in Ukrainian SRR situation at the beginig of 1933Jo0doe (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the information relates to the article - but it should be presented in summary mode since right now it is overpowering the article. The details belong in Collectivization in the USSR- re-adding tag.Bobanni (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Now it has only major important turnover points - so we should provide for visitors facts, based on which the can decide by owns - which one claims is correct - World Congress of Free Ukrainians or historical Jo0doe (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Very intresting source

Provided by Bobanni - thank a lot for him - http://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/Holodomor/Holodomor-Commission.pdf it's mainly selectively cited but if read it in full - it's can be find a lot of intresting - as for instance - passive peasants resistance - which repeatedly removed from this article without clear explanation. As also early Kulchitsky - Jo0doe (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of the Holodomor articles. In addition, the article contains sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Bobanni (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It's images but not -Long and sprawling lists of statistics so it does not confusing to readers and reduce the readability - becouse it's not textwhile such edits noted as vandalism - blanking - Jo0doe (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Sneaky vandalism

Dear editors - I appriciate your effort in providing for vistors story of World Congress of Free Ukrainians but please look at http://www.history.org.ua/Book/Ki/4.pdf (p.45) - so you can see figures what you continuously revereted to a WRONG version. Same story with doctored by you texts - so still tractors were reverted but not kept and situation, all-over, etc. If you don't like to read book - please alow to do so for the rest. Thank you for your appriciationJo0doe (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanations for the group of editors

Komnezamy

Explanations for the group of editors Similar institutions in rest part of RSFSR were dismissed in 1918-1919 (as they conflicted with village councils (selsovets) while in Ukraine them was survived and has even more power then silrady (untill 1924). Wile in 1929 they again became a main draught force of “revolution from above” – so by mid of 1930 they members numbered more then 1.5 millions – so Ukrainians, Poles and Russians dekulakized Ukrainians, Poles and Russians. As compared with 75K 25-thousenders for whole USSR. Jo0doe (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

All-over collectivization

Sentence “As of the beginning of October 1931, the collectivization of 68.0% of peasant households, and 72.0% of arable land was complete” reflect the fact what collectivization target for Ukrainian SRR was reached by October 1931 – thus in generally accomplished in planned period (see Decree wording above in article text) Jo0doe (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

25- thousanders

Citation from Majority Opinion of the International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine:

Those (25K) sent to Ukraine were Russians or at least non-Ukrainian for the most part. From 1930 onwards they were assisted by millions of soldiers and workers temporally posted to villages by the authorities

-

I assume group of editors prefer to have this in article? – So, I assume , appearence of such will remove the numerous recent tags appeared in the article – like “insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject” “may stray from the topic of the article” etc.

While, actually, such statement are clear xenophobic propaganda (similar texts used Nazi – while replace “Russians” with “Jews” So the 25-thousendres numbers for Ukraine known 7,5+ - predominating majority of them originated from Ukrainian industrial centers. While the number of RKKA (Red Army) as for 1929 and 1930 ~550 and ~560 thousands respectively. So another perfect example of Big Lie originated from World Congress of Free Ukrainians (or may from the Mr. Drowned in barges on the Dnieper?) Jo0doe (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Was one of the largest national catastrophes

Still officially “one of the largest national catastrophes” is a Nazi invasion 1941-44 (as for victims, as for rest related facts). Jo0doe (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jo - You are thinking in Russian where there is no definite article. One of the largest means one of a number of such tragedies not the largest catastrophe. Bandurist (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the largest is a correct way to put it. Both Kulchytski and Vallin call it second largest after the WW2. --Irpen 21:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

Whatever people's opinions of who caused this famine, how, whom it affected, and whether it constituted an act of genocide, this article should not be titled "Holodomor". This is the English-language version of Wikipedia. "Holodomor" is not an English word. Call it "Ukrainian Famine", and, if you like, explain that "Holodomor" is the Ukrainian word for it. This is what is done for the Armenian Genocide, for example. Even "Shoah" is redirected to "The Holocaust". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.46.66 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the above: one reason for the proposed change (and I apologise if you've already discussed this issue; I don't have time to read through 8 pages of archived comments right now) is that calling the famine the "Holodomor" slightly gives the impression that it is of interest only to Ukrainians. I don't mean "only to Ukrainians and not Russians" here; I mean "only to Ukrainians and not to historians in general". This is quite a subtle concept, so I'll try to explain using an analogy: consider the polar bear. The Inuktitut for "polar bear" is "Nanuq" (or "Nanuk", etc., depending on the dialect). But calling the animal a polar bear in English enables English-speakers to identify with it far more readily than if it was called a nanuk in English. They can immediately connect it in their mind with grizzly bears, brown bears, other polar creatures, etc. Were it called a nanuk, this would create a sort of barrier in the perception. Sure, people would understand it was that big white animal living in the Arctic, but it would be compartmentalised as an Arctic creature. Hmmm. Perhaps that wasn't a very good example. Let's try this: "Prestuplenie i Nakazanie" is a book of interest only to Russians. "Crime and Punishment" is a book of interest to every English-speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.46.66 (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There were a number of Ukrainian famines in the 20th century. The term Holodomor refers specifically to only one of them: the famine of 1932-33 that greatly affected the Ukrainian people. Otherwise one could say the Soviet famine of 1933 and it opens up areas that have little to do with Ukraine.
There have been many words that have been introduced into the English language from other languages and cultures. (balalaika, intelligentsia, various food dishes and in particular regional items). Some words are difficult to pronounce and say or remember. This Ukrainian term lends itself to such a transplantation. Bandurist (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying about English words (and I admit that there isn't a set term in English for this famine). But I don't think this is a good road to go down. Suppose country A calls its major famine the Wertlkor, country B calls its major famine the Urdlgeep, Country C calls its major famine the Yeordinim, and so on? Are we to expect that the title of articles on each of these should be Wertlkor, Urdlgeep and Yeordinim? Wikipedia has a list of famines: the standard is for the title of the article to be something like "Vietnamese Famine of 1945", with an explanation like: "The Vietnamese Famine of 1945 (Vietnamese: Nạn đói Ất Dậu - Famine of the Ất Dậu Year) was a famine that occurred in northern Vietnam from October 1944 to May 1945, during the Japanese occupation of the country." Unless the Ukrainian famine was so drastically different from every other famine that it has to be given a Ukrainian name, I can't see why this practice is not followed here. This is not just a question of encyclopedia practice. What you don't want is for people to find that the article is called "Holodomor" and then deduce from that that it's been written by Ukrainian nationalists, and, as a result, question its historical accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.46.66 (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length

I feel the article is too long, in particular the materials regarding the Collectivization.

I feel the collectivization materials should be moved to a separate article and these materials should be just summarized. There is just too much detail there in comparison to the rest of the article and it detracts from the main article which is the Holodomor. What do editors think? Bandurist (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sound like a good idea - the article is about the Holodomor not collectivization, so shorten the Collectivization section and move it to a new article.Faustian (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with you – we should limit the article to events itself and causes of it – so originated from World Congress of Free Ukrainians sections about “famine was purposely engineered by the Soviet authorities to attack Ukrainian nationalism”

Can be removed into other article (but without doctoring it like UPA_SB article) Namely:

  • Information blockade
  • Restrictions on freedom of movement (see repeatedly deleted by Bobbanie traffic statistics)

In

  • Death tall section

We should preserve only (by WP policy) demographist estimation (Vallin at all) – all politicians, propagandists and nationalists as non-scientists figures should be removed to other article.

  • Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite - with bandurists and balalykists
  • Was the Holodomor genocide? – see majority of International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine opinion (repeatedly deleted from article)

And rest Can be putted into separate article under name Ukrainian Famine 1933 (10 month from August 1932- till July 1933 – it’s World Congress of Free Ukrainians version non supported by historians).

While causes section (Collectivization) should remain as such and expanded – as directly related to the Ukrainian Famine 1933 With

  • Peasants resistance

Jo0doe (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved all of Collectivisation over to Collectivization in Ukraine and added an into. The Collectivisation section here should be shortened and summarised. Bandurist (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead section needs work

Lead section is poorly organized and needs more explanation for the average English reader. Remember the average English reader has very limited education about Eastern European history.Bobanni (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead section needs to do the following. Define the subject (it does), give a number of victims estimate (it does) and show the mainstream view on the events' interpretation. The latter, as of now, is lack of consensus and the lead correctly states that. Finally, the lead mentions politicization, which is also a big part of the modern perception, very unfortunately. This was discussed many times. --Irpen 21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Genocide question is NOT a Fork - it is an article spinout

Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

If anyone feels that is a FORK please nominate for deletion.

main link re-applied.Bobanni (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bobanni, as you know well, the AfD process is prone to abuse and is totally arbitrary. The same names pop up with the same viciousness whenever any article about Soviet atrocities, true or alleged, encyclopedic article or not, is ever brought up. The question of Genocide applicability is one of the most important in the scholarship of this famine and it needs to be discussed here. "Gencide denial", "Holodomor denial", etc, are forks. They have no place in this article which is by far more diversely and better referenced, despite being in need of better organizing. --Irpen 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical illiteracy – or doctored history

From group of editors genocidal Famine inflicted upon Ukraine by the Soviet regime in Moscow 1932-33. I assume if the section Policy of collectivization were not doctored – historically stupid wording

The Ukrainian SSR met with difficulty in supplying the planned amount of food and as a result a rationing system was implemented to supply urban areas with food. This system became the major source of food delivery to cities while the alternatives

will not be appeared in article because in undoctored version of section appeared what rationing system was implemented in 1928 – first time ever in USSR after early 1920-s.

I assume what something “we don’t know” – “we don’t like to see” in article it’s remind be similar situations at medieval ages.

Also same stile doctored Procurement section. It’s sad to you, dear group of editors, but it is not World Congress of Free Ukrainians pedia, isn’t?Jo0doe (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It’s sad to you, it's also not Jo0doepedia ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.93.3 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Elimination of Ukrainian cultural elite

It has no relation nor connections with Holodomor itself – still no WP:Redflag refs for The famine of 1932-1933 followed the assault on Ukrainian national culture that started in 1928 - so it’s hided until any scholar refs will be provided about famine of 1932-1933 followed the assault.Jo0doe (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In a press release by the Ukrainian Consulate they state: "Stalin started the Ukrainian Holodomor, by annihilating the Ukrainian intellectual elite. Out of more than 500 on the most talented Ukrainian poets, thinkers, scientists and writers only 36 were left alive". View here Bandurist (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
They not scientist nor hisotrians - see WP policy about propaganda staitmentsJo0doe (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor effects

The aftermath of Holodomor and its effects on the Ukrainian population can be seen more clearly by comparing the rate of population growth of the various ethnic groups within the Soviet Union when comparing the the Soviet census of 1926 with the 1937 census[1].

Comparison of populations of the most numerous ethnic groups within the USSR according to the Soviet census of 1926-1937[2]
Ethnicity 1926 1937 1937 in % compared to 1926
Russians 177 792 124 93 933 065 120,7%
Ukrainians 31 194 976 26 421 212 84.7%
Belarusians 4 738 923 4 874 061 102.9%
Uzbeks 3 955 238 4 550 532 115%
Tatars 3 029 995 3 793 413 125.2%
Kazakhs 3 968 289 2 862 458 72.1%
Jews 2 672 499 2 715 106 101.6%
Azerbajanians 1 706 605 2 134 648 124.1
Georgians 1 821 184 2 097 069 115.1%
Armenians 1 568 197 1 968 721 125.5%

1937 Census results does not exist - please check Ru version of census - at www.demoscope.ru Jo0doe (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, the scholars who researched the archives found pieces of the information related to the census but full census results were never even compiled as it was outlawed by Staling and the organizers, all highly regarded statisticians, were repressed for "vreditel'stvo" (subversive activities). Here is a book chapter that discusses the topic. See also refs thereof. --Irpen 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A Ukrainian - Canadian Teacher's Guide

http://www.lucorg.com/luc/itemIII1.php Link above can help in comprehending of actions and efforts by the group of editors. I assume they will be happy if WPedia will have same waste as:

  • Ukrainian history began in the 9th century with the rise of the city of Kyiv
  • Following the decline o f Kyiv, the center of Rus'-Ukrainian life shifted to the southwestern provinces of Galicia and Volynia
  • Moscow imposed grain procurement quotas on Ukraine that were 2-3 times greater than the amount of grain marketed during the best year prior to collectivization.
  • The grain harvest of 1932 was greater than in 1931, providing more monies for industrial expansion.
  • Despite Nazi oppression, millions of Ukrainians fled Ukraine with the Germans rather than live under Soviet rule.
UKRAINE IN RECENT TIMES
  • Members of the Communist party and their families were the new privileged class, enjoying separate stores, separate hospitals, and special schools. Ukrainians still were not masters of their own land.
  • Prepared by the League of Ukrainian Canadians, with special thanks to Myron B. Kuropas and the U.S. Ukraine Famine Commission, 2006.

So we should care about our group of relict editors – which still live in cold-war times. Jo0doe (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It’s sad to you, it still is not Jo0doepedia ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.89.163 (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Joe! You probably were unaware that the results of the 1937 census were published in Moscow by the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1991. See here (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

They published only few tables what they have found but not the “results of Census 1937” – as they initially claim – even Stalin does not get “results of Census 1937” – he received only available preliminary results before checking for consistency. For more details see resent demographical (not “historians”) publications devoted to anniversary of 1937 Census. While it’s too hard things to explain for ordinary non-Eastern Europeans which don’t know what Kiev celebrate 1500 years in 1982 (e.g. 5 Century but not 9 as in “Ukrainian-Canadian history”). Jo0doe (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Concept of Coatracking template does not exist

This label has been applied to a template (possibly incorrectly)- however no case has been made on template talk page.== This label has been applied to a template incorrectly- however no case has been made on template talk page. No such concept exists Bobanni (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this at template's talk and direct interested readers there. --Irpen 06:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Big Brechnya policy or Ogryzko’s Foreign Affairs

Originated from  Press release by Ukrainian Embassy in Australia April 4, 2008 [4]

List of BIG Brechnya (Lie):

  • When researchers refer to Holdomor they mean period from April 1932 till November 1933 (17 month)
EMB_UA overlie even World Congress of Free Ukrainians with their 10 month
historically accepted winter – early summer 1933 (5-6 months)
  • between 7 and 10 million people perished almost half of them were children.
More then Mace – see archive of this talk page about @7 and 10 million@ origin (by Kulchitskiy). “almost half of them Children” – recent edition from necrophilia minded accountant from Khorunjivka – he lie always and quadrupling victims number at every occasion - Big Lie as is.
Demographical data for 1933 - 2.2 million of deaths exceed.
  • Ukraine – country … where hunger was never registered throughout all of it’s millennium-long history.
Big lie – “hunger was never registered” and “millennium-long history”
  • Existing historical data and one being declassified today by Ukrainian Security Service … clearly testify …against Ukrainian nation.
See this talk page archive about Ukrainian Security Service deceptions regarding Holodomor. Big Lie- no such data exist (other vice it was been printed many times in big letters). However, may be USS “Photoshoped” something “new” as they did with UPA.
  • Forced police isolation of villages and regions… “ghetto”
Big lie – it cannot be done with 37K of whole Ukrainian police (including accountants, typists and drivers) and 8 K of OGPU troops at Ukrine
  • Simultaneously with Holodomor … Soviets selling abroad large quantities of grain and other foodstuff .
Big lie – because “Simultaneously with Holodomor” (i.e. spring 1933) Soviets imported “grain and other foodstuff” and especially through Ukrainian port – see statistics tables.
  • …Vodka for export
USSR does not export large volumes of vodka by this time (see appearance of Posolskaya)
  • Hitler supported by the Soviet Bolsheviks
Big lie as such
  • Georgiy Zhukovs infamous 1944 decree on resettlement of All Ukrainians to Siberia
Citation of well known Nazi leaflet as @Zhukovs infamous 1944 decree@ describe authors of that pages as blatant liars.
  • Communist- fascists
perfect construction for Big Lie
  • Entire regions of Ukraine as well as the border of Ukraine itself were sealed of.
See Gareth Jones trip – so once again Big Lie
  • Organization of international assistance to the “hunger-struck victims of Povolzhi`e” is widelly know.

as “apples and oranges” - Big Lie –here Ogryzkis join 1922 and 1932 without any shame.

  • At the beginning of the 20 th century Ukraine the rate of population growth in Ukraine was compared with that of China.
So idiotic Big Lie – no Ukraine nor China at the beginning of the 20 th century does not exist as solid formation and even state, I even don’t spoke about “population growth” data for them.
  • The USSR’s second population Census was completed in 1939, but it’s figure never published.
Big Lie – figures published many times . Ukrainians was accounted in 35 millions but not as “only 1,5 millions more in 1959”.

Such numerous and awful lie from Ukrainian Governmental institution mirrored the general issue of present Ukraine and explain why allegedly claim for Genocide repeatedly does not supported by numerous of countries (as US also).Jo0doe (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Big Lieexplain why Hitlers fascists, ghetto and rect Nazi stuff cited many times by Ukrainian Governmental institution -Jo0doe (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If you could stop your soviet propaganda, it would be great! this is not funny anymore, and looks more and more pity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.88.85 (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why Holodomor is not 1932-33

1932-33 originated from the cold –war times when (despite the available facts) Fairytale about “Moscow imposed grain procurement quotas on Ukraine that were 2-3 times greater than the amount of grain marketed during the best year prior to collectivization” and “The grain harvest of 1932 was greater than in 1931, providing more monies for industrial expansion.” Accordingly to that story famine begins immediately after the collection of new harvest 1932 begins (in July-August) and lasted until beginning of summer 1933 (10 months) – (see more here http://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/Holodomor/Holodomor-Commission.pdf) The initiator of such @researches@ need @more time@ and need @more death@ – to “have to have visual impact”. While historians and declassified documents clearly distinct the malnutrition and some instances of hunger in winter –spring 32 and general malnutrition and mass hunger cases in winter –early summer 1933. However, politicians, prefer to “have to have visual impact” and don’t spoke about what now Ukraine has less livestock (cows, pigs and sheep’s an) then in Holodomor time. – see www.ukrstat.gov.ua for figures.Jo0doe (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Big Lie 7 and 10 million people perished almost half of them were children

It can be easily dismissed with simply mathematic –

  • If 7 and 10 million is true
The population of Ukrainian SRR as of January 1, 1934 should be 20-23 million of person.
In order to got 28 million as of January 7 1937 (3 years) – average annual natural increase should be 2-3 million per year (see 1926-29 average 0.6)
For those who believe in mass Russian immigration into Ukraine – they also need have to have more 20-40% of increase.
  • almost half of them were children or 3.4 and 4.9 millions respectively
Actually it’s whole number of survived (average survival rate for 1926-28) Ukrainian SRR newborns for 4-6 previous years. Actually that’s mean what ALL schools and children-gartens in Ukrainian SRR should be empty for several years. NONE children at all. No today and past (1936-2007) registration of deaths of those who born in 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931 years.

I assume it’s a dream for current Ukrainian government – since none will be demands for their recent election’s promises – but luckily not for that times. Jo0doe (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ______________________________________________________.....

To shine some evidence on this commenting that in fact it is not a lie, but the truth is that half if not more of the victims of this Holodomor (or more precisely Golodomor) were children and that upon return to school, classrooms were empty or there were no classrooms at all with an exception with one room where all school age children were gathered (if any at all) to be taught by one teacher. And that is by a communist teacher who was there to erase the Ukrainian culture and to establish the faith in Lenin and Stalin and to recite year after year poems that praise them for giving them the present and the future and to wake up every morning at 6am to a national anthem that would say that their country is a union of free republics that was united by great Rus' (Russia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.195.101 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

1932

All the foreign language versions of Holodomor refer to the time period 1932-1933. Many of the monuments include the years 1932-1933. Most of the references that use dates refer to 1932-1933. The concept of splitting this into two famines may be a fringe concept. Note the requirements for reliable source do not have to only be scholarly. By only using scholarly sources will generate an article that does not have a Neutral Point of View. Bobanni (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Properly referenced material deleted without explaination - rverted deletions Bobanni (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DYK about UKR diaspora “Ukrainian Holocaust of 1933” by Wasyl Hryshko book presented to the International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine by World Congress of Free Ukrainians.? Idiotic propaganda and usage of 2 different set of figures in one tables will be reverted - to WP:NPOV policy.RegardsJo0doe (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better."Bobanni (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


I mean WP:UNDUE - For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

and

  • A vital component: good research - Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later.Jo0doe (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-scholarly sources

To reply Bobanni's:

The concept of splitting this into two famines may be a fringe concept.

Well, could you point out which of the sources written by Kulchytsky and/or Davies are "fringe"? Have you actually read them? But your next assertion strikes me even more. You say:

Note the requirements for reliable source do not have to only be scholarly. By only using scholarly sources will generate an article that does not have a Neutral Point of View.

Bobanni, there are in fact two different requirements. One requirement is the source's verifiability, the other requirement is the source's reliability. The former is easier to establish. It is not a problem to find a Yushchenko's address before Joint Session of U.S. Congress where he says:

"the Holodomor famine that took away 20 million lives"

Political sources give all sorts of numbers, 7, 10, 20 million. In His interview to the Ukrainian media Yushchenko said that there were 81 million (!) Ukrainians before the Holodomor.( see Mykola Siruk, "Lessons of Holodomor", Den, 6 November 2007 Russian version, Ukrainian version)

Note that these are all verifiable sources but reliability of the source depends on what you are using it for. If you use a political speech to source the politician's opinion, it is reliable. If you use a newspaper to source some recent event, it is reliable as well. If, however, you use a political article written in a newspaper by a non-scholar as a source about history, your source is verifiable and reliable for the debate about politicization of history but not the history itself.

For the history, you should use scholarly sources such as peer-reviewed journals, books published by academic publishers or by the university presses. If the author who is otherwise established in academia publishes the article in a normally non-academic source, web-site or general newspaper, this would also be acceptable. What is non-acceptable as a source on historic facts are non-academic publications authored by people with no confirmed credentials, the inscription on the monuments, political speeches, etc.

Your defense of using the non-scholarly sources and claim that they have the same validity as the scholarly one is outright absurd. The scholars and demographers have studied the issues thoroughly and continue doing that to this day. The idea that politicians should take over the tasks of historians and social scientists and are higher authorities on the pursuit about the historical past reminds me more of Soviet totalitarianism than any free society where the scholarly pursuit of historical truth is considered mainstream. There is a place to use the political and all sorts of other non-scholarly numbers published by the embassies, non-scholarly newspapers, propaganda web-sites, etc. These numbers go to the politicization section where they belong. --Irpen 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "By only using scholarly sources will generate an article that does not have a Neutral Point of View." This is utterly nonsensical. This is a widely studied event, for which there are ample scholarly sources available. If there are opinions that have not been covered in those sources, it is presumably because they are not sufficiently mainstream, no matter which politician used them in a speech somewhere. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Your arguments are flawed. Wikipedia sources need to be verifiable and the sources need to have the reputation for FACT checking. Most democratic government type publications fall in this category. Remember that sometimes there is not one "TRUTH" but many perspectives. Your convoluted "rules" what is valid or not valid is primarily used to delete or block information which makes the Holodomor article UNBALANCED and BIAS by blocking certain points of view.
Remember that the HOLODOMOR was been ignore by the academic community for over 50 years. Many documents and information is missing because the government of the day wished to suppress the information. How can historians do a credible job under such circumstances. The genocide aspect has been studied by NGOs using jurist (not historians) to determine whether the actions were genocidal
I find it most unusual in discussions about how many people died - you waver between using the term estimate and other times you admonish people for corrupting the FACTs. No one really knows how many died but different people come up with estimates (guesses) based on various estimating methodologies. NONE of them are fool-proof and subject to error. Some demographers base their estimates on population determined by the Soviets. The Soviets do not have the reputation for accuracy. The only option is to publish all of them explaining how they were determined. Dismissive tone on any methodology will introduce BIAS
Stop blocking information bases on “your rules” and see where this article end up. Bobanni (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There are many, many reliable scholarly sources on this famine/s. It is not un-studied, as you seem to imply. In areas where they are available, we specifically privilege academic sources, as we are an academic project. You'd have to change policy first to get your way, I'm afraid. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy is skewed. Policy states that sources must have reputation for reliablity and do fact checking. This includes most academics publications. Other equally reliable sources can be used this they fomeet the same requirements. Unfortunately some editors keep deleting valid references and making the article biased. Repeating that the policy is academics only does not credibility to your arguement. You are misinterpreting the Wikipedia methodology of dealing with conflicting points of view. Bobanni (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If one "point of view" is represented by mainstream academic work and the other "point of view" by political sources or speeches, I am afraid that introducing parity between them would be a violation of UNDUE. The policy is not academics only, but academics preferred: and in order to weigh the relative strength of positions, we need to limit it to the best-available sources. This is standard. --10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

“Ukrainization” or “DECossackisation”

Citation from http://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/Holodomor/Holodomor-Commission.pdf (thank you Bobanni)

The Don and Kuban regions, with majority of Cossacks, were the worst hit by the famine. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, autonomous Cossacks republics were founded in this territory to satisfy the traditionally strong nationalistic sentiments of the inhabitants. These republics were dissolved on July, 1923, and the Cossacks were known mandatorily as Russians or Ukrainians depending on their ancestry. Moreover, a policy of Ukrainization was systematically enforced in much of Kuban after 1923.

Here would be interesting to point the pre-1917 Encyclopedias were Don and Kuban regions populated by Cossacks – interesting but not complete and thus reliable results of 1920 Census and 1926 Census results were appeared a lot of “new Ukrainians” and new Cossacks – Kazakhs as казаки – at Казакская АССР ( Kazakskaya Autonomous Soviet Socialists Republic). Moreover would be interesting to note the acknowledging by Soviets in Enciclopedia published in 1935 the existing of “unfair” actions against specially Cossacks which was conducted by “trotskists”, and about end of such actions. Interesting but at same time Kazakhs again became Kazakhs and Cossacks – Cossacks. Traces of such actions can be easily found at 1926-30 official publications. So I assume should be appropriate to not include fringe theory by World Congress of Free Ukrainians which convert Cossacks into Ukrainian to have “20 millions under their possession”. Also would be very interesting to note what “Ukrainian language” implemented from 1927 till 1932 is significantly different from Ukrainian before and after – too many strange new words and semantic constructions. Would be interesting to point a report appeared in document 145 from here [5]: “всі розпорядження, інструкції, положення про організацію праці, застосування відрядності тощо надсилаються до нацрайонів українською мовою, що позбавляє можливості використовувати їх, отже в найважливішій справі організації праці нацменівські колгоспи залишені самі на себе.” As regards why specifically Ukraine and North – Caucasian Area – see Stalin report in April 1929 – and note Не следует забывать, что при нормальных урожаях Украина и Северный Кавказ заготовляют около половины всего заготовляемого хлеба по СССР. [6]Jo0doe (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I absloutely agree, moreover you can have one source claim 5 million and later re-evaluate it to 10 million dead, У них что мертвецы плодятся и размножаются что-ли? --Kuban Cossack 07:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
One of most known Ukrainian - Canadian historians in 80-s say "we have to have visual impact" - So story still lasts.Jo0doe (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You should watch this: The Soviet Story. Still most of debate would be, does holodomor was becouse they wanted to liquidate ukrainians (peasantry who were nationalistic and didn't like communism), get as much as can money from grain export, or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo 555 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent historian’s opinions about Holodomor deaths trade-in

[7] Would be useful to point

останні півроку він наче вирішив використовувати історію як політичний інструмент і, як кажуть, "не дає фактам збити себе з пантелику". (В Україні політики часто звертаються до ідентичності – адже забезпечити символи набагато легше, ніж кращу медицину, освіту, чи державну службу).

Я вважаю неповагою до мертвих, коли їхню смерть використовують як спосіб здобути моральний капітал жертви. Адже саме з цією метою перебільшуються цифри.

Суть цих ідей полягає в тому, що Голодомор перевищує інші такі трагедії, зокрема Голокост. Я не розумію, чому інших не ображає таке змагання в мучеництві, навіть якби цифри були правдивими – а вони такими не є.

що повага і чесність, які ми винні померлим, вимагає утриматися від використання їхньої смерті для здобування політичної популярності в Україні. Чи для збільшення рахунку на свою користь в міжетнічній конкуренції в Північній Америці.

It’s pity to note the recent titanic efforts by group of editors to exploit en:WP for збільшення рахунку на свою користь в міжетнічній конкуренції в Північній Америці.Jo0doe (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the template?

The template seems very balanced, and should be included. Instead of simply removing it, please explain why.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Source updates

Hello,

I have labeled sources that a) do are not exactly quoted from; b) are not scholarly (i.e. the Washington Post); or c) not available in the language specified (i.e. English or Ukrainian) as dubious. Please either update or delete them. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not insert 10 or any other number of millions in the lead until you find a single scholarly source that supports such number. Also, explain each of your claim of "dubious" more specifically. --Irpen 20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to note - Horlo action per WP:SYN - Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. Jo0doe (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


note on progress publishers and Tottle's book

I plan to change the article to say that Tottle's book was published by Progress Books of Toronto (the communist party of Canada's now defunct publishing house). It was not published as far as I know by Progress Publishers of Moscow. You can see the subtle difference in the names by looking at the bold text in the line above. As I said, I have no idea if this book was also published by Progress Publishers of Moscow, can someone fill this fact in.

I have seen the original manuscript to Tottle's book in Winnipeg and plan to examine it further, now that I have read about references to the Soviet Union government providing much source info for his book. This is a very interesting item to all interested in disinformation by both sides of the cold war.

J. D. Pfaff (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition

There was a revert of encyclopedia-supported Holodomor definition [8] , if you have source more reliable and neutral that Britannica please support your definition with it. Please revert the definition back to a version supported with reliable source elsewhere. --windyhead (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all this is not wikitory, second Britannica is of course a respected source, but copying word for word definitions is not recommendable. Thirdly I must stress that this article in whole describes what Golodomor was and the text must be consice not repettetive that your version made it ommiting the common sense definition that Golodomor is the name of the Ukrainian famine of 1933. --Kuban Cossack 14:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The definition you reverted the article to is wrong, the Holodomor is not a "term that specifically relates to ...", and it is not equal to "Holodomor is the name of the Ukrainian famine of 1933" which you used in your reply. If you are OK with "Holodomor is the name of the Ukrainian famine of 1932 - 33" please do change the definition accordingly then. --windyhead (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes and one can obtain four from either adding 1 and 3, adding 2 and 2 or multiplying 2 by 2. That does not change the mathematical value of four. Same goes for Golodomor, and its "definitions". As long as they have the terms famine, Ukraine and 1932/33 in them, they are all correct, and no I will not change it because that version has been agreed by consensus previously. --Kuban Cossack 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
You provided no reference to consensus you are talking about. What we have now is your definition, supported by your opinion, and your revert of encyclopedia-supported definition, and you revert of requests to support your definition with sources. That is against wikipedia rules. --windyhead (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your reworked version, however I hope you don't mind me correcting the is to was. Regards. --Kuban Cossack 07:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
And have a look at Wikipedia:There is no common sense regarding your claim that 2+2=4 is same as definition you support --windyhead (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying that 2+2 is now not 4? --Kuban Cossack 07:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Windyhead's reworked lead with references to EB and other sources seems to be a better solution than just denegrating a tragedy to "one of" in the SU that was there before. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment. --Kuban Cossack 07:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing

"POV pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the undue promotion of minor or fringe views. While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is always uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them."Bobanni (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Supplying alternate names for Holodomor which were used before the term Holodomor was coined cited from a well respected academic source does not fall under the definition of POV-PUSHING. The concept of artifical and genocide are mentioned yet the TERROR concept is missing. Bobanni (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there is no consensus within the mainstream that the famine can be rightfully called Genocide. This is the only summary of the academic views there is. The detailed opinions of who considers it genocide and who does not belong to the section of the article where it is already described. Inserting this back into the lead is a classical POV-pushing through WP:UNDUE. --Irpen 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


“The lead section of an article serves both as an introduction to the article and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic” Relegating controversy deeper in the article only serves to hide it. Bobanni (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. The lead says that there is a controversy and that it remains unresolved. The controversy is discussed in the main body. Pushing one side's position to the lead is giving it undue weight, thus NPOV violation. --Irpen 05:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV DISPUTE: Holodomor as a genocide

Wikipedia policy states “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.’

A number of editors appear to find the point-of-view of “Holodomor as a genocide” offensive and employ various techniques including accusations of “POV” and “POV-PUSHING” as justification for removing or down-grading well cited material. The result is significant view is not represented fairly. Bobanni (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not speculate on the motives of other editors. I do not find the view that the Holodomor was Genocide offensive. I consider it a notable view which happens to be not universally accepted in the mainstream. This view is not hidden in any way as the article has an entire section devoted to the issue where this view is duly and fairly represented. However, your pushing this view into a lead is unacceptable. The lead correctly summarize the content of the Genocide section saying that there is no consensus on the issue. Your pushing one side's POV in the lead amounts to POV pushing indeed and was reverted by several editors. You will not achieve the changes you want through revert warring. --Irpen 06:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement reqarding whether the Holodomor as Genocide is not accepted in the mainstream is one that I question. It seems that there is enough evidence to warrant that such countries as the USA, Canada, Australia and others have officially declared that they understanding that the Holodomor was an act of genocide. These countries are neutral regarding the recognition of Ukrainie and the Holodomor.

The main country that has not recognized the Holodomor as genocide has been Russia, which in fact is an interested party regarding this question. Most of the documents dealing with the Holodomor can be found only there, and many of these archives are now not open for open perousal. Russia didn't acknowledge a Famine initially at , and has changed its stand regarding a number of times. Indeed many of the views that the Russians use today to revise the history of the Holodomor in fact contradict each other.

Bandurist (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

An opinion of about a dozen countries and their politicians is not enough to be a final word in the scholarly debates. They can take positions but political positions are based on a combination of things that also include the political expediency. Your view about Russia's being the "main country that does not recognize" is OR. In fact, Russia supported the UNESCO declaration commemorating the famine's victims. Your statement that Russia does not open the archives contradict to the very fact that many researchers, including the Ukrainian ones, worked in Russia's archives and published their works. However, the main assertion I am making is not that Genocide is out of mainstream view. But that it is not a prevailing mainstream view. There is no consensus on the issue in the scholarly community. The lead should state that while the dedicated section describes the views of different sides of this debate. --Irpen 09:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting tags

"If an argument on the talk page has been made as to the reason for the tag, but someone still feels that the tag is inappropriate, they should explain their reasoning on the talkpage. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement, then normal talkpage discussion should proceed, per consensus-building.Adding and removing tags without discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as disruptive." Bobanni (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobanni why don't you say something of your own, rather than copypasting. Since so far, along with the template sprawl I have seen nothing from you but persistant trolling --Kuban Cossack 12:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Hello,

Please do not insert "nation-wide" into the lead. There was never a soviet nation, and therefore there could never be a nation-wide famine. Horlo (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with this usage here. Soviet Union was a state, and one of the meanings of "nation" in English is state. :) 88.239.86.113 (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Correction Horlo, there was a Soviet nation, and that nation was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Likewise there is a British nation which is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Kuban Cossack 09:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Correction Kuban kazak, there was a Soviet Union, not a nation. Please see the WP definition of a nation here [[9]], especially the second paragraph - The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group, and a nation is not identical to a state. Later, more is added - Some ideas of a nation emphasise not shared characteristics, but rather on the shared choice for membership. Please keep in mind that in 1945 and 1991, as soon as some "nations" in the soviet "union" got a chance, they did everything they could to get out. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Horlo, in view of your persistent habit to make fun of my English and claims that you are an English grammar teacher, I am surprised that I have to refer you to Merriam-Webster dictionary [10] which says that nation is "a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government" and "territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status". --Irpen 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? Does this mean the president of the Russian federation is wrong? Ukraine is a nation? Ostap 19:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying that in English, which Horlo claims to know so well as to ridicule mine, nation-wide is synonymous to country-wide. Yes, Ukraine is a nation being an independent country with defined borders and jurisdiction, "territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and characterized by relatively large size and independent status".[11] --Irpen 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, please do not allow your language insecurities from other articles to seep in here. However, since you bring it up, it seems that you have misunderstood the concept. Here are two example that I hope will make it clear: In the United States, there are people from many ethnic groups who have come together to create something new - a new nation. It is sworn to in the pledge of allegiance - "... one nation, under God ...". Every schoolchild makes the pledge of allegiance every morning, hand on heart.
Yugoslavia, on the other hand, was an artificial creation, in which ethnic tensions still cause grief to this day. It was a country, but there was no Yugoslav "nation". There was a "territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities ... characterized by relatively large size and independent status" but no nation.
History shows that in the Soviet Union, there were more differences than willingness to create something new in the Soviet Union. Therefore, it quite unceremoniously collapsed. There was no soviet nation - just a group of groups.
Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Horlo, I fail to see how you speculations on the concept of nation correspond with the clear and precise definition given in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Many countries with severe ethnic tensions are mentioned as "nations" in geography texbooks of your praised american schoolchildren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraimi (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion of 1921 Russian famine/Holodomor exhibition image

Ostap R keeps removing this image box showing the image of the 1921 Russian famine used in a Holodomor exhibition in Ukraine, calling it "extreme POV image". I ask, what are you talking about, it is well-referenced. What "POV"? We all know that you are one of those who say the Holodomor was genocide, but just because you don't like the image does not give you the right to censor it.--Miyokan (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The new controversial image is not needed. It is quite obvious what you are trying to do here. Why don't we wait for more discussion? Try to find consensus? Ostap 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What is controversial here is the falsification for the political purpose and it is certainly notable. But I don't like grisly images in articles. So, I suggest relaying the info about this falsification in the text body. --Irpen 03:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
So you don't like any image at all? Look at the difference between this image and the previous image that was used to represent this phenomenon of magnification of Holodomor. Don't you see a problem? Ostap 03:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you assume I don't like images? I do. I just don't like grisly ones. Miyokan added the image to illustrate the attempt of historic falsification for the political gain. This incident is indeed notable. But this can be described in words in the article's body without inserting the grisly image of 1921 famine. --Irpen 03:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I was only referring to the use of this image, not all images. This image is nothing more than a petty smear. I agree that the image does not belong. Ostap 03:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ, that image is one of the most prominant ones used by many sources to illustrate the so-called horrendous effects of Holodomor, in fact its similar to that of the famous UPA victims image. However the truth that the image is not and I repeat not of Holodomor victims is paramount, and the same sources that have been cited as reliable in the body of the article use that image as if they are victims of Holodomor (which they are not). That is clear overmagnification of the tragedy and should be included in the text. --Kuban Cossack 07:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the Holodomor was horrendous. Could you please back up your statement of "many sources". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Here you go: bottom of the page the 1921 famine victims.
And then we have same image claiming that it is know Kharkiv in 1933. Same here, last but not least, the image of Yushenko opening a Holodomor exposition that contains that same image, which you can see. Now, that image has been around for more than 80 years, how could the organisers of the exposition and Yushenko let such an error pass? Could it be because they were not such experts as they claim they are? Well by admitting that you give your consensus to filter off anything else the article cites from them. Or did they make that mistake dileberately as an act of propaganda, well then the citation proves the fact. You choose. --Kuban Cossack 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no justification to have an image that simply smears a politician you dislike. Having an image of him next to a supposedly fake picture does not mean he appproves. This simply does not follow. The image is clearly not neutral. Ostap 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ostap. The personal role of Yushchenko in politicizing of the famine is an issue not important enough to receive extensive coverage in this article. Also, as I said above, I object to unneeded use of grisly images in articles and the image of the dozens of dead people piled up is grisly without doubt. All the info about such falsifications can be relayed in words in the article's body without this image. If such text is referenced, the image adds little value. --Irpen 17:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I can agree to remove the second image of Vityulya, but leave the 1921 famine image, the caption says it all, much better than adding it to the text, intergrating it into the text? Well Irpen, you can have go, I'll trust you will be able to do it, so the fact the caption is stating is not lost. --Kuban Cossack 07:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You mean keep the image you added a few weeks ago, not the new one? I will agree to that if its properly sourced (I haven't checked, I will take your word for it). Ostap 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there seems to be some misunderstanding - in the first source, the picture is clearly beside a caption " FAMINE IN RUSSIA. The Corner Of The Cemetary In Wasted Country. "If the Governments of Europe agreed to assist them on their demand in October 1921, all those starving would have been saved." NANSEN ". Please note the date and place. The second source is something in Russian, if I'm not wrong about the Gulag. That leaves one. Please take time to examine the sources closely before trying to discredit them with such blanket statements. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the first one is the original source, published in Geneva by Nansen who took the image in 1921, his trip is very well documented btw. The second image if you read the actual caption on the file states black on white: 1933 in Kharkiv. There is no question about the authenticity of the first one, but the retouched and airbrushed second one is more than questionable. --Kuban Cossack 09:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello - what does that mean? You claim that the picture was used in 'many sources' in the article, but the first source clearly stated that the picture was from the 1921 famine, and translated the caption as something along the lines of "If the world had helped the, millions would not be dieing now" (or something like that). I did not find any reference to the second source in the article - why are you mentioning it here? It makes me doubt your motives. Any more "many sources"? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

victims of one December night 1921 at Buzuluk, Russia (also accessible at Nansen photo-archive with more detailed explanation)- second one - official page of President of Ukraine as of december 2006. However the event were it, and same origin (1921) photos, appeared called "Holodomor: Declassifed Memory" (Голодомор - Розсекречена Пам`ять - exhibition "based on Security Service of Ukraine declassified archives" - as appeared at many news reports and prepared by the support of Presidents Administration and fund "Ukraine 3000" (president's wife). Also I can provide image from same source (official page of President of Ukraine) were Yuschenko press-confence while his official visit to Kharkivsa Oblast in September 2007 was held in front of 3x6m similar image with similar wording - any more "does not mean he appproves"?Jo0doe (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jo0doe, one more time, Wikipedia is not a place for you to practice English. Please take time to construct arguments so that English people can understand what you want to say. If you keep just putting words together, that's no good. PLEASE - read the title of the section - that will give you a hint about what to include in this discussion. We are talking about a picture in this article, NOT President Yushchenko. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)0
What Jo0doe is trying to say is that Yushcenko endorsed the exposition of archived documents that contained quite clear errors and this image being the proof. Now was that by accident because he was not aware? Well then the booklet that was published by him is stupid as it was based on incorrect material, and the like publications of those experts are either not expert or deliberate propaganda. I still can't believe you don't see the obvious. --Kuban Cossack 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is an official document from the presidential website http://www.president.gov.ua/docs/Holodomor_English_version.pdf and it is without this picture ... any other stupid comments from not less stupid contributors??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.45.117 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that document is as stupid as they come, its a political piece of propaganda issued by the state, period.--Kuban Cossack 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, let's keep this civilized, and not call anybody stupid - most importantly, if you don't have the courage to sign your comments, please don't make them. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my unsigned comment, any case see note above.--Kuban Cossack 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As a reply from stupid contributor - here tit is http://www.president.gov.ua/gallery/614.htmlJo0doe (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) JoOdoe, please don't call yourself stupid. However, keep in mind that this is an article about the Holodomor, not why you don't like the Ukrainian president. The picture is not about the Holodomor, so it doesn't belong. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary that image has been used very often in association with Holodomor as Historical falsification, the reasoning above is explained. --Kuban Cossack 10:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


On the contrary, when I asked you above to explain your "many sources", you could not - you could only provide one. That does not constitute "very often" - therefore the image is not necessary here. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Correction I've provided two already, the Gulag site (run by IPV news) and infoukes. Third the exposition that Vitya opened and thus deemed trustworthy. --Kuban Cossack 08:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Doctored history

It’s sad to note, but over time article suffered from repeated vandalism (blanking) from the group of editors under spice of “optimization” for “Non eastern European visitors”

  • Policy of collectivization
removed info

-What were a hunger in 1928/29 in “non-collectivized” Ukraine due the weather condition speculation on semi-private bread market and what the kolkhozes were able to assist peasants.
-Removed info about komnezamy major input into collectivization.
-Removed info about livestock slaughtering by peasants.
- distorted – “This plan anticipated a decrease in grain acreage, in contrast to an increase of yield, area and of acreage for other crops.” -Removed info about “no 100% of collectivization needed” together with fact what by August 1931 Ukraine was almost reached the First Five-Year Plan for collectivization and accomplished it by October 1931.
-removed and manipulated text regarding agricultural tractors - should be “an additional 700” and reason of lowering grain procurement plan for 1932 – instead “As a result” should be “taking into account the situation in Ukraine”
-distorted Urban and rural rationing system undersupply because of grain procurement plan fault.
-removed tables with grain harvest& procurement and livestock decline as also a collectivization percentage.

  • Procurement practice
removed info

- About grain procurement quota distribution since 1929 (i.e. 1932 1/4 quota was usual and non exceptional – as even 1/3 were demanded under “contraction system” )
- removal of Such "counterplan" measures were strictly forbidden after the Spring of 1933 as "extremely harmful for kolkhoz development.

  • Legislation provisions
removed

- explanation what actually “black board” (black list) mean and info about whole story about removing from black list in early 1932 after 70% of plan completion, removal in Autumn 1933 after before the terms plan completions
- manipulated info about 1100 brigades – was kolkhozniks which accomplished the procurement plan from neighboring villages – now “activists (often from neighboring villages)”.
This action clearly inline with “Genocidal intent” and clearly lead to misinterpretation of the historical facts and limited the ability of visitors to compose own opinions based on “Doctored history. Same intent I’ve noted in the International_Commission_of_Inquiry_Into_the_1932–33_Famine_in_Ukraine (which de-facto and de-jure was not International as called by World Congress of Free Ukrainians.) The never ending removal of statement published at p.9 of the Final Report of the Commission, namely

  • The commission majority (5 of 6) deems it plausible that the constituent elements of genocide were in existence at the time of the famine.

At p.48

  • Commission is unable to affirm the existence of a preconceived plan to organize a famine in the Ukraine, in order to ensure the success of Moscow policies.

I also would be surprised if the documents №177,195, 197,198, 201,202 “from file [[12]] will be appeared in this article - because, as for instance, Materials about “seed, food and forage aid to kolkhozes in 1932 -33 from CCPSU and Soviet Government” clearly contradict with Genocidal versionJo0doe (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Passive peasants resistance

Section was removed few months ago without any reasonable explanations supported through WP:RS – now we’ve for that section WP:RS - Financial time article, Final Report of the International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine, soviet&Ukrainian archival documents, historians works. So objections (not personal opinion pls) Jo0doe (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope and duration

Historians, as also a declassified Ukrainian SRR documents, concluded what Holodomor in Ukrainian SRR lasted from the beginning of January 1933 till mid of June- beginning of July 1933. It was strike every 7 oblasts of Ukrainian SRR and Moldavian ASRR, which, by the time, was the part of it. However, not every oblast’s rayon (county) suffered from Holodomor whole 6 month period and in exhaustive manner – there was more and less affected areas and even areas which were not affected by hunger and starvation. First reports about mass malnutrition and deaths from starvation originated from 2 rayons and urban area of Uman - by the time Vinnytska and Kyivska oblasrs – now Cherkaska and Kyivska oblasts dated by beginning of January 1933. By mid of January 1933 were reports about mass “difficulties” with food in urban areas which were undersupplied through rationing system and cases of deaths from starvation amongst persons which were withdrawed from rationing supply accordingly to Central Committee of the CP(b) of Ukraine Decree December 1932. By beginning of February 1933, accordingly to local Authorities received reports Most affected was listed a Dnipropetrovska Oblast, which also suffered from epidemics of typhus and malaria, Odeska and Kyivska was 2-nd and 3-d respectively. By mid of March most reports originated from Kyivska regions. Latest reports about mass deaths from starvation dated mid May-beginning of June 1933 originated from Kyivska and Kharkivska oblasts rayons. As “less affected” noted the Chernigivska oblast. Accordingly to the Central Committee of the CP(b) of Ukraine Decree as of February 8 1933 all hunger cases must not remains untreated, all local authorities directly obliged to submit a reports about number of suffered from hunger, reasons of hunger, number of deaths from hunger and about food aid provided from local sources and centrally provided food aid required. Many of regional reports and most of central summary reports were available at central and regional Ukrainian archives at present time.

  1. ^ Press release by Ukrainian Embassy in Australia April 4, 2008
  2. ^ Press release by Ukrainian Embassy in Australia April 4, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor/Archive_10&oldid=1142316882"